text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Criticality with strong coupling is described by a theory in the vicinity of a non-Gaussian fixed point. The holographic duality conjectures that a theory at a non-Gaussian fixed point with strong coupling is dual to a gravitational theory. In this paper, we present a holographic theory in treating the strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations in quasi-2-dimension. We show that a universal frequency over temperature scaling law is a rather general property of the critical ac spin susceptibility at strongly coupled limit. Explicit results for the dynamic scaling of spin susceptibility are obtained in large-N and large ’t Hooft limit. We argue that such critical scaling are in good agreement with a number of experiments, some of which can not be explained by any perturbative spin-density-wave theory. Our results strongly suggest that the anomalous behavior of non-Fermi liquids in materials is closely related to the spin fluctuations described through the non-Gaussian fixed point. The exotic properties of non-Fermi liquids can be viewed as the Fermi liquids coupling to strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations.'
author:
- 'M.J.Luo'
title: Dynamic Critical Scaling of the Holographic Spin Fluctuations
---
Introduction
============
The subjets of spin fluctuations have attracted wide attentions [@RevModPhys.63.1; @2010Natur.464..199B], due to the intense interests in understanding the exotic properties of the heavy fermion (HF) metals and the normal state of non-conventional superconductors. The HF metals are materials in which the effective mass of the charge carriers is often hundreds or even thousands of times greater than the mass of bare electrons. It is now clear that the large effective mass arises from the hybridization between the conducting electrons and the magnetic moments or spins of the parent compounds (Kondo effect) [@2006cond.mat.12006C]. The phase diagram of cuprate high-Tc superconductors looks similar to that of the HF metals, except that there is a pseudogap regime separating a weakly doped anti-ferromagnetic and superconducting phase around optimal doping. Spin fluctuations play an important role not only in its anti-ferromagnetic regimes, but also in the superconducting dome, qualitatively, d-wave Cooper pairs can be formed by exchanging spin fluctuations between electrons[@PhysRevB.34.8190].
It is by now established that the parent compounds of these two materials, at least at weakly doping, are well described through spin dynamics by using a spin-1/2 lattice Heisenberg model with nearest-neighbor interaction. As gradually chemical doped, such materials carrying constituent magnetic moments/spin fluctuations have been observed to develop quantum criticality when their transition temperature is driven to nearly zero [@2008NatPh...4..186G], known as the Quantum Critical Point (QCP). The spin degrees of freedoms are present at all temperatures down to the QCP [@2000Natur.407..351S].
As the spin fluctuations become critical, the system exhibits strongly coupled dynamics due to the destruction of Kondo screening by the critical fluctuations. In this case, the critical spin flutuation can not trivially explained by a weakly coupled spin-density-wave [@2000Natur.407..351S] . The properties of the material dramatically change by the critical fluctuations and form the so-called non-Fermi liquids or “strange metal” phase, the anomalous behaviors of which depart the standard Landau’s Fermi-liquid theory that successfully describing most metals, for a review see [@2008NatPh...4..173S]. The non-Fermi liquid behavior is closely related to the strongly coupled new state of matter in the Quantum Critical Regime (QCR), which is the finite temperature extension of a QCP. Understanding the behaviors of non-Fermi liquids is a major challenge in condensed matter physics. However, the mechanisms are still highly controversial, being almostly due to the lack of exact theoretical computations on such strongly coupled critical systems.
The strongly coupled critical spin fluctuation as an example of quantum critical states is a tremendous difficult problem ever studied, see e.g. [@PhysRevB.49.11919], and an important goal of theoretical studies in understanding non-Fermi liquids. There are trials in treating the system preserving traditional notion of quasi-particles, e.g. the Fermion condensation quantum phase transition theory, see review [@2010PhR...492...31S]. However, restrictly speaking, there is no well-defined quasi-particles/waves any more and even no Landau’s local order parameter description in most cases [@2001AdPhy..50..361L; @2003Natur.424..524C; @2011PhT....64b..29S], which makes the system completely beyond the scope of using traditional method and needs completely new idea.
If one notes that near the critical point the correlation length is much larger than the microscopic length scale, the details of its microscopic structures is unimportant, so the fluctuations near the criticality behaves universal, in addition to the strongly coupled dynamics, it is more promising to conjecture that the strongly coupled critical system should be described by AdS/CFT correspondence or holographic duality discovered in string theory [@Maldacena:1997re; @Witten:1998qj]. There are examples and evidences show that the holographic approach is much heuristic and even trustable, one successful prediction [@Policastro:2001yc; @Policastro:2002se] was that the ratio of the shear viscosity to the entropy density of the strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma near the critical transition temperature, which agrees well with the measurements of it produced from relativistic heavy ion collision [@PhysRevLett.97.162302]. Different from the conventional renormalization group analysis of critical behavior, which relies largely on the existence of a Gaussian fixed point and the validity of perturabative calculation near the fixed point. The strongly coupled Conformal Field Theory (CFT) without doubt describes a non-Gaussian fixed point or critical point of the system beyond the perturbation theory. Our discussion of the critical dynamic scaling will be based on such non-Gaussian fixed point, which are suggested in this paper response for the anamolous behavior of non-Fermi liquids.
This holographic approach has been actively applied to wide varieties of condensed matter problems in recent years, see reviews [@2009CQGra..26v4002H; @2010arXiv1002.2947S], e.g. holographic superconductor [@Hartnoll:2008vx; @Hartnoll:2008kx] and superfluidity [@Herzog:2008he; @Herzog:2009xv], holographic strange metals [@Faulkner:2010da; @Sachdev:2010uj; @2010Sci...329.1043F] and non-Fermi liquid [@Lee:2008xf; @Liu:2009dm; @Faulkner:2011tm], semi-holographic Fermi liquid [@Faulkner:2010tq; @Sachdev:2010um], and quantum criticality [@Sachdev:2008ba; @Faulkner:2009wj; @Iqbal:2010eh; @Iqbal:2011ae; @Iqbal:2011aj]. The holographic superconductor or superfluidity implements a second order phase transition or mildly crossover by condensation of strongly coupled charged scalar fields (and more complicated higher integer spin fields generalizations [@Gubser:2008wv; @Chen:2010mk]) because of the intrinsic holographic instability [@Gubser:2008px]. In the works on holographic strange metals, strongly coupled Fermionic fields with spin-1/2 are studied by holographic approach, which realizes a non-Fermi liquid behavior with linear temperature resistivity. The semi-holographic Fermi liquid theory simplifies and generalizes the idea from holographic strange metals, introducing a hybridization between free fields and strongly coupled critical modes at infrared described by $\mathrm{AdS_{2}}$ near the horizon of blackhole.
The purpose of the paper is to examine the critical dynamic scaling behavior of the correlation function of strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations by holographic approach, the calculations lead to variety of testable predictions, and we try to connect our calculations to experimental observations at least qualitatively. A discussion for the correlation function of dual currents in 2+1 dimensional can be found in [@Herzog:2007ij]. However, in this paper, we find the 3+1 dimensional holographic model is a more realistic model, because (i) the 3+1D holographic spin system is naturally a quasi-2-dimensional (quasi-2D) system similar to the real 2D-layer of a compound, as a consequence, the spin susceptibility is only a scaling of frequency over temperature ($\omega/T$) independent to wave vector in the quasi-2D plane; (ii) the scaling of spin ac susceptibility $\chi\sim(\omega/T)^{\alpha}$ takes a value $\alpha=1$ at low frequency hydrodynamic limit, and $\alpha=2/3$ at high frequency relativistic limit which can not be explained by any spin-density-wave QCP theory; (iv) the dc spin susceptibility approaches a constant independent to temperature; (v) these scaling behaviors are very crucial in understanding the exotic properties of non-Fermi liquid, and we show that our results are in good agreement with a number of experiments. The strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations in our paper play similar role with the infrared critical modes discussed in the semi-holographic Fermi liquid theory [@Faulkner:2010tq; @Sachdev:2010um]. The bulk of the paper is devoted to making these statements more precise.
The paper is organized as follows. We present the general arguments of holographic spin dynamics in Sec.\[sec:Holographic-Spin-Dynamics\]. In Sec.\[sec:Scaling\], we formulate the technical detail of the approach and evaluate the scaling exponent of spin susceptibility in three analytically tracetable limits. In Sec.\[sec:Connection-to-experiments\], we discuss the comparison of our results with experimental phenomenon in two aspects, including qualitatively explaining the scaling law of spin susceptibility at criticality and linear-temperature resistivity in strange metals. Finally, we conclude in Sec.\[sec:Conclusions\].
\[sec:Holographic-Spin-Dynamics\]Holographic Spin Dynamics
==========================================================
Non-Gaussian Fixed Point
------------------------
A theoretical model for considering the spin dynamics doped with conduction electrons is described by the Kondo lattice model,
$$\mathcal{H}=\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle,s}t_{ij}c_{is}^{\dagger}c_{js}+J_{K}\sum_{i,s,s^{\prime}}c_{is}^{\dagger}c_{is^{\prime}}\mathbf{\sigma}_{ss^{\prime}}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{i}+\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}I_{ij}\mathbf{S}_{i}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{j},\label{eq:Kondo_lattice_model}$$
where $c_{i}$ is the electron operator and $\mathbf{S}_{i}$ is the on site spin operator at lattice site $i$. The first term is the hopping of the conduction electrons between neighbor site i and j. At each lattice site, the local spin $\mathbf{S}_{i}$ interacts via an exchange coupling $J_{K}$ with the spin of conduction electrons sitting at the site. The local spin $\mathbf{S}_{i}$ interacts with the nearest neighbor spin $\mathbf{S}_{j}$ by the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) via exchange interaction $I_{ij}$.
The effective Hamiltonian for the on site local spin can be obtained by integrating out the fermionic degrees of freedom, i.e. the conduction electrons $c_{i}^{\dagger},c_{i}$, and then all the effects of the conduction electron are absorbed into the the new effective exchange interaction $J_{ij}$, we get the effective spin dynamics described by the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, $$\mathcal{H}_{eff}=\sum_{\left\langle ij\right\rangle }J_{ij}\mathbf{S}_{i}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{j}.\label{eq:Heisenberg_model}$$
The action of such effective Heisenberg model in the vicinity of critical point can be reduced to an equivalent continuum field theory, written in terms of stagger order parameter, $$S_{0}[\mathbf{n}]=\int d\tau d\mathbf{r}\left[\left(\nabla_{\mathbf{r}}\mathbf{n}\right)^{2}+\left(\partial_{\tau}\mathbf{n}\right)^{2}+a\mathbf{n}^{2}+b\left(\mathbf{n}^{2}\right)^{2}\right],\label{eq:action_n}$$ in which
$$\mathbf{n}(\mathbf{r}_{i})=e^{i\mathbf{Q}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{i}}\mathbf{S}_{i}\label{eq:order_spin}$$
is the anti-ferromagnetic order parameter and $\mathbf{Q}$ is wavevector with each component at $Q=\pi$.
The criticality of the model in Eq.(\[eq:Kondo\_lattice\_model\]) or Eq.(\[eq:action\_n\]) could develop via the competition between the fermionic and bosonic environments interacting with the local spin: the quenching of the local spin through its Kondo coupling to the conduction electron bath and the coupling between local spin and fluctuating magnetic field generated by the local spins at all other sites. At the QCP, the effects of the fermionic and bosonic baths come into balance, and the bosonic coupling succeeds in preventing the local spins from completely quenching, leading to a singular spin susceptibility.
The mechanism that develops criticality reflecting in the effective action Eq.(\[eq:action\_n\]) can be manifested in a more transparent way. Since the fermionic bath have been integrated out in the effective action, the criticality appears directly from the bosonic action. A rough observation in Eq.(\[eq:action\_n\]) shows that there exists two types of fundamentally different fixed points or critical points in the system. The first one is trivial, when $a\rightarrow0,b\rightarrow0$, which represents a trivial Gaussian fixed point without interaction, corresponding to the quenched free spin wave. It is worth noting that the Wilson-Fisher fixed point found at low dimension (d<4) also resides in its perturbative character which is applicable only when the coupling $b$ is sufficiently small, and hence the spin fluctuations also behave as quasi-particles. However, according to the AdS/CFT duality, it is conjectured that there exists a non-Gaussian fixed point when the interaction strength $b$ is non-zero and takes large value. It corresponds to a strong tendency to polarize the local spin along the direction of the fluctuating magnetic field generated by the effective spin environment and hence represents a strong self-coupling between spin fluctuations. A comprehensive interpretation is as follows: the coupling with fermionic bath leads to a negative contribution to the typical energy scale characterized by parameter $a$, while the bosonic coupling gives it a positive contribution, so when the coupling takes certain large value, the typical energy scale vanishes and the system manifests as an interaction criticality.
Holographic Description of the Non-Gaussian Fixed Point
-------------------------------------------------------
These two types of fixed points relating to weak and strong coupling strength belong to different universality classes with different critical exponents. The dynamic critical exponents of the strongly coupled non-Gaussian fixed point is the major interest of the paper, since what we concern in this paper is the materials in the QCR exhibiting strongly coupled dynamics.
In the vicinity of the strongly coupled non-Gaussian fixed point, the theory is beyond the standard weak coupling technique and notoriously difficult to solve, the action Eq.(\[eq:action\_n\]) is then no longer directly useful for analytic perturbative calculations. However, the critical nature of the strongly coupled non-Gaussian fixed point indicates that it is a strongly coupled Conformal Fields Theory (CFT) which is conjectured to be dual to a string/M theory in an AdS space at large spin component limit. That is to say, the theory described by the holographic approach is a theory in the vicinity of the non-Gaussian fixed point. As a consequence, there must exists a holographic description to the large-N critical spin system at strongly coupled limit.
The most fundamental question of the critical spin fluctuation concerns the two-point retarded correlation function of spins, i.e. the spin susceptibility, which measures in response to weak applied external magnetic fields. It requires introduction of weak external magnetic fields $\mathfrak{B}$ into the model by coupling the spin to the $\mathfrak{B}$ fields $$S=S_{0}+\int d\tau d\mathbf{r}\mathbf{S}\cdot\mathfrak{B}.$$ In this paper, we will study the spin susceptibility defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{ij}(\omega,\mathbf{q}) & =-i\int d\mathbf{r}dt\theta(t)\langle[S_{i}(t,\mathbf{r}),S_{j}(0,0)]\rangle e^{-i\omega t+i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}.\label{eq:definition}\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, if the system is anti-ferromagnetic as the action Eq.(\[eq:action\_n\]) refers to, the correlation function of the order parameter $\mathbf{n}$ must be anti-ferromagnetic. We can also define a spin susceptibility by the anti-ferromagnetic order parameter. By using the Eq.(\[eq:order\_spin\]), we have the relation between our definition Eq.(\[eq:definition\]) and the correlator in terms of the order parameters by$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{ij}(\omega,\mathbf{q})\delta(\mathbf{Q}) & =-i\int d\mathbf{r}dt\theta(t)\langle[n_{i}(t,\mathbf{r}),n_{j}(0,0)]\rangle e^{-i\omega t+i\mathbf{q}\cdot\mathbf{r}}.\end{aligned}$$ in which the delta-function peaking at $\mathbf{Q}$ exhibits the expectation value is taken in an anti-ferromagnetic system.
The susceptibility defined in Eq.(\[eq:definition\]) can be directly obtained by evaluating the functional derivative of the partition function with respect to the external weak magnetic fields, according to the linear response theory,$$\chi_{ij}=\frac{2}{V}\frac{\delta^{2}\ln Z}{\delta\mathfrak{B}_{i}\delta\mathfrak{B}_{j}},\label{eq:chi_from_z}$$ where $V$ is the volume of the spin system. Applying the AdS/CFT duality, the partition function of the strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations can be calculated from the gravitational side, in large-N and large ’t Hooft coupling limit the gravitational theory reduces to a classical gravity, the classical action gives a dominant contribution to the partition function by the saddle point approximation,$$Z[B]=\langle e^{-\int_{\partial\mathcal{M}}\mathbf{S\cdot B_{0}}}\rangle_{NG}=e^{-S_{cl}[\mathbf{B}]},\label{eq:z}$$ where the subscript “NG” denotes the expectation value is taken at the non-Gaussian strongly coupled fixed point, $\partial\mathcal{M}$ stands for the boundary of the AdS space, i.e. our flat spacetime, $\mathbf{B_{0}}$ is the boundary value of the bulk magnetic fields $\mathbf{B}$. $S_{cl}$ is the classical action for the magnetic fields propagating in an asymptotic AdS metric,$$S_{cl}[F]=-\frac{1}{4g_{YM}^{2}}\int d^{d+1}x\sqrt{-g}F_{IJ}F^{IJ},\label{eq:action_f}$$ where $F_{IJ}$ is the field strength, and $g_{YM}^{2}=16\pi^{2}R/N^{2}$ the gauge coupling. So we have holographic version of spin susceptibility$$\chi_{ij}=\frac{2}{V}\frac{\delta^{2}S_{cl}}{\delta B_{0i}\delta B_{0j}}.\label{eq:chi_from_S}$$
The strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations lived on the boundary of the AdS space share features of the critical theory of physical interest, there are no well-defined notion of quasi-particle, it is insensitive to microscopic details and displays universal behavior, the surprising success of the holographic approach at low energies also exhibit universality in its predictions. The holographic spin system captures the key features of the strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations. Historically, scaling plays a central role in the studying of criticality, so in the following section, we will turn to the calculation of the scaling behavior of the holographic spin fluctuations.
\[sec:Scaling\]Scaling of the Spin Susceptibility
=================================================
The Calculation Framework
-------------------------
A method for calculating this quantity of R-current in the dual gravitational description was formulated in Ref [@Son:2002sd]. In this paper, we consider a spin system in quasi-2 dimension, a proper framework for such system is not 2+1 but a 3+1 dimensional system in Minkovski spacetime ($M_{4}$) as a direct consequence of the transverse nature of magnetic fields, which will be shown in the following discussion in more detail.
The large-N and large ’t Hooft coupling limit of the theory in $M_{4}$ at finite temperature $T$ corresponds to a gravitational background with a 4+1-dimensional asymptotically AdS metric embedding a Schwarzschild blackhole$$ds^{2}=\frac{(\pi TR)^{2}}{u}\left[-f(u)dt^{2}+dx^{2}+dy^{2}+dz^{2}\right]+\frac{R^{2}}{4u^{2}f(u)}du^{2},$$ where $f(u)=1-u^{2}$, $u$ values from 0 (boundary) to 1 (horizon with Hawkin temperature $T$), and R is the curvature radius of the AdS space. According to the duality prescription, the two-point function of spins in the holographic spin system is calculated by analyzing linear corresponse of magnetic fields propagating in the 4+1-dimensional AdS-Schwarzschild gravitational background. The perturbations of the magnetic fields obey the Maxwell’s equation$$\partial_{I}\left(\sqrt{-g}g^{IJ}g^{KL}F_{JL}\right)=0,$$ where $g_{IJ}$ is the metric of the background. The magnetic fields defined as $B_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ijk}F_{jk}$ is a pseudo-vector propagating in the bulk space. The Fourier transformation of it by its boundary coordinates is given by$$B_{i}(u,t,z)=\int\frac{d\omega dq_{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}e^{iq_{z}z-i\omega t}B_{i}(u,\omega,q_{z}),$$ in which we have lied the wave vector $\mathbf{q}$ along the z-direction for simplicity. By using the Bianchi identity for $F_{IJ}$ to relate magnetic $\mathbf{B}$ fields to the electric $\mathbf{E}$ fields, we obtain the wave equation$$B_{T}^{\prime\prime}+\frac{f^{\prime}}{f}B_{T}^{\prime}+\frac{\tilde{\omega}^{2}-\tilde{q}^{2}f}{uf^{2}}B_{T}=0,\label{eq:wave_equ}$$ in which $B_{T}=B_{x},B_{y}$ denotes the transverse components of the magnetic fields, we also define dimensionless frequency and wave vector $$\tilde{\omega}\equiv\frac{\omega}{2\pi T},\qquad\tilde{q}\equiv\frac{\left|q_{z}\right|}{2\pi T},$$ and the primes stand for derivatives with respect to $u$.
Note that the magnetic fields are always perpendicular to the direction of the wave vector (in the $z$-direction) due to their transverse nature, so all the dual physical effects of the spin system are constrained in the $x-y$ quasi-2-dimensional plane, which means the spin fluctuations (duals to the transverse magnetic fields) are in fact constrained in 2D layer, but it is “quasi-” since it depends on external parameters in the z dimension. For a fixed value of the external parameters, the system can be viewed as pure 2D. Now let us turn to the Maxwell action of the quasi-2D system in terms of magnetic fields$$\begin{aligned}
S_{cl}[\mathbf{B}] & =-\frac{N^{2}T^{2}}{16}V_{2}\int duf(u)\int\frac{d\omega dq_{z}}{(2\pi)^{2}}\frac{1}{q_{z}^{2}}\left[B_{x}^{\prime2}(u,\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})+B_{y}^{\prime2}(u,\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})+...\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{2}$ is the area of this quasi-2D $x-y$ plane.
Applying the prescription proposed by Son and Starinets [@Son:2002sd], using Eq.(\[eq:chi\_from\_S\]), one finds the transverse spin susceptibility of the isotropic quasi-2D system, ($\chi_{zz}=0$, $\chi_{xy}=\chi_{yx}=0$, $\chi_{xx}=\chi_{yy}=\chi$)$$\chi=c\Phi(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q}),\label{eq:chi_son}$$ in which $c$ is a dimensionless coefficient and the universal scaling function $\Phi(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})$ governed by the conformal nature of the holographic calculations $$\begin{aligned}
c & =\frac{N^{2}}{32\pi^{2}\tilde{q}^{2}},\qquad\Phi(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})=\lim_{u\rightarrow0}\frac{B_{T}^{\prime}(u,\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})}{B_{T}(u,\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})}.\label{eq:c_phi}\end{aligned}$$
Obviously, the $\chi$ is momentum-independent in the quasi-2D system ($\tilde{q}$ can be viewed as an external parameter or integration constant determined from initial condition). It is very natural that $\tilde{q}$ takes certain fixed value when $\tilde{\omega}$ is non-vanished in ac susceptibility, unless uniform and static limit is required to carefully take in dc susceptibility. So in the following discussions, we are only interested in the frequency over temperature dependent, i.e. $\Phi(\tilde{\omega})$.
One of the main purpose of the paper is to describe the critical scaling behavior of the universal function $\Phi(\tilde{\omega})$ and/or spin susceptibility, particularly in three exactly tractable asymptotics: (i) The low frequency/high temperature hydrodynamic limit ($\tilde{\omega}\ll1$). (ii) The high frequency/low temperature limit in which we have assumed that the modes at high frequency are highly relativistic with linear dispersion ($1\ll\tilde{\omega}=\tilde{q}$). (iii) The uniform and static limit dc susceptibility ($\tilde{q},\tilde{\omega}\rightarrow0$).
Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Limit ($\omega\ll T$)
------------------------------------------------
The low frequency/high temperature asymptotics is a straightforward application of the perturbation theory to the wave equations Eq.(\[eq:wave\_equ\]). The solution obeying the incoming wave boundary condition at the horizon ($u=1$) is controlled by a singular prefactor $(1-u)^{-i\tilde{\omega}/2}$. Then the solution can be given perturbatively by using $\tilde{\omega}$ and $\tilde{q}$ as small expansion parameters$$B_{T}(u)=C(1-u)^{-i\tilde{\omega}/2}\left[1+\frac{i\tilde{\omega}}{2}\ln\frac{1+u}{2}+\frac{\tilde{q}^{2}}{2}\left(\frac{\pi^{2}}{2}+\mathrm{Li_{2}}(-u)+\ln u\ln(1+u)+\mathrm{Li_{2}}(1-u)\right)+\mathcal{O}(\tilde{\omega}^{2},\tilde{q}^{4},\tilde{\omega}\tilde{q}^{2})\right],$$ where the renormalization constant $C(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})$ is determined by the boundary condition $\lim_{u\rightarrow0}B_{T}(u)=B_{T}^{0}$,$$C(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})=\frac{8B_{T}^{0}}{8-4i\tilde{\omega}\ln2+\pi^{2}\tilde{q}^{2}}.$$ we get the derivative of the B fields on the boundary ($u\rightarrow0$), $$\lim_{u\rightarrow0}B_{T}^{\prime}=i\tilde{\omega}B_{T}^{0}.$$ At lowest order, the result is momentum independent, so the spin susceptibility has a simple scaling behavior $\Phi_{h}(\tilde{\omega})=i\tilde{\omega}$, this can be seem from Eq.(\[eq:chi\_son\]) and Eq.(\[eq:c\_phi\]), $$\chi_{h}(\tilde{\omega})=ci\tilde{\omega},\qquad(\tilde{\omega}\ll1).\label{eq:chi_hydro}$$
We will see in the next section that this $\alpha=1$ dynamic scaling law at low frequency/high temperature limit is very important in understanding the behaviors of a quantum critical regime, which is considered as a finite temperature extension of a quantum critical point.
High Frequency Relativistic Limit ($T\ll\omega=q$)
--------------------------------------------------
To investigate the quantum critical point at near zero temperature, we need to study the high frequency/low temperature limit. This limit of the solution requires a careful WKB analysis. In this subsection, we assume that in this high frequency limit, the modes are relativistic with linear dispersion $\omega=q$, so the Eq.(\[eq:wave\_equ\]) becomes $$B_{T}^{\prime\prime}+\frac{f^{\prime}}{f}B_{T}^{\prime}+\frac{u\tilde{\omega}^{2}}{f^{2}}B_{T}=0.\label{eq:wave_equ_rela}$$ For $\tilde{\omega}\gg1$, by using Langer-Olver’s method [@1954RSPTA.247..307O; @Policastro:2001yb], we are able to obtain uniform asymptotics expansions to the solution (a version of the WKB approximation). If we introduce a new variable,$$B_{T}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-f(u)}}\phi,$$ then the wave equation is rewritten as$$\phi^{\prime\prime}=-\frac{u\tilde{\omega}^{2}+1}{(1-u^{2})^{2}}\phi.$$ For large values of $\tilde{\omega}$, the solution has the formal expansions in terms of Airy function, which is chosen to obey the incoming wave boundary condition,$$B_{T}(u)\sim\frac{C}{\sqrt{-f(u)}}\left[\frac{-u}{(1-u^{2})^{2}\zeta(-u)}\right]^{-1/4}\mathrm{Ai}\left(\tilde{\omega}^{2/3}\zeta(-u)\right)+...$$ where $\mathrm{Ai}(z)$ is the Airy function, and$$\zeta(x)=\frac{3^{2/3}}{2^{4/3}}\left(i\pi-2\arctan\sqrt{x}+\ln\frac{\sqrt{x}+1}{\sqrt{x}-1}\right).$$ The renormalization constant $C(\tilde{\omega})$ is$$C(\tilde{\omega})=2\sqrt{\pi}e^{i\pi/4}\tilde{\omega}^{1/6}2^{-i\tilde{\omega}-\tilde{\omega}/2}e^{i\pi\tilde{\omega}/4}B_{T}^{0}.$$ Similarly, by using Eq.(\[eq:c\_phi\]), a fractional exponent $\alpha=2/3$ is finally obtained, i.e. $\Phi_{r}(\tilde{\omega})\propto\tilde{\omega}^{2/3}$, and$$\chi_{r}(\tilde{\omega})\sim c\frac{3^{1/3}\Gamma\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)}\left(-\tilde{\omega}\right)^{2/3},\qquad(\tilde{\omega}\gg1).\label{eq:chi_relati}$$
Different from the low frequency limit where the scaling is momentum-independence, in fact, numerical study manifests that the scaling function $\Phi(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q})$ is sensitive to $\tilde{q}$ in the high frequency limit. At first sight the $\alpha=2/3$ scaling we obtained here is achieved by taking fine-tuned linear dispersion in Eq.(\[eq:wave\_equ\_rela\]), but it shows that the dispersion of vector mode at high frequency tends to linear [@PhysRevD.67.124013], so $\omega=q$ at high frequency limit is expected as a promising pre-assumption for most real cases.
DC Susceptibility or Uniform Static Limit ($q,\omega\rightarrow0$)
------------------------------------------------------------------
In principle the uniform ($q\rightarrow0$) and static ($\omega\rightarrow0$) limit can be taken straightforwardly in the low frequency hydrodynamic regime,$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{s} & =\lim_{\omega,q\rightarrow0}\chi_{h}(\tilde{\omega},\tilde{q}).\end{aligned}$$ However, the $\tilde{q}$ dependence of the prefactor $c$ requires a more careful treatment, since $\tilde{q}$ of the modes will also tend to vanish as $\tilde{\omega}$ goes to zero because of the dispersion relation. The limit exists and be finite, if we note that $\tilde{\omega}$ and $\tilde{q}^{2}$ are of the same order in this hydrodynamic regime, and more precisely, there is a diffusive pole $i\tilde{\omega}=\tilde{q}^{2}$ ($i\omega=Dq^{2}$ with $D=1/2\pi T$) governs the low energy dispersion for the longitudinal vector modes who share the same wave vector and frequency with the transverse vector modes in hydrodynamic regime. Therefore, we obtain a universal real constant susceptibility [@2011JHEP...11..142L], independent with temperature,$$\chi_{s}=\frac{N^{2}}{32\pi^{2}}\lim_{\omega,q\rightarrow0}\frac{i\tilde{\omega}}{\tilde{q}^{2}}=\frac{N^{2}}{32\pi^{2}}.\label{eq:chi_static}$$
The non-zero dimensionless constant dc spin susceptibility at high temperature for strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations is a non-trivial prediction from holographic theory at the critical regime. The universality of the strongly coupled critical spin susceptibility measuring the critical spin transport is a direct consequence of the “perfect fluid” behavior of a critical matter, which may be analogous to the universal value of the shear viscosity over entropy density of the strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma around critical temperature observed in heavy-ion-collision.
\[sec:Connection-to-experiments\]Connection to experiments
==========================================================
The spin susceptibility we obtained from holographic large-N calculation is sensitive to the total number of degrees of freedom N, and hence it is not a good quantity to compare with measurements, but in this paper we propose two ways to connect our calculations to experimental facts: (i) the scaling exponent is universal and N-independent at lowest order in the holographic calculations, so it can be directly compared to experiments. (ii) The itinerant electrons coupling to the spin fluctuations give rise to a contributions $1/N^{2}$ in large-N theory, recalling that the order of spin susceptibility Eq.(\[eq:c\_phi\]) is $N^{2}$, this reflects that the resistivity and self-energy of the N-component electrons due to exchange the spin fluctuations are of order $N^{0}$, and hence they are manifested in insensitive to the large-N technique.
Scaling of Critical Spin Susceptibility in Experiments
------------------------------------------------------
The results of scaling behavior for strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations lead to a variety of direct measurement of critical spin susceptibility by neutron-scattering, NMR, and magnetometry measurements. The low frequency hydrodynamic limit of the system can be measured in the phase diagram at large range of temperatures close to the doping/fields induced criticality, i.e. the QCR. The Eq.(\[eq:chi\_hydro\]) suggests that, when frequency of the ac magnetic fields is fixed, the spin susceptibility decreases as the temperature increases. The simple $\omega/T$ scaling of spin susceptibility at low frequency and/or high temperature proposed in Eq.(\[eq:chi\_hydro\]) is observed in $\mathrm{La_{2-x}Sr_{x}CuO_{4}}$ compound (at critical doping $x\approx0.04\pm0.01$) in the pseudogap regime (which is conjectured as a QCR) [@PhysRevLett.67.1930], and it is also suggested as a phenomenological description in normal state of Cu-O high-Tc superconductor [@PhysRevLett.63.1996], $$\mathrm{Im}\chi\sim\frac{\omega}{T},\qquad(\omega\ll T).$$
When temperature is driven to small value, at the critical doping or QCP, the fluctuations become strong and almost quantum critical. In this case, we are interested in the $\chi\sim T^{-\alpha}$ type of scaling measured at fixed frequency, which is considered associated with the proximity to a QCP. We find the spin susceptibility diverges governed by a fractional scaling exponent $\alpha=2/3$ in the high frequency or low temperature regime. This prediction of scaling from Eq.(\[eq:chi\_relati\]) is supported from the experimental observation in e.g. $\mathrm{YbRh_{2}(Si_{1-x}Ge_{x})_{2}}$ ($x\approx0.05$) when reached a QCP. Although $\chi(T)$ tends to saturation below Kondo temperature, approaching to QCP from $0.3K$ to $10K$, it can be approximated by a power-law divergence [@PhysRevLett.94.076402], $$\left(\chi(T)-\mathrm{const}\right)\sim T^{-0.6},\qquad(T\sim0.3K\div10K),$$ where $\mathrm{const}=0.215\times10^{-6}\mathrm{m^{3}mol^{-1}}$ is a small temperature-independent contribution. We can see at high $T$ , $\chi\rightarrow\mathrm{const}$. In our framework the constant may be interpreted as a constant lower bound of static spin susceptibility as suggested in Eq.(\[eq:chi\_static\]).
The fractional scaling law of temperature has also been seen in the kagome lattice anti-ferromagnetic herbertsmithite $\mathrm{ZnCu_{3}(OH)_{6}Cl_{2}}$ at fixed frequency of weak ac magnetic fields, which is thought of possibly displaying quantum critical behavior and the proximity to a critical spin liquid ground state. For both real and imaginary part of susceptibility, from $0K$ to $35K$, the divergence scaling behaves as [@PhysRevLett.104.147201] $$\chi(T)\sim T^{-(0.66\pm0.02)},\qquad(T\sim0K\div35K).$$
Other neutron scattering experiments on $\mathrm{CeCu_{6-x}Au_{x}}$ near the critical doping $x_{c}\approx0.1$ also gives an simple $\omega/T$ scaling and a similar fractional critical exponent, fitting $\chi\sim T^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\approx0.75$ closed to our result [@PhysRevLett.75.725].
Within the experimental resolution, it is a good agreement in our calculation to these measurements. Note that such fractional scaling can not be explained by any perturbative spin-density-wave QCP theories, and hence be a good support for our holographic treatment of the critical spin fluctuations. The author also recognize that there are other candidates, e.g. non-perturbative phenomenological approach [@PhysRevLett.94.066402] and dynamical mean field theory [@2001Natur.413..804S] yielding the similar fractional exponent.
Linear-T Resistivity in Normal State of Cuprates
------------------------------------------------
The normal state or strange metal phase of the cuprate is regarded as the central dogma in the theory of high-Tc superconductivity. Different from the $R\sim T^{2}$ behavior of resistivity due to phonon scattering in usual Fermi liquid metals, in cuprate layers, a linear-T resistivity $R\sim T$ near optimal doping (as critical doping) over a wide range of temperature is a generic property of the normal state. The fact that the constant of proportionality seems similar for different cuprates may be a hint suggesting such behavior is closely related to the universality of critical phenomenon. We will show that the scaling behavior of spin susceptibility at low frequency/high temperature limit is very important in understanding the anomalous behavior, if we replace the phonons by the critical spin fluctuations. The $\alpha=1$ scaling of $\mathrm{Im}\chi$ at low frequency is physically similar with the phenomenological Marginal-Fermi-Liquid (MFL) theory [@PhysRevLett.63.1996] in two aspects, (i) momentum-independence of the spin susceptibility at generic wave vector in the quasi-2D spin system, (ii) scaling invariant form of the spin susceptibility due to the CFT nature of the holographic spin system.
Here we consider Kondo lattice model, in which the coupling between the conducting electrons to the critical spin fluctuations is given by the Kondo exchange interaction in large-N,$$H_{I}=\frac{J_{K}}{N}\sum_{k}\psi_{k}^{\dagger}\left(\psi_{k}\mathbf{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{S}_{k}\right),$$ where $J_{K}/N$ is the coupling constant, $\psi$ is the N-component electron, $\mathbf{\sigma}$ is the Pauli matrix and $\mathbf{S}$ is the spin operator of the spin fluctuation. We treat this interaction perturbatively which is reasonable in high-T strange metal phase due to Kondo screening. The self-energy of electron due to exchange the critical spin fluctuations is then given by$$\Sigma(\epsilon,k)=\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{N^{2}}\sum_{q}\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\int\frac{d\omega^{\prime}}{2\pi}\frac{A(q,\omega)B(k-q,\omega^{\prime})}{\epsilon-\omega-\omega^{\prime}}\left[n(\omega^{\prime})+1-f(\omega)\right],$$ in which $A=-2\mathrm{Im}G_{0}^{R}$ is the spectral function of free electron, $B=-2\mathrm{Im}\chi$ is the spectral function of the critical spin fluctuations, $n,f$ are Bose (for spin) and Fermi (for electron) distribution functions, respectively. For a $\mathbf{q}$-independent spectrum given in the spin susceptibility at low frequency, the momentum integration can be performed directly to $A(q,\omega)$, which gives the density of states for electrons $\rho(\omega)=\frac{1}{2\pi V}\sum_{q}A(q,\omega)$. Then we use the Kramers-Kronig relations to dealing with the integration of $\omega$, we get the imaginary part of $\Sigma$,$$\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\epsilon)=\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{N^{2}}\rho_{F}\pi\int\frac{d\omega^{\prime}}{2\pi}B(\omega^{\prime})\left[n(\omega^{\prime})+f(\omega^{\prime}-\epsilon)\right],$$ in which the density of state is approximately a constant density in a unit volume at the Fermi surface $\rho_{F}=\rho(0)$. We extend the validity of $B=-2\mathrm{Im}\chi=-2c\tilde{\omega}$ to all range of frequency in our integral, since here it is treated in the high-T strange metal phase. A straightforward calculation then gives$$\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\epsilon,T)=\frac{J_{K}^{2}}{N^{2}}\rho_{F}cT\mathcal{F}(\frac{\epsilon}{T}),\label{eq:im_self}$$ where $\mathcal{F}(\epsilon/T)$ is given by$$\mathcal{F}(\frac{\epsilon}{T})=\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{T}\ln2+...\qquad(\epsilon\ll T)$$ which approaches a constant for small $\epsilon/T$, we have$$\mathrm{Im}\Sigma(\epsilon,T)=\lambda T,\qquad(\epsilon\ll T)$$ where $\lambda=\frac{1}{128}J_{K}^{2}\rho_{F}/\tilde{q}^{2}$ is a dimensionless effective coupling constant of order $N^{0}$. By using the Kramers-Kronig relations again we obtain the real part and the full self-energy from the imaginary part$$\Sigma(\epsilon,T)=-\frac{2}{\pi}\lambda\left(\epsilon\ln\left|\frac{x}{\epsilon_{c}}\right|-i\frac{\pi}{2}x\right),$$ where $x=\mathrm{max}(\epsilon,T)$, $\epsilon_{c}$ is a ultraviolet cutoff scale. This form of self-energy has been proposed in the Marginal-Fermi-Liquid [@PhysRevLett.63.1996] and fits well with the ARPES measurement of cuprates in its high-T strange metal phase [@2000PNAS...97.5714A].
According to the Optical Theorem, the imaginary part of the self-energy is related to the scattering amplitude between the free electron and the critical spin fluctuations. Therefore, in the quasi-2D plane, we find the electric dc resistivity behaves linear in temperature,$$R=\lambda T.$$
It is a generic property observed in normal state, strange metal and many non-Fermi liquids materials in 2D conductive layer, which are expected to exhibit QCR behavior related to the optimal doping, rather a $T^{2}$ behavior in Fermi liquids. In this sense, we could conclude that the non-Fermi liquids could arise from coupling a Fermi liquids to a strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations.
\[sec:Conclusions\]Conclusions
==============================
We conclude this paper by recollecting some highlights to the problem of the strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations. The dynamics of spin fluctuations is very important in understanding the behavior of normal state of the heavy fermion metal and high-Tc superconductor. The strongly coupled spin fluctuations develop quantum criticality and the notion of quasi-particle is no longer valid. Such critical system is described by continuum field theory in the vicinity of a non-Gaussian fixed point with strong coupling. The treatment of the system is beyond the traditional perturbative technique. We present a holographic theory to the system by following the AdS/CFT correspondence which conjectures that the strongly coupled critical system is dual to a gravitational theory in AdS space at large-N limit. We calculate the spin susceptibility in such holographic system at large ’t Hooft coupling, and find that (i) the holographic spin system is quasi-2-dimensional; (ii) the $\omega/T$ scaling of spin susceptibility independent to wave vector is a general property of holographic spin fluctuations in the quasi-2-dimensional system; (iii) the scaling behavior of ac spin susceptibility is universal, $\chi\sim\omega/T$ at low frequency hydrodynamic limit and $\chi\sim(\omega/T)^{2/3}$ at high frequency relativistic limit, which can not be explained by traditional perturbative spin-density-wave QCP theories; (iv) the dc spin susceptibility approaches a constant $N^{2}/32\pi^{2}$ independent to temperature; (v) these scaling law shown in the susceptibility agree well with a number of experimental measurements, in which the test materials are tuned to nearly critical doping where quantum critical point/quantum critical regime appears; (vi) The $\mathrm{Im}\chi\sim\omega/T$ scaling at low frequency/high temperature limit gives rise to a linear-temperature resistivity in strange metals and/or normal state of high-Tc superconductor. We argue that the non-Fermi liquid can arise from coupling the Fermi liquid to strongly coupled critical spin fluctuations.
The author would like to thank S.Sachdev, S.Hartnoll and H.Liu for helpful communications.
[53]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, (), .
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, (), .
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ().
, ****, (), .
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , ****, (), .
, , , , (), , .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
(), , .
, , , , ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
, , (), , .
, , (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: 'Search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in same-sign dilepton channels in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13\TeV$'
---
=1
$HeadURL: svn+ssh://svn.cern.ch/reps/tdr2/papers/EXO-17-028/trunk/EXO-17-028.tex $ $Id: EXO-17-028.tex 466520 2018-06-28 12:01:53Z alverson $
Introduction
============
The observation of neutrino oscillations [@pdg], a mixing between several neutrino flavors, established that at least two of the standard model (SM) neutrinos have nonzero masses and that individual lepton number is violated. The nonzero masses of the neutrinos are arguably the first evidence for physics beyond the SM. Upper limits on the neutrino masses have been established from cosmological observations [@pdg], as well as direct measurements, including those of tritium decays [@PhysRev.97.1234; @1966JETP...22..521L]. The extremely small values of these masses are difficult to explain in models that assume neutrinos to be Dirac particles [@Ma:1998dn; @Cai:2017mow].
The leading theoretical candidate to explain neutrino masses is the so-called “seesaw” mechanism [@seesaw1; @seesaw2; @seesaw3; @seesaw4; @PhysRevD.22.2227; @PhysRevD.24.1232; @PhysRevD.25.774; @Magg198061; @PhysRevD.23.165; @seesaw5; @PhysRevLett.56.561; @PhysRevD.34.1642; @1987PhLB..187..303B; @Lindner:1996tf], in which a new heavy Majorana neutrino [$\mathrm{N}$]{}is postulated. In the seesaw mechanism, the observed small neutrino masses, [$m_\nu$]{}, result from the large mass of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}, with ${\ensuremath{m_\nu}\xspace}\sim y^2_\nu v^2/ {\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}$. Here $y_\nu$ is a Yukawa coupling, $v$ is the Higgs vacuum expectation value in the SM, and [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}is the mass of the heavy-neutrino state. One model that incorporates the seesaw mechanism, and can be probed at the LHC, is the neutrino minimal standard model ($\nu$MSM) [@Appelquist:2002me; @Appelquist:2003uu; @Asaka:2005an; @Asaka:2005pn]. In this model, the existence of new heavy neutrinos could not only explain the very small masses of the SM neutrinos, but also provide solutions to other problems in cosmology, such as the origin of dark matter or the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the early universe [@Asaka:2005an; @Asaka:2005pn].
In this paper, we present the results of a search for a heavy Majorana neutrino in the $\nu$MSM, which incorporates new heavy-neutrino states without additional vector bosons. Searches for heavy Majorana neutrinos at hadron colliders have been proposed by many theoretical models [@Maj_hadCol_1; @Maj_hadCol_2; @Maj_hadCol_3; @Maj_hadCol_4; @Maj_hadCol_5]. Numerous experiments have looked for heavy neutrinos in the mass range from several keV to some hundred GeV, with no evidence seen, and a summary of the limits on [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\ell {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}versus [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}for these experiments is given in Ref. [@1367-2630-17-7-075019], where [$V_{\ell {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}$]{}is a matrix element describing the mixing between the heavy neutrino and the SM neutrino of flavor $\ell = {\Pe},\; \mu$, or $\tau$. Direct searches for heavy neutrinos have been performed at the CERN LEP collider [@delphi; @l3; @l3_2001] and, more recently, at the CERN LHC [@Aaij:2014aba; @CMS_NR_mu_2012; @CMS_NR_emu_2012; @ATLAS_NR_2012; @Sirunyan:2018mtv]. These searches use a model-independent phenomenological approach, assuming that [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}and [$V_{\ell {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}$]{}are free parameters.
The searches performed by the DELPHI [@delphi] and L3 [@l3; @l3_2001] Collaborations at LEP looked for the $\Pe^{+} \Pe^{-} \to {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}\nu_{\ell}$ process, where $\nu_{\ell}$ is any SM neutrino. For $\ell = \mu , \tau$ the limits on [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\ell {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}were set for ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}< 90\GeV$, while for $\ell = \Pe$ the limits extend to ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}< 200\GeV$. Several experiments obtained limits for low neutrino masses (${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}< 5\GeV$), including the LHCb Collaboration [@Aaij:2014aba] at the LHC, which set limits on the mixing of a heavy neutrino with an SM muon neutrino. The searches by L3, DELPHI, and LHCb include the possibility of a finite heavy-neutrino lifetime, such that [$\mathrm{N}$]{}decays with a vertex displaced from the interaction point. In the search reported here, however, it is assumed that [$\mathrm{N}$]{}decays close to the point of production, since in the mass range of this search (${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}> 20\GeV$) the decay length is expected to be less than $10^{-10}$ [@NOTETao2].
This search probes the decay of a $\PW$ boson, in which an SM neutrino oscillates into a new state [$\mathrm{N}$]{}. In this analysis, only $\ell = \Pe$ or $\mu$ processes are considered. In the previous CMS analyses [@CMS_NR_mu_2012; @CMS_NR_emu_2012], only the Drell–Yan (DY) production of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}($\cPq\cPaq^\prime \to \PW^{*} \to{\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}\ell^{\pm} \to \ell^{\pm} \ell^{'\pm} \cPq^\prime\cPaq$), shown in Fig. \[fig:schanFD\] (left) was considered, while in this study the photon-initiated production of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}($\cPq \gamma \to \PW \cPq^{\prime\prime} \to {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}\ell^{\pm}\cPq^{\prime\prime}\to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm} \cPq^{\prime\prime} \cPq^\prime \cPaq$), as shown in Fig. \[fig:schanFD\] (right), is also taken into account. The diagram in Fig. \[fig:schanFD\] (right) shows a possible production of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}via $\PW\gamma$ fusion, which we refer to by the generic term vector boson fusion (VBF). The inclusion of the VBF channel enhances the sensitivity of this analysis for [$\mathrm{N}$]{}masses above several hundred GeV [@Dev:2013wba], where the $t$-channel photon-initiated processes become the dominant production mechanism for $\PW^{*} \to {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}\ell$ [@Alva2015; @Dev:2013wba].
![Feynman diagram representing a resonant production of a Majorana neutrino ([$\mathrm{N}$]{}), via the $s$-channel Drell–Yan process (left) and its decay into a lepton and two quarks, resulting in a final state with two same-sign leptons and two quarks from a $\PW$ boson decay. Feynman diagram for the photon-initiated process (right). []{data-label="fig:schanFD"}](Figure_001.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Since [$\mathrm{N}$]{}is a Majorana particle and can decay to a lepton of equal or opposite charge to that of its parent $\PW$ boson, both opposite- and same-sign (SS) lepton pairs can be produced. This search targets same-sign dilepton (SS2$\ell$) signatures since these final states have very low SM backgrounds. We search for events where the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}decays to a lepton and a $\PW$ boson, and the $\PW$ boson decays hadronically, as this allows the reconstruction of the mass of the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}without the ambiguity associated with the longitudinal momentum of an SM neutrino. For the DY channel production, the final state is $\ell^{+} \ell^{'+} \cPq^\prime\cPaq$. The charge-conjugate decay chain also contributes and results in an $\ell^{-} \ell^{'-} \cPaq^\prime\cPq$ final state. In the VBF channel, production of an additional forward jet is produced in the event.
An observation of the $\ell^{\pm} \ell^{'\pm} \cPq^\prime\cPaq (\cPq^{\prime\prime})$ process would constitute direct evidence of lepton number violation. The study of this process in different dilepton channels improves the likelihood for the discovery of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}, and constrains the mixing matrix elements. The dielectron ($\Pe \Pe$), dimuon ($\mu\mu$), and electron-muon ($\Pe \mu$) channels are searched for and allow constraints to be set on [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, and [$\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})$]{}, respectively [@NOTETao2]. In the $\Pe \mu$ channel, the leptons from the $\PW$ boson and the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}decay can be either $\Pe$ and $\mu$, or $\mu$ and $\Pe$, respectively, so the branching fraction for this channel is twice as large as that for the $\Pe\Pe$ or $\mu\mu$ channels.
The most recent CMS search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in events with two leptons and jets was performed for the mass range ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 40$–500in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu\mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels at $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$ [@CMS_NR_mu_2012; @CMS_NR_emu_2012]. A similar search was also performed by the ATLAS Collaboration in the $\Pe \Pe$ and $\mu\mu$ channels [@ATLAS_NR_2012]. The CMS Collaboration performed a search for heavy Majorana neutrinos in final states with three leptons using the 2016 data set [@Sirunyan:2018mtv], setting limits on ${\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}$ and ${\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}$, for the mass range ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 1$–1200. In the case of trilepton channels, events that contain both an electron and a muon ($\Pe\Pe\mu,\mu\mu\Pe$) present an ambiguity about which of the leptons mixes with [$\mathrm{N}$]{}, and it is thus impossible to probe [$\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})$]{}. This ambiguity is not present in the current analysis with dilepton channels, allowing limits to be set on [$\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})$]{}.
The CMS analysis at $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$ showed that the efficiency for signal events drops for masses above 400, as a consequence of the Lorentz-boosted topology of the decay products of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}, which causes the signal jets to overlap and be reconstructed as a single jet. The signal efficiency can be recovered by including events containing a wide jet that is consistent with the process $\PW \to \cPq \cPaq^\prime$, where the decay products of the $\PW$ boson are merged into a single jet [@Das:2017gke]. It was also observed that the signal efficiency dropped significantly when the mass of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}was below the $\PW$ boson mass ([$m_\mathrm{\PW}$]{}). For the $\mu\mu$ channel, the signal acceptance was 0.65 (10.9)% for ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 60\,(125)\GeV$. For ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}< {\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{\PW}}\xspace}$ the final-state leptons and jets are very soft and fail the momentum requirements applied in the 8analysis. In the present analysis, cases where one of the signal jets fails the selection criteria are recovered by including events with only one jet.
In this paper, a new search for [$\mathrm{N}$]{}in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu\mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels is presented using CMS data collected in 2016 at $\sqrt{s} = 13\TeV$. We search for events with two isolated leptons with the same electric charge, with the presence of either a) two or more jets, b) exactly one jet, or c) at least one wide jet. We look for an excess of events above the expected SM background prediction by applying selection criteria to the data to optimize the signal significance for each mass hypothesis. Heavy Majorana neutrinos with a mass in the range of 20 to 1700are considered. There are three potential sources of SS2$\ell$ backgrounds: SM sources in which two prompt SS leptons are produced (a prompt lepton is defined as an electron or muon originating from a $\PW$/$\PZ$/$\gamma^{*}$ boson or $\tau$ lepton decay), events resulting from misidentified leptons, and opposite-sign dilepton events (, from $\PZ \to \ell^{+} \ell^{-}$, $\PW^{\pm} \PW^{\mp}\to\,\ell^{+}\nu\ell^{-}\overline{\nu}$) in which the sign of one of the leptons is mismeasured. The last source is negligible for the $\mu \mu$ and $\Pe \mu$ channels.
The CMS detector
================
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 internal diameter. The solenoid provides a magnetic field of 3.8 along the direction of the counterclockwise rotating beam as viewed from above the plane of the accelerator, taken as the $z$ axis of the detector coordinate system, with the center of the detector defined to be at $z = 0$. The azimuthal angle $\phi$ is measured in radians in the plane perpendicular to the $z$ axis, while the polar angle $\theta$ is measured with respect to this axis. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. The ECAL provides a coverage in pseudorapidity $\abs{\eta} < 1.48$ in the barrel region and $1.48 < \abs{\eta} < 3.00$ in the two endcap regions, where pseudorapidity is defined as $\eta = -\ln[\tan(\theta/2)]$. Forward calorimetry extends the pseudorapidity coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionization detectors, providing a coverage of $\abs{\eta} < 2.4$, and are embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. The first level of the CMS trigger system [@Khachatryan:2016bia], composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select up to 100 of the most interesting events. The high-level trigger (HLT) processor farm uses information from all CMS subdetectors to further decrease the event rate to roughly 1 before data storage. A more detailed description of the CMS detector can be found in Ref. [@CMS_detector].
Simulated samples
=================
Samples of simulated events are used to estimate the background from SM processes containing prompt SS leptons originating from hard-scattering processes and to determine the heavy Majorana neutrino signal acceptance and selection efficiency. The backgrounds from SM sources are produced using the 2.2.2 or 2.3.3 Monte Carlo (MC) generator [@Alwall:2014hca] at leading order (LO) or next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD), with the exception of $\Pg\Pg\to\PZ\PZ$ which is simulated at LO with 7.0 [@Campbell:2010ff], and the diboson production processes ($\PW\PZ$ and $\PZ\PZ$) that are generated at NLO with the v2 [@Nason:2004rx; @Frixione:2007vw; @Alioli:2010xd; @Nason:2013ydw] generator.
The NNPDF3.0 [@Ball2015] LO (NLO) parton distribution function (PDF) sets are used for the simulated samples generated at LO (NLO). For all signal and background samples, showering and hadronization are described using the 8.212 [@Sjostrand:2014zea] generator, with the CUETP8M1 [@Khachatryan:2015pea] underlying event tune. The response of the CMS detector is modeled using [@Geant4]. Double counting of the partons generated with and is removed using the MLM [@Alwall:2007fs] and FxFx [@Frederix:2012ps] matching schemes in the LO and NLO samples, respectively.
The [$\mathrm{N}$]{}signals are generated using 2.6.0 at NLO precision, where the decay of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}is simulated with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MadSpin</span> [@Artoisenet2013], following the implementation of Refs. [@PhysRevD.94.053002; @Das:2016hof]. This includes the production of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}via the charged-current DY and VBF processes. For the charged-current DY production mechanism, we employ the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NNPDF31\_nnlo\_hessian\_pdfas</span> PDF set [@Ball2015], while to include the photon PDF in the VBF ($\PW\gamma$ fusion) mechanism we use the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">LUXqed17\_plus\_PDF4LHC15\_nnlo\_100</span> PDF set [@PhysRevLett.117.242002]. The NLO cross section, obtained using the generator at $\sqrt{s} = 13\TeV$, for the DY (VBF) process has a value of 58.3 (0.050) for ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 40\GeV$, dropping to 0.155 ($9.65 \times 10^{-4}$) for ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 100\GeV$, and to $9.92 \times 10^{-6}$ ($1.69 \times 10^{-5}$) for ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 1000\GeV$, assuming ${\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\ell {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}= 0.01$. The VBF process becomes the dominant production mode for scenarios where the mass of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}is greater than ${\approx}700\GeV$. Only the final states with two leptons (electrons or muons) and jets are generated.
Additional $\Pp\Pp$ collisions in the same or adjacent bunch crossings (pileup) are taken into account by superimposing minimum bias interactions simulated with on the hard-scattering process. The simulated events are weighted such that the distribution of the number of additional pileup interactions, estimated from the measured instantaneous luminosity for each bunch crossing, matches that in data. The simulated events are processed with the same reconstruction software as used for the data.
Event reconstruction and object identification
==============================================
The reconstructed vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^2$ is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex, where is the transverse momentum of the physics-objects. Here the physics objects are the jets, clustered using the jet finding algorithm [@antikt; @Cacciari:2011ma] with the tracks assigned to the vertex as inputs, and the associated missing transverse momentum, , which is defined as the magnitude of the vector sum of the momenta of all reconstructed particles in an event.
The global event reconstruction, based on the particle-flow algorithm [@Sirunyan:2017ulk], aims to reconstruct and identify each individual particle in an event, with an optimized combination of all subdetector information. In this process, the identification of the particle type (photon, electron, muon, charged hadron, neutral hadron) plays an important role in the determination of the particle direction and energy. Photons are identified as ECAL energy clusters not linked to the extrapolation of any charged-particle trajectory to the ECAL. Electrons are identified as primary charged-particle tracks and potentially many ECAL energy clusters corresponding to this track extrapolation to the ECAL and to possible bremsstrahlung photons emitted along the way through the tracker material. Muons are identified as tracks in the central tracker consistent with either a track or several hits in the muon system, associated with no significant associated energy deposits in the calorimeters. Charged hadrons are identified as charged-particle tracks neither identified as electrons, nor as muons. Finally, neutral hadrons are identified as HCAL energy clusters not linked to any charged-hadron trajectory, or as ECAL and HCAL energy excesses with respect to the expected charged-hadron energy deposit.
The energy of photons is directly obtained from the ECAL measurement, corrected for zero-suppression effects. The energy of electrons is determined from a combination of the track momentum at the primary interaction vertex, the corresponding ECAL cluster energy, and the energy sum of all bremsstrahlung photons attached to the track. The energy of muons is obtained from the corresponding track momentum. The energy of charged hadrons is determined from a combination of the track momentum and the corresponding ECAL and HCAL energy, corrected for zero-suppression effects and for the response function of the calorimeters to hadronic showers. Finally, the energy of neutral hadrons is obtained from the corresponding corrected ECAL and HCAL energies.
Lepton selection
----------------
Electron candidates are selected in the region $\abs{\eta} < 2.5$, excluding $1.44 < \abs{\eta} < 1.57$. Their identification that is based on a multivariate discriminant built from variables that characterize the shower shape and track quality. To reject electrons originating from photon conversions in the detector material, electrons must have no measurements missing in the innermost layers of the tracking system and must not be matched to any secondary vertex containing another electron [@Khachatryan:2015hwa]. To reduce the rate of the electron sign mismeasurement, charges measured from independent techniques are required to be the same, using the “selective method” for the charge definition as explained in Ref. [@Khachatryan:2015hwa], which we refer to as “tight charge”. Requiring the electrons to have tight charge reduces the signal efficiency by 1–20%, depending on [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}, while the background from mismeasured sign is reduced by a factor of 10. To ensure that electron candidates are consistent with originating from the primary vertex, the transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter of the leptons with respect to this vertex must not exceed 0.1 (0.4). These electrons must also satisfy $\abs{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}_{xy}}\xspace}}/\sigma({\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}_{xy}}\xspace}) < 4$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}_{xy}}\xspace}$ is the transverse impact parameter relative to the primary vertex, estimated from the track fit, and $\sigma({\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}_{xy}}\xspace})$ is its uncertainty.
Muons are selected in the range $\abs{\eta}< 2.4$. The muon trajectory is required to be compatible with the primary vertex, and to have a sufficient number of hits in the tracker and muon systems. The transverse (longitudinal) impact parameter of the muons with respect to this vertex must not exceed 0.05 (0.40). These muons must also satisfy $\abs{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}_{xy}}\xspace}}/\sigma({\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}_{xy}}\xspace}) < 3$.
To distinguish between prompt leptons (a prompt lepton is defined as an electron or muon originating in a $\PW$/$\PZ$/$\gamma^{*}$ boson or $\tau$ lepton decay) originating from decays of heavy particles, such as electroweak (EW) bosons or heavy neutrinos, and those produced in hadron decays or hadrons misidentified as leptons, a relative isolation variable ($I^{\ell}_{\text{rel}}$) is used. It is defined for electrons (muons) as the pileup-corrected [@Khachatryan:2015hwa; @cmsmuon] scalar $\pt$ sum of the reconstructed charged hadrons originating from the primary vertex, the neutral hadrons, and the photons, within a cone of $\Delta R = \sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^2 + (\Delta\phi)^2}} = 0.3\,(0.4)$ around the lepton candidate’s direction at the vertex, divided by the lepton candidate’s .
Electrons that pass all the aforementioned requirements and satisfy ${\ensuremath{I^{\Pe}_\text{rel}}\xspace}< 0.08$ are referred to as “tight electrons”. Electrons that satisfy ${\ensuremath{I^{\Pe}_\text{rel}}\xspace}< 0.4$, and pass less stringent requirements on the multivariate discriminant and impact parameter are referred to as “loose electrons”. Muons that pass all the aforementioned requirements and satisfy ${\ensuremath{I^{\mu}_\text{rel}}\xspace}< 0.07$ are referred to as “tight muons”. Muons that satisfy ${\ensuremath{I^{\mu}_\text{rel}}\xspace}< 0.6$, and pass a less stringent requirement on the impact parameter and track quality requirements are referred to as “loose muons”. Electrons within $\Delta R < 0.05$ of a muon are removed, as these particles are likely a photon radiated from the muon.
Identification of jets and missing transverse momentum
------------------------------------------------------
For each event, hadronic jets are clustered from the reconstructed particle-flow objects with the infrared and collinear safe anti-jet clustering algorithm [@antikt], implemented in the package [@Akhmedov:2013hec]. Two different distance parameters, $\mathrm{R} = 0.4$ and 0.8, are used with this algorithm, producing objects referred to as AK4 and AK8 jets, respectively. The jet momentum is determined as the vector sum of all particle momenta in the jet, and is found from simulation to be within 5 to 10% of the true parton momentum over the entire spectrum and detector acceptance. Additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions within the same or nearby bunch crossings can contribute additional tracks and calorimetric energy depositions to the jet momentum. To mitigate this effect, tracks identified to be originating from pileup vertices are discarded and an offset correction is applied to correct for remaining contributions. Jet energy corrections are derived from simulation to bring the measured response of jets to that of particle level jets on average. In situ measurements of the momentum balance in dijet, $\text{photon}\text{+jet}$, $\PZ\text{+}\text{jet}$, and multijet events are used to estimate residual differences in jet energy scale in data and simulation, and appropriate corrections are applied [@Khachatryan:2016kdb]. The jet energy resolution is typically 15% at 10, 8% at 100, and 4% at 1. Additional selection criteria are applied to remove jets potentially dominated by anomalous contributions from various subdetector components or reconstruction failures. The AK4 (AK8) jets must have $> 20$ (200)and $\abs{\eta} < 2.7$ to be considered in the subsequent steps of the analysis. To suppress jets matched to pileup vertices, AK4 jets must pass a selection based on the jet shape and the number of associated tracks that point to non-primary vertices [@CMS-PAS-JME-16-003].
The AK8 jets are groomed using a jet pruning algorithm [@PhysRevD.80.051501; @PhysRevD.81.094023]: subsequent to the clustering of AK8 jets, their constituents are reclustered with the Cambridge–Aachen algorithm [@Dokshitzer:1997in; @Wobisch:1998wt], where the reclustering sequence is modified to remove soft and wide-angle particles or groups of particles. This reclustering is controlled by a soft threshold parameter $z_{\text{cut}}$, which is set to 0.1, and an angular separation threshold $\Delta R > m_{\text{jet}}/ p_{\text{T},\text{jet}}$. The jet pruning algorithm computes the mass of the AK8 jet after removing the soft radiation to provide a better mass resolution for jets, thus improving the signal sensitivity. The pruned jet mass is defined as the invariant mass associated with the four-momentum of the pruned jet.
In addition to the jet grooming algorithm, the “$N$-subjettiness” of jets [@Thaler:2011gf] is used to identify boosted vector bosons that decay hadronically. This observable measures the distribution of jet constituents relative to candidate subjet axes in order to quantify how well the jet can be divided into $N$ subjets. Subjet axes are determined by a one-pass optimization procedure that minimizes $N$-subjettiness [@Thaler:2011gf]. The separation in the phi-azimuth plane between all of the jet constituents and their closest subjet axes are then used to compute the $N$-subjettiness as $\tau_N = 1/d_{0} \Sigma_k {\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T},k}}\xspace}\text{min}(\Delta R_{1,k}, \Delta R_{2,k}, ..., \Delta R_{N,k})$ with the normalization factor $d_{0}= \Sigma_{k} {\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{T},k}}\xspace}R_{0}$ where $R_{0}$ is the clustering parameter of the original jet, [$p_{\mathrm{T},k}$]{}is the transverse momentum of the $k$-constituent of the jet and $\Delta R_{N,k} =\sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta_{N,k})^2 + (\Delta\phi_{N,k})^2}}$ is its distance to the $N$-th subjet. In particular, the ratio between $\tau_2$ and $\tau_1$, known as [$\tau_{21}$]{}, has excellent capability for separating jets originating from boosted vector bosons from jets originating from quarks and gluons [@Thaler:2011gf]. To select a high-purity sample of jets originating from a hadronically decaying $\PW$ bosons, the AK8 jets are required to have ${\ensuremath{\tau_{21}}\xspace}< 0.6$ and a pruned jet mass between 40 and 130. We refer to these selected jets as $\PW$-tagged jets. The efficiency of the [$\tau_{21}$]{}selection for AK8 jets is measured in a -enriched sample in data and simulation. To correct for observed differences between the estimated and measured efficiencies a scale factor of $1.11\pm0.08$ is applied to the event for each AK8 jet that passes the [$\tau_{21}$]{}requirement in the simulation [@CMS-PAS-JME-16-003].
Identifying jets originating from a bottom quark can help suppress backgrounds from production. To identify such jets the combined secondary vertex algorithm [@BTV-16-002] is used. This algorithm assigns to each jet a likelihood that it contains a bottom hadron, using many discriminating variables, such as track impact parameters, the properties of reconstructed decay vertices, and the presence or absence of low-leptons. The average tagging efficiency for jets above 20is 63%, with an average misidentification probability for light-parton jets of about 1%.
To avoid double counting due to jets matched geometrically with a lepton, any AK8 jet that is within $\Delta R < 1.0$ of a loose lepton is removed from the event. Moreover, if an AK4 jet is reconstructed within $\Delta R < 0.4$ of a loose lepton or within $\Delta R < 0.8$ of an AK8 jet, it is not used in the analysis.
The is adjusted to account for the jet energy corrections applied to the event [@Khachatryan:2016kdb]. The scalar sum of all activity in the event ($S_{\mathrm{T}}$) is used in the selection of our signal region selection and is defined as the sum of all AK4 and AK8 jets, leptons, and . The transverse mass, [$m_\text{T}$]{}, which is used as a requirement to suppress backgrounds from leptonic $\PW$ boson decays, is defined as follows:
$${\ensuremath{m_\text{T}}\xspace}(\ell,\ptmiss)= \sqrt { \smash[b]{2 {\ensuremath{\pt^{\ell}}\xspace}\ptmiss [1 - \cos(\Delta \phi_{\ell,\ptvecmiss})]}} ,$$
where [$\pt^{\ell}$]{}is the transverse momentum of the lepton and $\Delta \phi_{\ell,\ptvecmiss}$ is the azimuthal angle difference between the lepton momentum and vector.
Event selection
===============
Events used in this search are selected using several triggers, requiring the presence of two charged leptons ($\Pe$ or $\mu$). All triggers require two loosely isolated leptons, where the leading- (trailing-)lepton must have $\pt>23\,(12)\GeV$ for the $\Pe\Pe$, $\pt>17\,(8)\GeV$ for the $\mu\mu$, and $\pt>23\,(8)\GeV$ for the $\Pe\mu$ trigger at the HLT stage. The offline requirements on the leading (trailing) lepton $\pt$ are governed by the trigger thresholds, and are $\pt > 25\,(15)\GeV$ for the $\Pe \Pe$, $\pt>20\,(10)\GeV$ for the $\mu\mu$, and $\pt>25\,(10)\GeV$ for the $\Pe \mu$ channels. The efficiency for signal events to satisfy the trigger in the $\Pe\Pe$, $\mu\mu$, and $\Pe\mu$ channels is above 0.88, 0.94, and 0.88, respectively.
Preselection criteria
---------------------
At a preselection stage, events are required to contain a pair of SS leptons. To remove backgrounds with soft misidentified leptons, the invariant mass of the dilepton pair is required to be above 10. Dielectron events with an invariant mass within 20of the $\PZ$ boson mass [@pdg] are excluded to reject background from $\PZ$ boson decays in which one electron sign is mismeasured. In order to suppress backgrounds from diboson production, such as [$\PW\PZ$]{}, events with a third lepton identified using a looser set of requirements and with $\pt > 10\GeV$ are removed. Preselected events are required to have at least one AK4 or one AK8 jet passing the full jet selection. The same preselection is applied in all three channels ($\Pe\Pe$, $\mu\mu$, $\Pe\mu$).
Selection criteria for signals
------------------------------
The kinematic properties of signal events from heavy-neutrino decays depend on its mass. To distinguish between the two $\PW$ bosons involved in the production and decay sequence, we refer to the $\PW$ boson that produces [$\mathrm{N}$]{}in Fig. \[fig:schanFD\] (left) as the $\PW$ boson propagator and the $\PW$ boson that decays to a quark and anti-quark pair as the hadronically decaying $\PW$ boson. Two search regions (SRs) are defined. In the low-mass SR (${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}\lesssim 80\GeV$), the $\PW$ boson propagator is on-shell and the final-state system of dileptons and two jets should have an invariant mass close to the $\PW$ boson mass. In the high-mass SR (${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}\gtrsim 80\GeV$), the $\PW$ boson propagator is off-shell but the hadronically decaying $\PW$ boson is on-shell, so the invariant mass of the jets from the hadronically decaying $\PW$ will be consistent with the $\PW$ boson mass.
Since the kinematic properties of the signal depend on [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}, we define four event categories to maximize the discovery potential over the full mass range. The low- and high-mass SRs are further split based on the jet configuration. The four signal categories used in the analysis are defined as:
- low- and high-mass SR1: number of AK4 jets $\geq$ 2 and number of AK8 jets = 0,
- low-mass SR2: number of AK4 jets = 1 and number of AK8 jets = 0,
- high-mass SR2: number of AK8 jets $\geq$ 1.
Taking the three flavor channels into account, the analysis has 12 separate SRs.
In each SR, the technique of selecting jets associated with the hadronic $\PW$ boson decay is different. If there are any $\PW$-tagged AK8 jets in the event, the AK8 jet with pruned jet mass closest to [$m_\mathrm{\PW}$]{}is assumed to be from the hadronic $\PW$ boson decay. For the high-mass SRs, if there are two or more AK4 jets in the event and no AK8 jets, the two AK4 jets with the invariant mass closest to [$m_\mathrm{\PW}$]{}are assigned to the hadronically decaying $\PW$ boson. In the low-mass SRs, the $\PW$ boson propagator is reconstructed from [$\mathrm{N}$]{}(one lepton + jet(s)) and the additional lepton, and if there are more than two jets, the jets are selected such that the mass is closest to [$m_\mathrm{\PW}$]{}. If only one jet is reconstructed in the low-mass SR then this is assigned as being from the hadronic $\PW$ boson decay. The jet(s) assigned to the hadronic $\PW$ boson decay are referred to by the symbol [$\PW_{\text{jet}}$]{}to simplify notation in the rest of the paper.
Before optimizing the signal significance for each mass hypothesis we apply a set of loose selections to the preselection events to select the low- and high-mass SRs. These requirements are chosen to remove a large fraction of the backgrounds while keeping the signal efficiency high. In the low-mass SRs, the invariant mass of the two leptons and [$\PW_{\text{jet}}$]{}is required to be less than 300. To remove backgrounds from leptonic $\PW$ boson decays, events must have less than 80. To remove backgrounds from top quark decays, events are vetoed if they contain a -tagged AK4 jet. In the high-mass SRs, the following selections are used. For SR1 the events are required to have $30 < m({\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}) < 150\GeV$ for the invariant mass of the [$\PW_{\text{jet}}$]{}and $\pt > 25\GeV$ for the leading AK4 jet. For SR2 the pruned jet mass must satisfy $40 < m({\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}) < 130\GeV$. Since the is correlated with the energy of the final-state objects, this requirement is not used in high-mass SRs. Instead, we use [$(\ptmiss)^2/S_{\mathrm T}$]{}, which has a stronger discriminating power between high-mass signals and backgrounds. The [$(\ptmiss)^2/S_{\mathrm T}$]{}must be less than 15. These selections are summarized in Table \[table:low\_highmass\].
\[table:low\_highmass\]
[cccccc]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& & [$(\ptmiss)^2/S_{\mathrm T}$]{}& $m(\ell^{\pm} \ell^{\pm} {\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace})$ & $m({\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace})$ & $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{j}}$\
& () & () & () & () & ()\
Low-mass SR1+SR2 & $<$80 & & $<$300 & & $>$20
\
High-mass SR1 & & $<$15 & & 30–150 & $>$25\
High-mass SR2 & & $<$15 & & 40–130 & $>$200\
### Optimization of signal selection
After applying the selection criteria in Table \[table:low\_highmass\], the signal significance is optimized by combining several different variables using a modified Punzi figure of merit [@punzi]. The Punzi figure of merit is defined as $\epsilon_{\mathrm{S}}/(a/2 + \delta B)$ where $a$ is the number of standard deviation, and is set equal to 2 to be consistent with the previous CMS analysis, $\epsilon_{\mathrm{S}}$ is the signal selection efficiency, and $\delta B$ is the uncertainty in the estimated background. The signal regions are optimized separately for each mass hypothesis and for each of the three flavor channels.
The variables used to optimize the signal selection, which are all optimized simultaneously, are: the transverse momentum of the leading lepton $\pt^{\ell_1}$, and of the trailing lepton $\pt^{\ell_2}$; the invariant mass of the two leptons and the selected jet(s) $m(\ell^{\pm} \ell^{\pm} {\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace})$; the angular separation between the ${\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace}$ and the trailing lepton $\Delta R(\ell_{2}, {\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace})$; minimum and maximum requirements on the invariant mass of the lepton (leading or trailing) and the selected jet(s) $m(\ell_{i} {\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace})$, where $i$=1,2; and the invariant mass of the two leptons $m(\ell^{\pm} \ell^{\pm})$. We consider the variable $m(\ell_{i} {\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace})$, as this should peak at [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}for the signal. Since it is not known which lepton comes from the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}decay, the event is accepted if either $m(\ell_{i} {\ensuremath{\PW_{\text{jet}}}\xspace})$ satisfies the requirements. The optimized window requirements for some SRs are enlarged to give complete coverage of the signal parameter space at negligible loss of sensitivity. The selection requirements for each mass hypothesis are summarized later in Section \[sec:results\], in Tables \[table:cutop\_Low\]–\[table:cutop\_High\_em\] for both low- and high-mass SRs. The overall signal acceptance ranges between 0.10–0.27% and 17–33% for ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 20$–1500, respectively. Here, the lower acceptance at low [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}is due to the selection requirements on the of the leptons and jets in a signal with very soft jets and leptons. The overall signal acceptance includes trigger efficiency, geometrical acceptance, and efficiencies of all selection criteria.
Background estimate
===================
The SM backgrounds leading to a final state with two SS leptons and jets are divided into the following categories:
- **SM processes with multiple prompt leptons:** These backgrounds are mainly from events with two vector bosons ($\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, $\PW\PZ$, $\PZ\PZ$). We also consider as background a $\PW$ or $\PZ$ boson decaying leptonically and is accompanied by radiation of an initial- or final-state photon that subsequently undergoes an asymmetric conversion. These processes produce a final state that can have three or four leptons. If one or more of the charged leptons fail the reconstruction or selection criteria these processes can appear to have only two SS leptons.
- **Misidentified leptons**: These are processes that contain one or more leptons that are either misidentified hadrons, are from heavy-flavor jets, from light meson decays, or from a photon in a jet. These leptons are generally less isolated than a prompt lepton from a $\PW/\PZ$ boson decay and tend to have larger impact parameters. The main processes with a misidentified lepton in the SRs include [$\PW$$\text{+jets}$]{}events and events, but multijet and DY events also contribute.
- **Sign mismeasurement**: If the signs of leptons are mismeasured in events with jets and two opposite-sign leptons (OS2$\ell$), these events could contaminate a search region. When the sign of a lepton is mismeasured the lepton will on average have a larger impact parameter in comparison to a lepton from a prompt EW boson decay. Although the rate of mismeasuring the sign of an electron is small, the abundance of OS2$\ell$ events from DY dilepton production means that this background is significant. It is suppressed by tight requirements on the impact parameter and on the charge of the electron. The muon sign mismeasurement rate is known to be negligible, based on studies in simulation and with cosmic ray muons [@muon_charge], and is not considered in this analysis.
Background from prompt SS leptons
---------------------------------
Background events that contain two prompt SS leptons are referred to as the prompt-lepton background. These backgrounds are estimated using simulation. To remove any double counting from the misidentified-lepton background estimate based on control samples in data, the leptons have to originate in the decay of either a $\PW/\PZ/\gamma^{*}$ boson, or a $\tau$ lepton. The largest contribution comes from [$\PW\PZ$]{}, [$\PZ\PZ$]{}, and asymmetric photon conversions, including those in $\PW\gamma$ and $\PZ\gamma$ events. The background from [$\PW\PZ$]{}and $\PW\gamma^{*}$ production, with $\PW \to \ell\nu$ and $\PZ (\gamma^{(*)}) \to \ell\ell$, can yield the same signature as [$\mathrm{N}$]{}production: two SS isolated leptons and jets, when one of the opposite-sign same-flavor (OSSF) leptons is not identified and QCD/pileup jets are reconstructed in the event. This is the largest prompt contribution in both the low- and high-mass SRs. This background is estimated from simulation, with the simulated yield normalized to the data in a control region (CR) formed by selecting three tight leptons with $\pt > 25, 15, 10\GeV$ and requiring an OSSF lepton pair with invariant mass $m(\ell^{\pm} \ell^{\mp})$ consistent with the $\PZ$ boson mass: $\abs{m(\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\mp}) - {\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{\PZ}}\xspace}} < 15\GeV$. In addition, events are required to have $\ptmiss> 50\GeV$ and ${\ensuremath{m_\text{T}}\xspace}(\ell_{\PW},\ptmiss) > 20\GeV$, where the $\ell_{\PW}$ is the lepton not used in the OSSF pair that is consistent with the $\PZ$ boson. The ratio of the predicted to observed $\PW\PZ$ background yield in this CR is found to be $1.051 \pm 0.065$. This factor and its associated uncertainty (both statistical and systematic) is used to normalize the corresponding simulated sample. The systematic uncertainty on this factor is determined by varying, in the simulation, the properties that are listed in Section \[lab:sim\_inc\], by $\pm1$ standard deviation from its central value.
Production of $\PZ\PZ$ events with both $\PZ$ bosons decaying leptonically, with two leptons not identified, results in a possible SS2$\ell$ signature. This process is estimated from simulation, and the simulated yield is normalized in a CR containing four leptons that form two OSSF lepton pairs with invariant masses consistent with that of the $\PZ$ boson. The ratio of data to simulation from the CR is found to be $0.979 \pm 0.079$, and is used to normalize the simulated $\PZ\PZ$ sample. A $\PZ$ boson -dependent EW correction to the cross section [@Bierweiler2013; @Gieseke:2014gka; @PhysRevD.88.113005] is not included in the simulated samples. It would correct the cross section by at most 25%, given the range of $\PZ$ boson probed in this analysis. Since this correction is larger than the uncertainty on the ratio of data to simulation in the CR, we increase the uncertainty on the normalization to 25%.
External and internal photon conversions can produce an SS2$\ell$ final state when a photon is produced with a $\PW$ or $\PZ$ boson, and this photon undergoes an asymmetric external or internal conversion ($\gamma^{(*)} \to \ell^{+}\ell^{-}$) in which one of the leptons has very low and fails the lepton selection criteria. This background mostly contributes to events in the $\Pe \Pe$ and $\Pe \mu$ channels. It is obtained from simulation and verified in a data CR enriched in both external and internal conversions from the [$\PZ\text{+}\text{jets}$]{}process, with $\PZ \to \ell \ell \gamma^{(*)}$ and $\gamma^{(*)} \to \ell \ell$, where one of the leptons is outside the detector acceptance. The CR is defined by $\abs{m(\ell^{\pm} \ell^{\mp}) - {\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{\PZ}}\xspace}} > 15\GeV$ and $\abs{m(\ell^{\pm}\ell^{\mp}\ell^{\pm}) - {\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{\PZ}}\xspace}} < 15\GeV$. The ratio of data to expected background in the CR is $1.093 \pm 0.075$, and this ratio is used to normalize the MC simulation.
Other rare SM processes that can yield two SS leptons include events from EW production of SS $\PW$ pairs, and double parton scattering, while any SM process that yields three or more prompt leptons produces SS2$\ell$ final states if one or more of the leptons fails to pass the selection. Processes in the SM that can yield three or more prompt leptons include triboson processes and production associated with a boson ([$\ttbar\PW$]{}, [$\ttbar\PZ$]{}, and [$\ttbar\PH$]{}). Such processes generally have very small production rates (less than 10% of total background after the preselection) and in some cases are further suppressed by the veto on -tagged jets and requirements on . They are estimated from simulation and assigned a conservative uncertainty of 50%, which accounts for the uncertainties due to experimental effects, event simulation, and theoretical calculations of the cross sections.
Background from misidentified leptons
-------------------------------------
The most important background source for low-mass signals originates from events containing objects misidentified as prompt leptons. These originate from hadron decays, light-quark or gluon jets, and are typically not well isolated. Examples of these backgrounds include: multijet production, in which one or more jets are misidentified as leptons; $\PW (\to \ell\nu)$+jets events, in which one of the jets is misidentified as a lepton; and decays, in which one of the top quark decays yields a prompt isolated lepton $(\cPqt \to \PW\cPqb \to \ell\nu \cPqb)$ and the other lepton of same sign arises from a bottom quark decay or a jet misidentified as an isolated prompt lepton. The simulation is not reliable in estimating the misidentified-lepton background for several reasons, including the lack of statistically large samples (because of the small probability of a jet to be misidentified as a lepton) and inadequate Modeling of the parton showering process. Therefore, these backgrounds are estimated using control samples of collision data.
An independent data sample enriched in multijet events (the “measurement” sample) is used to calculate the probability misidentifying a jet that passes minimal lepton selection requirements (“loose leptons”) to also pass the more stringent requirements used to define leptons after the full selection (“tight leptons”). The misidentification probability is applied as an event-by-event weight to the application sample. The application sample contains events in which one lepton passes the tight selection, while the other lepton fails the tight selection but passes the loose selection ($N_{n\overline{n}}$), as well as events in which both leptons fail the tight selection, but pass the loose criteria ($N_{\overline{n}\,\overline{n}}$). The total contribution to the signal regions (, the number of events with both leptons passing the tight selection, $N_{nn}$), is then obtained for each mass hypothesis by weighting events of type $n\overline{n}$ and $\overline{n}\,\overline{n}$ by the appropriate misidentification probability factors and applying the signal selection requirements to the application sample. To account for the double counting we correct for $\overline{n}\,\overline{n}$ events that can also be $n\overline{n}$.
The measurement sample is selected by requiring a loose lepton and a jet, resulting in events that are mostly dijet events, with one jet containing a lepton. Only one lepton is allowed and requirements of $\ptmiss < 80\GeV$, and ${\ensuremath{m_\text{T}}\xspace}(\ell,\ptmiss) < 25\GeV$ are applied. The loose lepton and jet are required to be separated in azimuth by $\Delta \phi > 2.5$ and the momentum of the jet is required to be greater than the momentum of the lepton. These requirements suppress contamination from $\PW$ and $\PZ$ boson decays. Contamination of prompt leptons in the measurement sample from EW processes is estimated and subtracted using simulation. The normalization of the prompt lepton simulation is validated in a data sample enriched in [$\PW$$\text{+jets}$]{}events by requiring events with a single lepton, $\ptmiss > 40\GeV$, and $60 < {\ensuremath{m_\text{T}}\xspace}(\ell,\ptmiss)< 100\GeV$. The minimum uncertainty that covers the discrepancy between the data and simulation in single-lepton [$\PW$$\text{+jets}$]{}events (across all $\eta$ and $\pt$ bins considered in the analysis) is 30 (13)% for electrons (muons) and is assigned as the uncertainty in the prompt lepton normalization. The larger uncertainty for prompt electron events is to allow for the disagreement between data and simulation in single-electron [$\PW$$\text{+jets}$]{}events for high-electrons.
The method is validated using a sample of simulated , [$\PW$$\text{+jets}$]{}, and DY events. The misidentification probabilities used in this validation are obtained from simulated events comprised of jets produced via the strong interaction, referred to as QCD multijet events. The predicted and observed numbers of events in the $\Pe\Pe$, $\mu\mu$, and $\Pe\mu$ channels agree within 10% for the [$\PW$$\text{+jets}$]{}and DY samples, and within 25% for samples. The latter figure is reduced to 18% after rejecting events with a -tagged jet.
Background from opposite-sign leptons {#lab_OS}
-------------------------------------
To estimate backgrounds due to sign mismeasurement, the probability of mismeasuring the lepton sign is studied. Only mismeasurement of the electron sign is considered, and this background is estimated only in the $\Pe \Pe$ channel. The probability of mismeasuring the sign of a prompt electron is obtained from simulated $\PZ \to \Pe^{\pm} \Pe^{\mp}$ events and is parametrized as a function of separately for electrons in the barrel and endcap calorimeters. The average value and statistical uncertainty for the sign mismeasurement probabilities are found to be $(1.65 \pm 0.12) \times 10^{-5}$ in the inner ECAL barrel region ($\abs{\eta} < 0.8$), $(1.07\pm 0.03) \times 10^{-4}$ in the outer ECAL barrel region ($0.8 < \abs{\eta} < 1.5$), and $(0.63 \pm 0.01) \times 10^{-3}$ in the endcap region. The sign mismeasurement probabilities are then validated with data separately for the barrel and endcap regions.
To estimate the background due to sign mismeasurement in the $\Pe \Pe$ channel, a weight $W_{p}$ is applied to data events with all the SR selections applied, except that here the leptons are required to be oppositely signed (OS2$\ell$ events). $W_{p}$ is given by $W_{p} = p_1 /(1-p_1) + p_2 /(1-p_2)$, where $p_{1(2)}$ is the probability for the leading (trailing) electron sign to be mismeasured and is determined from simulated events. The of leptons with a mismeasured sign will be misreconstructed. To correct for the misreconstructed measurement in the OS2$\ell$ events the lepton is shifted up by 1.8%, which is determined from simulation.
To validate the sign mismeasurement probability for the barrel (endcap) region, a control sample of $\PZ \to \Pe^{\pm} \Pe^{\mp}$ events in the data is selected, requiring both electrons to pass through the barrel (endcap) region and demanding the invariant mass of the electron pair to be between 76 and 106. The difference between the observed and predicted numbers of $\Pe^{\pm}\Pe^{\pm}$ events is used as a scale factor to account for the modeling in the simulation. The observed number of events in the data is determined by fitting the $\PZ$ boson mass peak. The predicted number of events is determined by weighting the OS2$\ell$ events with the value $W_{p}$. The scale factors and their associated statistical uncertainties in the barrel and endcap regions are found to be $0.80 \pm 0.03$ and $0.87 \pm 0.03$, respectively.
To validate the combined sign mismeasurement probability and scale factors in the data, a control sample of $\PZ \to \Pe^{\pm} \Pe^{\mp}$ events is again selected, as described above, but here requiring that one electron is found in the endcap and the other, in the barrel region. The difference in the predicted and observed numbers of $\Pe^{\pm}\Pe^{\pm}$ events in this sample is 12%. The same procedure was performed using $\PZ \to \Pe^{\pm} \Pe^{\mp}$ events in the data but requiring no $\eta$ restrictions on the electrons and requiring that the event has only one jet, yielding an agreement within 10% between the predicted background and the data.
Prompt leptons and backgrounds from sign mismeasurement can contaminate the application sample of the misidentified-lepton background, resulting in an overprediction of this background. This contamination is removed using simulation. The contamination from the prompt-lepton background is generally less than 1%. However, for the backgrounds from leptons with sign mismeasurement or leptons from photon conversions, the contamination can be as large as 2% in the signal region and up to 30% in CR2, that is enriched in backgrounds with mismeasured lepton sign.
Validation of background estimates
----------------------------------
To test the validity of the background estimation methods, several signal-free data CRs are defined. The background estimation method is applied in these regions and the results are compared with the observed yields. These CRs are used to validate the backgrounds separately in each of the three flavor channels and are defined as follows:
- CR1: (SS2$\ell$), at least one -tagged AK4 jet,
- CR2: (SS2$\ell$), $\Delta R(\ell_{1},\ell_{2}) > 2.5$ and no -tagged AK4 jet,
- CR3: (SS2$\ell$), low-mass SR1 and either $\geq$ 1 -tagged jet or $\ptmiss > 100\GeV$,
- CR4: (SS2$\ell$), low-mass SR2 and either $\geq$ 1 -tagged jet or $\ptmiss > 100\GeV$,
- CR5: (SS2$\ell$), high-mass SR1 and either $\geq$ 1 -tagged jet or ${\ensuremath{(\ptmiss)^2/S_{\mathrm T}}\xspace}> 20\GeV$,
- CR6: (SS2$\ell$), high-mass SR2 and either $\geq$ 1 -tagged jet or ${\ensuremath{(\ptmiss)^2/S_{\mathrm T}}\xspace}> 20\GeV$.
The numbers of predicted and observed background events in each CR are shown in Table \[tab:bkg\_val\]. In the control regions CR1 and CR2, the backgrounds estimated from data are dominant and validated in events both with and without -tagged jets, while in the remaining CRs all backgrounds are validated in regions that are close to the SRs (the misidentified-lepton background accounts for about 90% of the total background in CR1 and CR2 and about 50% across the remaining CRs). The contribution from signal events is found to be negligible in all control regions, with signal accounting for less than 1% of the yields in most CRs and at most 5%, when assuming a coupling consistent with the upper limits from previous results. In all regions the predictions are in agreement with the observations within the statistical and systematic uncertainties described in Section \[sec:syst\], which is dominated by the 30% uncertainty in the misidentified-lepton background. Within each region, the observed distributions of all relevant observables also agree with the predictions, within the uncertainties
Channel Control region Estimated background Observed
--------- ---------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------
CR1 $\phantom{0.0}366 \pm 73\phantom{0.0}$ 378
CR2 $\phantom{0.0}690 \pm 100\phantom{.0}$ 671
CR3 $\phantom{0.0}222 \pm 42\phantom{0.0}$ 242
CR4 $\phantom{00.0}48 \pm 11\phantom{0.0}$ 38
CR5 $\phantom{0.0}334 \pm 56\phantom{0.0}$ 347
CR6 $\phantom{00}25.7 \pm 4.3\phantom{00}$ 28
\[\] CR1 $\phantom{0.0}880 \pm 230\phantom{.0}$ 925
CR2 $\phantom{0.0}890 \pm 200\phantom{.0}$ 1013
CR3 $\phantom{0.0}420 \pm 100\phantom{.0}$ 439
CR4 $\phantom{0.0}156 \pm 42\phantom{0.0}$ 174
CR5 $\phantom{0.0}560 \pm 120\phantom{.0}$ 568
CR6 $\phantom{00}35.1 \pm 7.0\phantom{00}$ 38
\[\] CR1 $\phantom{.0}1010 \pm 240\phantom{.0}$ 1106
CR2 $\phantom{.0}1350 \pm 230\phantom{.0}$ 1403
CR3 $\phantom{0.0}650 \pm 140\phantom{.0}$ 706
CR4 $\phantom{0.0}143 \pm 32\phantom{0.0}$ 150
CR5 $\phantom{0.0}920 \pm 180\phantom{.0}$ 988
CR6 $\phantom{00.0}62 \pm 11\phantom{0.0}$ 64
\[tab:bkg\_val\]
Systematic uncertainties {#sec:syst}
========================
The estimate of backgrounds and signal efficiencies are subject to a number of systematic uncertainties. The relative sizes of these uncertainties for each type of background and signal, in each SR, are listed in Table \[tab:sys\]. Table \[tab:sys\_rel\] shows the contributions from the uncertainty in the signal and backgrounds (for two mass hypotheses, ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 50$ and 500), expressed as a percentage of the total uncertainty.
\[tab:sys\]
--------- -------------------- --------------- ---------------------- ------------------
Channel [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{} Prompt-lepton Misidentified-lepton Mismeasured-sign
() (%) (%) (%)
50 53 (49) 43 (46) 4.5 (4.9)
500 60 (75) 3.6 (4.6) 37 (21)
\[\] 50 38 (42) 62 (58)
500 100 (100) 0.0 (0.0)
\[\] 50 52 (45) 48 (55)
500 99 (100) 1.3 (0.0)
--------- -------------------- --------------- ---------------------- ------------------
\[tab:sys\_rel\]
Background uncertainties
------------------------
The main sources of systematic uncertainties are associated with the background estimates. The largest uncertainty is that related to the misidentified-lepton background. The systematic uncertainty in this background is determined by observing the change in the background estimate with respect to variations in isolation requirement (and several other selection criteria) for the loose leptons, modifying the requirement for the away-side jet (the jet that is required to be back-to-back with the lepton in the measurement region). In addition, uncertainties in the jet flavor dependence of the misidentification probability, and in the prompt-lepton contamination in the measurement region are taken into account By combining these sources, a systematic uncertainty of 8.9–20% is assigned. This uncertainty depends on the lepton flavor and the SR. The validity of the prediction of the misidentified lepton background was checked by estimating this background using simulated events alone. The results disagreed with those obtained from the various CRs by up to 30%, and this value is assigned as the systematic uncertainty in this background estimate.
The systematic uncertainties in the mismeasured electron sign background are determined by combining weighted average of the uncertainties in barrel/endcap scale factors from background fits, and the uncertainty on the parameterized sign mismeasurement probabilities. To evaluate the uncertainties in the sign mismeasurement probability scale factors, we vary the range and the number of bins used in the fitting of the data, as well as the requirement on the subleading lepton , and, when combining all these sources, we assign a systematic uncertainty in the scale factors of 9%. The uncertainty in the sign mismeasurement probability arising from the choice of parameterization variables was estimated by considering alternative variables such as [$(\ptmiss)^2/S_{\mathrm T}$]{}and . A variation of up to 11% was observed. The background estimate method was tested using only simulation, in which OS2$\ell$ events were weighted using the sign mismeasurement probabilities with no scale factors applied. The predicted and observed number of events in simulation disagree by up to 7%, and this value is assigned as another source of systematic uncertainty in estimating the sign mismeasurement background. The three sources discussed above are combined to give a systematic uncertainty of 16% on this background. This uncertainty covers the difference between the predicted and observed numbers of events in both data samples enriched in backgrounds with mismeasured electrons as discussed in Section \[lab\_OS\].
The simulated sample used to measure the sign mismeasurement probabilities has low statistics for events with electron above 100. When combined with the uncertainty related to the low statistics of simulated electrons in bins with high electron , for backgrounds from mismeasured electron sign, an overall systematic uncertainty of 29–88% is assigned, depending on electron $\eta$ and . The large uncertainty in this background applies only to the cases where the SR has two high-electrons. The effect on the total systematic uncertainty in the background is at most 5%.
Simulation uncertainties {#lab:sim_inc}
------------------------
The systematic uncertainties in the normalization of the irreducible SM diboson backgrounds are taken from the data CR used to normalize the backgrounds. The assigned uncertainties are 6% for $\PW\PZ$, 25% for $\PZ\PZ$ and 8% for $\PZ\gamma$ and $\PW\gamma$ backgrounds. Since other SM processes that can yield two SS leptons, including triboson, [$\ttbar\mathrm{V}$]{}, and $\PW^{\pm}\PW^{\pm}$, have small background yields in the SR, we assign a conservative uncertainty of 50%, which includes the uncertainties due to experimental effects, event simulation, and theoretical calculations of the cross sections. The overall systematic uncertainty in the prompt-lepton background, including the contributions discussed below, is 12–18% for the low-mass selection and 16–43% for the high-mass selection, depending on the lepton channel. To evaluate the uncertainty due to imperfect knowledge of the integrated luminosity [@CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001], jet energy/mass scale, jet energy/mass resolution [@Khachatryan:2016kdb], tagging [@BTV-16-002], lepton trigger and selection efficiency, as well as the uncertainty in the total inelastic cross section used in the pileup reweighting procedure in simulation, the input value of each parameter is changed by $\pm1$ standard deviation from its central value. Energy not clustered in the detector affects the overall scale, resulting in an uncertainty in the event yield due to the upper threshold on . The theory uncertainties in the acceptance of the signal events are determined by varying the renormalization and factorization scales up and down by a factor of two relative to their nominal values, and following the PDF4LHC recommendations [@Butterworth:2015oua] to estimate the uncertainty due to the choice of the PDF set. The uncertainty related to the PDF choice in the background estimates was evaluated, and an upper limit on the uncertainty was added to Table \[tab:sys\], although this uncertainty was not applied explicitly in the results but considered to be accounted for via the normalization uncertainty taken from the normalization control regions.
Results and discussion {#sec:results}
======================
The data yields and background estimates after the application of the low- and high-mass SR selections are shown in Table \[table:result\_SR\]. The predicted backgrounds contributed by events with prompt SS leptons, leptons with mismeasured sign, and misidentified leptons are shown along with the total background estimate and the number of events observed in data. The uncertainties shown are the statistical and systematic components, respectively. The data yields are in good agreement with the estimated backgrounds. Kinematic distributions also show good agreement between data and SM expectations. Figures \[fig:lowmass\_SR\]–\[fig:highmass\_SR\] show for illustration: the invariant mass of the two leptons (of the leading lepton and the selected jets); the invariant mass of the trailing lepton and the selected jets; and the invariant mass of the two leptons and the selected jets for low- (high-)mass SRs. In Fig. \[fig:lowmass\_SR\], the $m(\ell^{\pm} \ell^{\pm} \mathrm{jj})$ signal distribution peaks somewhat below [$m_\mathrm{\PW}$]{}, because of the selection requirements imposed.
\[table:result\_SR\]
![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the two leptons (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the low-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:lowmass_SR"}](Figure_002-a.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the two leptons (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the low-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:lowmass_SR"}](Figure_002-b.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the two leptons (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the low-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:lowmass_SR"}](Figure_002-c.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the two leptons (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the low-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:lowmass_SR"}](Figure_002-d.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the two leptons (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the low-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:lowmass_SR"}](Figure_002-e.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the two leptons (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the low-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:lowmass_SR"}](Figure_002-f.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the leading lepton and jets (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the high-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:highmass_SR"}](Figure_003-a.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the leading lepton and jets (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the high-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:highmass_SR"}](Figure_003-b.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the leading lepton and jets (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the high-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:highmass_SR"}](Figure_003-c.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the leading lepton and jets (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the high-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:highmass_SR"}](Figure_003-d.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the leading lepton and jets (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the high-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:highmass_SR"}](Figure_003-e.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ Observed distributions of the invariant mass of the leading lepton and jets (upper), invariant mass of the subleading lepton and jets (middle), and the invariant mass of the reconstructed $\PW$ propagator (lower), compared to the expected SM background contributions, for the high-mass SR1 (left) and SR2 (right), after combining the events in the $\Pe \Pe$, $\mu \mu$, and $\Pe \mu$ channels. The hatched bands represent the sums in quadrature of the statistical and systematic uncertainties. The solid and dashed lines show the kinematic distributions of two possible signal hypothesis. The lower panels show the ratio between the observed and expected events in each bin, including the uncertainty bands that represent the statistical (cyan) and total uncertainties (orange). []{data-label="fig:highmass_SR"}](Figure_003-f.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
The expected signal depends on both [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}and the mixing matrix elements [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, or [$\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})$]{}, and the values are summarized in Table \[table:signalyields\] for a few mass points. Tables \[table:cutop\_Low\]–\[table:cutop\_High\_em\] show the optimized selections applied on top of the low- and high-mass SRs requirements for each mass hypothesis. These tables also present the observed event counts in data and the expected background for each signal mass hypothesis. The data are generally consistent with the predicted backgrounds in all three flavor channels. The largest deviation observed is in the $\mu\mu$ channel of SR1, at a signal mass of 600, and has a local significance of 2.3 standard deviations. The corresponding point of SR2 does not show a matching fluctuation.
\[table:signalyields\]
-------------------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ -----
[$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}
() SR1 SR2 SR1 SR2 SR1 SR2
50 15 21 28 76 14 26
200 5.5 0.74 9.7 1.9 7.0 1.1
1000 0.43 4.0 0.80 7.5 0.57 4.5
-------------------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ -----
Exclusion limits at 95% confidence level () are set on the heavy Majorana neutrino mixing matrix elements as a function of [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}. The limits are obtained using criterion [@cls2; @cls] based on the event yields in Tables \[table:cutop\_Low\]–\[table:cutop\_High\_em\]. Log-normal distributions are used for both the signal and nuisance parameters. The combined limits from SR1 and SR2, on the absolute values of the matrix elements [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, and [$\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})$]{}are shown in Figs. \[fig:limit\_ElElMuMu\]–\[fig:limit\_MuEl\], also as a function of [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}. We assume the systematic uncertainties in SR1 and SR2 to be fully correlated when calculating these limits. The limits are calculated separately for each of the three channels. For an [$\mathrm{N}$]{}mass of 40the observed (expected) limits are $\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^{2} < 9.5\,(8.0) \times 10^{-5}$, $\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^{2} < 2.3\,(1.9) \times 10^{-5}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})}\xspace}< 2.7\,(2.7) \times 10^{-5}$, and for an [$\mathrm{N}$]{}mass of 1000the limits are $\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^{2} < 0.42\,(0.32)$, $\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^{2} < 0.27\,(0.16)$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})}\xspace}< 0.14\,(0.14)$.
The mass range below ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 20\GeV$ is not considered because of the very low selection efficiency in this region. Furthermore, since the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}lifetime is inversely proportional to ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}^5 {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\ell {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}$, for ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}< 20\GeV$ it becomes significant and results in displaced decays. Thus the prompt lepton requirement is not satisfied. The behavior of the limits around ${\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{N}}\xspace}= 80\GeV$ is caused by the fact that as the mass of the heavy Majorana neutrino approaches the $\PW$ boson mass, the lepton produced together with the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}or the lepton from the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}decay has very low .
The present search at 13extends the previous CMS SS2$\ell$ plus jets searches at 8 [@CMS_NR_mu_2012; @CMS_NR_emu_2012] to both higher [$\mathrm{N}$]{}masses as well as lower masses. In those earlier searches, two AK4 jets were required in the low- and high-mass SRs, while in the present analysis at $\sqrt{s} = 13\TeV$, the search has been extended in the low-mass SR to include events with exactly one AK4 jet, and in the high-mass SR to include events with at least one AK8 jet. As seen in Figs. \[fig:limit\_ElElMuMu\]–\[fig:limit\_MuEl\], the exclusion limits for the mixing matrix elements are extended both for low and high [$\mathrm{N}$]{}mass, and now cover [$\mathrm{N}$]{}masses from 20 to 1600. In the range previously studied, the present limits significantly improve over the previous results except in the region from 60–80, where they are equivalent. The 13data were taken at higher collision rates and thus with higher trigger thresholds and pileup rates, which impacted the sensitivity of the search in the low-mass region. This region is covered with high efficiency by a recent search in trilepton channels [@Sirunyan:2018mtv].
Figs. \[fig:limit\_ElElMuMu\] shows the exclusion limits for [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}and [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}overlaid with the 13CMS limits from the trilepton channel [@Sirunyan:2018mtv]. For low-mass signals the trilepton analysis is more sensitive, since it has both fewer backgrounds from misidentified leptons and higher signal efficiency. However for high-mass signals the signal efficiencies are compatible, and with the inclusion of the signal region using AK8 jets, and the larger signal cross section in the dilepton channel this analysis has more stringent limits for masses of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}above 100.
\[table:cutop\_Low\]
\[table:cutop\_High\_ee\]
\[table:cutop\_High\_mm\]
\[table:cutop\_High\_em\]
![ Exclusion region at 95% in the [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}(upper) and [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}(lower) vs. [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}plane. The dashed black curve is the expected upper limit, with one and two standard-deviation bands shown in green and yellow, respectively. The solid black curve is the observed upper limit. The brown line shows constraints from EWPD [@2013EPJWC..6019008D]. Also shown are the upper limits from other direct searches: DELPHI [@delphi], L3 [@l3; @l3_2001], ATLAS [@ATLAS_NR_2012], and the upper limits from the CMS $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$ 2012 data [@CMS_NR_emu_2012] and the trilepton analysis [@Sirunyan:2018mtv] based on the same 2016 data set as used in this analysis.[]{data-label="fig:limit_ElElMuMu"}](Figure_004-a.pdf "fig:"){width="0.6\linewidth"} ![ Exclusion region at 95% in the [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}(upper) and [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}(lower) vs. [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}plane. The dashed black curve is the expected upper limit, with one and two standard-deviation bands shown in green and yellow, respectively. The solid black curve is the observed upper limit. The brown line shows constraints from EWPD [@2013EPJWC..6019008D]. Also shown are the upper limits from other direct searches: DELPHI [@delphi], L3 [@l3; @l3_2001], ATLAS [@ATLAS_NR_2012], and the upper limits from the CMS $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$ 2012 data [@CMS_NR_emu_2012] and the trilepton analysis [@Sirunyan:2018mtv] based on the same 2016 data set as used in this analysis.[]{data-label="fig:limit_ElElMuMu"}](Figure_004-b.pdf "fig:"){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![ Exclusion region at 95% in the [$\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})$]{}vs. [$m_\mathrm{N}$]{}plane. The dashed black curve is the expected upper limit, with one and two standard-deviation bands shown in green and yellow, respectively. The solid black curve is the observed upper limit. Also shown are the upper limits from the CMS $\sqrt{s} = 8\TeV$ 2012 data [@CMS_NR_emu_2012]. []{data-label="fig:limit_MuEl"}](Figure_005.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
Summary
=======
A search for heavy Majorana neutrinos, [$\mathrm{N}$]{}, in final states with same-sign dileptons and jets has been performed in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13, using a data set corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. No significant excess of events compared to the expected standard model background prediction is observed. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on the mixing matrix element between standard model neutrinos and [$\mathrm{N}$]{}($\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\ell {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}$) in the context of a [Type-I]{}seesaw model, as a function of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}mass. The analysis improves on previous 8searches by including single-jet events into the signal region, which increases sensitivities. For an [$\mathrm{N}$]{}mass of 40the observed (expected) limits are ${\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}< 9.5\,(8.0) \times 10^{-5}$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}< 2.3\,(1.9) \times 10^{-5}$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})}\xspace}< 2.7\,(2.7) \times 10^{-5}$, and for an [$\mathrm{N}$]{}mass of 1000the limits are ${\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}< 0.42\,(0.32)$, ${\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}< 0.27\,(0.16)$, and ${\ensuremath{\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})}\xspace}< 0.14\,(0.14)$. The search is sensitive to masses of [$\mathrm{N}$]{}from 20 to 1600. The limits on the mixing matrix elements are placed up to 1240for [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, 1430for the [$\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2$]{}, and 1600for [$\abs{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}} V^{*}_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}^2 / ( {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\Pe {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace}+ {\ensuremath{\abs{{\ensuremath{V_{\mu {\ensuremath{\mathrm{N}}\xspace}}}\xspace}}^2}\xspace})$]{}. These are the most restrictive direct limits on the [$\mathrm{N}$]{}mixing parameters for heavy Majorana neutrino masses greater than 430, and are the first for masses greater than 1200.
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy and the Austrian Science Fund; the Belgian Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, and Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek; the Brazilian Funding Agencies (CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP); the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science; CERN; the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Science and Technology, and National Natural Science Foundation of China; the Colombian Funding Agency (COLCIENCIAS); the Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport, and the Croatian Science Foundation; the Research Promotion Foundation, Cyprus; the Secretariat for Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation, Ecuador; the Ministry of Education and Research, Estonian Research Council via IUT23-4 and IUT23-6 and European Regional Development Fund, Estonia; the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, and Helsinki Institute of Physics; the Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules / CNRS, and Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives / CEA, France; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft Deutscher Forschungszentren, Germany; the General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece; the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, Hungary; the Department of Atomic Energy and the Department of Science and Technology, India; the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Iran; the Science Foundation, Ireland; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, and National Research Foundation (NRF), Republic of Korea; the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; the Ministry of Education, and University of Malaya (Malaysia); the Ministry of Science of Montenegro; the Mexican Funding Agencies (BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI); the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand; the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission; the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Science Center, Poland; the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal; JINR, Dubna; the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the Federal Agency of Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the National Research Center “Kurchatov Institute"; the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Serbia; the Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Plan Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica y de Innovación 2013-2016, Plan de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2013-2017 del Principado de Asturias, and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Spain; the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research, Sri Lanka; the Swiss Funding Agencies (ETH Board, ETH Zurich, PSI, SNF, UniZH, Canton Zurich, and SER); the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei; the Thailand Center of Excellence in Physics, the Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology of Thailand, Special Task Force for Activating Research and the National Science and Technology Development Agency of Thailand; the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, and Turkish Atomic Energy Authority; the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, and State Fund for Fundamental Researches, Ukraine; the Science and Technology Facilities Council, UK; the US Department of Energy, and the US National Science Foundation.
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract No. 675440 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A. P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science - EOS" - be.h project n. 30820817; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület (“Momentum") Program and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850 and 125105 (Hungary); the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Programa de Excelencia María de Maeztu, and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF, and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University, and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We generalize the concept of combinatorial nested set complexes to posets and exhibit the topological relationship between the arising nested set complexes and the order complex of the underlying poset. In particular, a sufficient condition is given so that this relationship is actually a subdivision.
We use the results to generalize the proof method of Čukić and Delucchi, so far restricted to semilattices, for a result of Björner, Paffenholz, Sjöstrand and Ziegler on the Bier construction on posets.
address: 'Fachbereich Mathematik, Universität Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany'
author:
- Juliane Lehmann
date: September 2007
title: Nested set complexes for posets and the Bier construction
---
Introduction
============
*Nested set complexes* for semilattices were introduced by Feichtner and Kozlov in their paper [@FK04] as a unifying framework for the study of De Concini-Procesi models of subspace arrangements and the resolution of singularities in toric varieties. Feichtner and Müller considered the topology of those complexes ([@FM]), in particular they prove that the nested set complex of any building set of a semilattice is homotopy equivalent to the order complex of the semilattice without its minimal element. These results found applications in the study of complexes of trees ([@Fei05]) and $k$-trees ([@D]).
The *Bier construction* was originally introduced by Thomas Bier in 1992 ([@Bie92]) as a construction on abstract simplicial complexes; more precisely, given an abstract simplicial complex $\mathcal{A}$, the deleted join of $\mathcal{A}$ with the combinatorial Alexander dual of $\mathcal{A}$ is another complex, the Bier sphere of $\mathcal{A}$. A short proof that this construction actually results in a sphere was given by De Longueville ([@Lon]). In 2004, Björner, Paffenholz, Sjöstrand and Ziegler ([@BPSZ05]) reinterpreted the construction in order-theoretic terms, by viewing an abstract simplicial complex as an ideal in a Boolean lattice. Then the corresponding Bier poset can be obtained as a subposet of the interval poset of the Boolean lattice; that is, the poset consisting of only those intervals that cross the ideal. This lends itself to immediate generalization, by considering arbitrary bounded posets instead of a Boolean lattice. It turned out that even in this general case the order complex of the Bier poset is a subdivision of the order complex of the original poset. The complexes that occur as intermediate steps of the subdivision are in general not order complexes, as remarked in [@BPSZ05].
Another view on the subject was taken by Čukić and Delucchi, who in [@CD07] employed the theory of nested set complexes as a framework for the study of the Bier construction. They found a new proof for the result of Björner et al. for semilattices, exhibiting the intermediate complexes as nested set complexes.
In this paper, we generalize the concept of nested sets to posets and exhibit the topological relationship between the arising nested set complexes and the order complex of the underlying poset. A sufficient condition is given so that this relationship is actually a subdivision. Using these results, we generalize the proof method of Čukić and Delucchi to posets and obtain a new proof for the result of Björner et al. in full generality, showing that the intermediate complexes are still nested set complexes.
This paper is organized as follows. The terminology used is given in Section 2. In Section 3, we extend the notion of nested set complexes to posets, and prove our main Theorem \[lem:expand-to-sd-or-cone\] about the topological behaviour of nested set complexes under extension of the building set. In particular, under certain circumstances, subdivisions take place, as it is generally the case when considering semilattices. This allows to apply the framework to the treatment of the Bier construction in Section 4, in the same way as in [@CD07], to obtain a new proof for the result of Björner et al. in full generality.
I would like to thank Dmitry Kozlov for introducing me to the problem and also him and Eva Maria Feichtner for the helpful discussions.
Terminology
===========
In this paper, $P$ will denote a poset of finite length ($P$ will be used for the underlying set interchangeably). For a general reference on posets, see e.g. [@DP]. We will here use the following terminology: Let $a,b\in P$ be elements of $P$, let $X$ be a subset of $P$. If $a\leq x$ for all $x\in X$, we write $a\leq X$; analogously $X\leq a$ means $x\leq a$ for all $x\in X$.
$P_{\leq X}$ denotes the set $\{a\in P:a\leq X\}$; analogously we write $P_{\geq X}$ for $\{a\in P:a\geq X\}$. The set of *upper bounds* of $X$ is $\operatorname{ub}X:=\min P_{\geq X}$; the set of *lower bounds* of $X$ is $\operatorname{lb}X:=\max P_{\leq X}$. If $P_{\geq X}$ has a least element $y$, so that $\operatorname{ub}X=\{y\}$, then $y$ is called the *join* of $X$, denoted by $\bigvee_{x\in X}x$ or simply by $\bigvee X$. Conversely, if $\operatorname{lb}X=\{y\}$ then $y$ is called the *meet* of $X$, denoted by $\bigwedge X$. For $\bigvee\{a,b\}$ and $\bigwedge\{a,b\}$, the notations $a\vee b$ and $a\wedge b$ will be used, respectively.
We recall the difference between a poset and a (meet-)semilattice: In a semilattice $P$, for any finite subset $X$ of $P$, either the join of $X$ exists or $\operatorname{ub}X$ is empty. But in a poset, sets of the form $\operatorname{ub}X$ with $X\subset P,|\operatorname{ub}X|\geq 2$ can occur; these will be termed *big cuts*.
If $P$ has a least element, this will be denoted by $\hat{0}$; a greatest element will be denoted by $\hat{1}$. A *bounded poset* is a poset possessing $\hat{0}$ and $\hat{1}$; $\overline{P}$ means $P\backslash\{\hat{0},\hat{1}\}$. For elements $x\leq y$ of $P$, the *interval* $[x,y]$ is defined as the poset with elements $z\in P$ where $x\leq z\leq y$ and the order induced by $P$. An *ideal* (order ideal or down-set) $I$ of $P$ is a subset of $P$ with the property that $x\in I$ and $y\leq x$ imply $y\in I$. In particular, if $P$ has a least element $\hat{0}$, then every ideal contains $\hat{0}$.
Now recall the definition of a building set of a poset, as given in [@FK04]:
Let $P$ be a poset with $\hat{0}$, let $G$ be a subset of $P_{>\hat{0}}$. Denote by $F_{G}(x)$ the factors of $x$ in $G$, that is $\max G_{\leq x}=\max\{ g\in G:g\leq x\}$. Then $G$ is a building set of $P$ if for any $x\in P$ there is an isomorphism of posets $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{x}:\Pi_{i=1}^{t}[\hat{0},x_{i}] & \rightarrow & [\hat{0},x]\end{aligned}$$ satisfying $\psi((\hat{0},\ldots,\hat{0},x_{i},\hat{0},\ldots,\hat{0}))=x_{i}$ for all $i$, where $\{ x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{t}\}=F_{G}(x)$.
![\[cap:buildingset\]A poset with different building sets, marked in black.](buildingset.eps)
Figure \[cap:buildingset\] shows a poset with different building sets.
For an abstract simplicial complex $\mathcal{A}$, the set of simplices of $\mathcal{A}$ will be denoted with $\mathcal{A}$ as well. In this paper, all abstract simplicial complexes are considered to contain the empty set. If $X$ is the subset of the vertex set of an abstract simplicial complex $\mathcal{A}$, then the *subcomplex of $\mathcal{A}$ induced by $X$* has vertex set $X$ and set of simplices $\{\sigma\in\mathcal{A}:\sigma\subseteq X\}$.
In an abstract simplicial complex $\mathcal{A}$ with a face $\sigma$, the *stellar subdivision of $\mathcal{A}$ at $\sigma$* is an abstract simplicial complex $\operatorname{sd}_{\mathcal{A}}\sigma$ with vertex set consisting of the vertex set of $\mathcal{A}$ and an additional vertex $\hat{\sigma}$, and with set of simplices defined as following: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{sd}_{\mathcal{A}}\sigma & := & \{\tau\in\mathcal{A}:\tau\not\supseteq\sigma\}\cup\{\tau\cup\{\hat{\sigma}\}:\tau\in\mathcal{A},\tau\not\supseteq\sigma,\tau\cup\sigma\in\mathcal{A}\}.\end{aligned}$$ For a subcomplex $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$ of $\mathcal{A}$, the *cone over $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$* is an abstract simplicial complex $\operatorname{cone}_{\mathcal{A}}\tilde{\mathcal{A}}$ with vertex set again consisting of the vertex set of $\mathcal{A}$ and an additional vertex $a$, and with set of simplices defined as following: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{cone}_{\mathcal{A}}\tilde{\mathcal{A}} & := & \mathcal{A}\cup\{\tau\cup\{ a\}:\tau\in\tilde{\mathcal{A}}\}.\end{aligned}$$
The *order complex* $\Delta(P)$ of $P$ is an abstract simplicial complex consisting of all chains of $P$.
Nested set complexes and their behaviour under extension of the building set
============================================================================
The notion of a nested set introduced in [@FK04] can be extended to posets as it is.
Let $P$ be a poset of finite length with $\hat{0}$, let $G$ be a building set of $P$. We call a finite subset $N\subset G$ nested if for every incomparable subset $A\subset N$ with $|A|\geq2$ the join of $A$ exists and $\bigvee A\notin G$.
The nested sets in $G$ form an abstract simplicial complex, denoted $\mathcal{N}(P,G)$ (see Figure \[cap:nestedcomp\] for some examples). Note that every singleton subset of $G$ is nested in $G$, thus the vertices of $\mathcal{N}(P,G)$ correspond to the elements of $G$. Moreover, extending the building set has topological significance for the nested set complex:
\[lem:expand-to-sd-or-cone\]Let $P$ be a poset of finite length with $\hat{0}$, let $G$ be a building set of $P$. Let $x\in\max P\backslash G$. Then $\tilde{G}:=G\cup\{ x\}$ is a building set of $P$ and
\(1) $\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G})\cong\operatorname{sd}_{\mathcal{N}(P,G)}F_{G}(x)$ if $F_{G}(x)=\{ x_{1},\ldots,x_{t}\}$ is a face of $\mathcal{N}(P,G)$,
\(2) $\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G})\cong\operatorname{cone}_{\mathcal{N}(P,G)}\mathcal{C}$ otherwise, where $\mathcal{C}$ is the subcomplex of $\mathcal{N}(P,G)$ induced by $C_{G}(x):=G_{<x}\cup G_{>x}$.
$\tilde{G}$ is clearly a building set of $P$.
Note that $F_{G}(x)$ is finite, since any interval in a poset of finite length cannot be isomorphic to an infinite product of non-trivial posets.
For (1), we need to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G}) & = & \{ N\in\mathcal{N}(P,G):N\not\supset F_{G}(x)\}\cup\\
& & \{ N\cup\{ x\}:N\in\mathcal{N}(P,G),N\not\supset F_{G}(x),N\cup F_{G}(x)\in\mathcal{N}(P,G)\}\\
& \cong & \operatorname{sd}_{\mathcal{N}(P,G)}F_{G}(x),\end{aligned}$$ for (2), we need to see that$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G}) & = & \mathcal{N}(P,G)\cup\{ N\cup\{ x\}:N\in\mathcal{N}(P,G),N\subset C_{G}(x)\}\\
& \cong & \operatorname{cone}_{\mathcal{N}(P,G)}\mathcal{C}.\end{aligned}$$
To this end, we show three equivalences:$$\tag{a}\mathcal{N}(P,G)\cap\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G})=\{ N\in\mathcal{N}(P,G):N\not\supset F_{G}(x)\}=:\tilde{\mathcal{N}}.$$ If $F_{G}(x)\in\mathcal{N}(P,G)$, then $$\tag{b}\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G})\backslash\mathcal{N}(P,G)=\{ N\cup\{ x\}:N\in\tilde{\mathcal{N}},N\cup F_{G}(x)\in\mathcal{N}(P,G)\},$$ if $F_{G}(x)\notin\mathcal{N}(P,G)$, then $$\tag{c}\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G})\backslash\mathcal{N}(P,G)=\{ N\cup\{ x\}:N\in\mathcal{N}(P,G),N\subset C_{G}(x)\}.$$ In Case 1, (a) and (b) give the result above; in Case 2, (a) and (c) are needed. Note that in Case 2 no nested set can contain $F_{G}(x)$, so $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}=\mathcal{N}(P,G)$ in that case.
In this proof let $\psi:=\psi_{x}$.
\(a) Let $N$ be nested in $G$ and not nested in $\tilde{G}$. Then an incomparable subset $A=\{ a_{1},\ldots,a_{s}\}$ of $N$ exists with $\bigvee A=x$, so $A\subset[\hat{0},x]$. Let $a_{i}=\psi(a_{i1},a_{i2},\ldots,a_{it})$, then since for all $a_{i}$ exists $x_{j_{i}}$ such that $a_{i}\leq x_{j_{i}}$, we have $a_{ij}=\hat{0}$ for all $j\neq j_{i}$. So consider $A_{j}=\{ a_{i}\in A:j_{i}=j\}$; since this is an incomparable subset of $A$ which is nested in $G$, the join of $A_{j}$ exists. Since the join of $A$ exists, it must coincide with the join of $\psi^{-1}(A)$ in $\Pi_{i}[\hat{0},x_{i}]$, same for each $A_{j}$. Hence $\bigvee A_{j}=\psi(\bigvee\psi^{-1}(A_{j}))=x_{j}$ which is in $G$. So $|A_{j}|\leq1$ holds; $A_{j}=\emptyset$ for any $j$ implies $\bigvee A\neq x$, thus $A_{j}=\{ x_{j}\}$ for all $j$, so $A=F_{G}(x)\subset N$.
Let $N$ be nested in $G$ and $F_{G}(x)\subset N$. $F_{G}(x)$ is incomparable, and $\bigvee F_{G}(x)$ exists since $N$ is nested in $G$, so $\bigvee F_{G}(x)=\psi(\bigvee_{x_{i}\in F_{G}(x)}\psi^{-1}(x_{i}))=\psi(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{t})=x$, which is not in $\tilde{G}$. Thus $N$ is not nested in $\tilde{G}$.
\(b) Let $F_{G}(x)$ be nested in $G$, $N\subset\tilde{G}$ containing $x$, $N\backslash\{ x\}\not\supset F_{G}(x)$ and $(N\backslash\{ x\})\cup F_{G}(x)$ be nested in $G$. Then $N$ is not nested in $G$ since $N\not\subset G$. Since $N\backslash\{ x\}$ is nested in $G$ and does not contain $F_{G}(x)$, $N\backslash\{ x\}$ is nested in $\tilde{G}$ by (a). So only sets $A\subset N$ incomparable with $x\in A$ and $|A|\geq2$ have to be investigated further. Note that for all $a\in A$ there is no $x_{i}$ with $a\leq x_{i}$, since otherwise $a\leq x$ follows in contradiction to $A$ being incomparable. Let $\tilde{A}=(A\backslash\{ x\})\cup\{ x_{i}\in F_{G}(x):x_{i}$ is incomparable to all $a\in A\backslash\{ x\}\}$. Assume $|\tilde{A}|=1$, that means that $A=\{ a,x\}$ and $a>x_{i}$ for all $x_{i}$, hence $a\geq\bigvee F_{G}(x)=x$, so $A$ is not incomparable. Hence $|\tilde{A}|\geq2$, and since $\tilde{A}\subset(N\backslash\{ x\})\cup F_{G}(x)$ and $\tilde{A}$ is incomparable, $\bigvee\tilde{A}$ exists and is not in $G$. But $\bigvee\tilde{A}\geq F_{G}(x)$, so $\bigvee\tilde{A}\geq x$ with equality only if for all $a\in A$ there is $x_{i}$ with $x\geq a>x_{i}$ in contradiction to $\tilde{A}\subset G$. Hence $\bigvee\tilde{A}>x$, and therefore by the choice of $x$ the join of $\tilde{A}$ is contained in $G$.
So there exists no $A\subset N$ incomparable with $x\in A$ and $|A|\geq2$, so $N$ is nested in $\tilde{G}$.
Now let $F_{G}(x)$ be nested in $G$ and $N$ be nested in $\tilde{G}$, but not nested in $G$. As the existence of the join is independent of the considered building set, all nested sets in $\tilde{G}$ not containing $x$ are nested in $G$. So $x\in N$ and $N\backslash\{ x\}$ is nested in $G$ and in $\tilde{G}$. Thus by (a), $N\backslash\{ x\}\not\supset F_{G}(x)$.
Consider $B\subset(N\backslash\{ x\})\cup F_{G}(x)$ incomparable, $|B|\geq2$, containing $x_{s}\in F_{G}(x)\backslash N$. Let $B_{N}=B\backslash F_{G}(x)\subset N\backslash\{ x\}$, $B_{F}=B\cap F_{G}(x)\subset F_{G}(x)$. Since $F_{G}(x)$ is nested in $G$, $\bigvee B_{F}$ exists and is in $[\hat{0},x]\backslash G$. If $B_{N}$ is empty, then $B=B_{F}$, and $\bigvee B\notin G$ exists.
So assume $|B_{N}|\geq1$ in the following. As $N\supset B_{N}\cup\{ x\}$ is nested in $\tilde{G}$, either $\bigvee B_{N}\cup\{ x\}\notin\tilde{G}$ exists, which is not possible since $\bigvee B_{N}\cup\{ x\}\geq x$ which by the choice of $x$ is in $\tilde{G}$, or $B_{N}\cup\{ x\}$ is not incomparable. Assuming the existence of $b\in B_{N}$ with $b>x$ implies $b>x>x_{s}$, so $B$ would not have been incomparable. Let $\tilde{B}=\{ x\}\cup\{ b\in B_{N}:b\textnormal{ is incomparable to }x\}$; $\tilde{B}\subset N$ is incomparable. Assuming $|\tilde{B}|\geq2$ we obtain a contradiction to $\bigvee\tilde{B}\notin\tilde{G}$ as above and thus to $N$ nested in $\tilde{G}$. Thus for all $b\in B_{N}$ exists $x_{i}$ with $b<x_{i}$, so $B_{N}\subset[\hat{0},x]$. Since $B$ is incomparable, these $x_{i}$ are all not in $B_{F}$, so there is w.l.o.g. a partition $\{[f],[t]\backslash[f]\}$ of $[t]$, where $[f]=\{ i:x_{i}\in B_{F}\}$, and $\psi^{-1}(B_{N})\subset\Pi_{i\in[f]}\{\hat{0}\}\times\Pi_{i\in[t]\backslash[f]}[\hat{0},x_{i}]$. So $\psi^{-1}(\bigvee B_{N})=(\hat{0},\ldots,\hat{0},y_{f+1},y_{f+2},\dots,y_{t})$ and $\psi^{-1}(\bigvee B_{F})=(y_{1},y_{2},\ldots,y_{f},\hat{0},\ldots,\hat{0})$ (both joins exist because $F_{G}(x),N\ \backslash\{ x\}$ are nested in $G$), so $\bigvee B=\bigvee B_{F}\vee\bigvee B_{N}=\psi(y_{1},y_{2},\ldots,y_{t})$ exists. Since $B_{F},B_{N}\neq\emptyset$, at least two $y_{i}\neq\hat{0}$, so by definition of $F_{G}(x)$ the join of $B$ is not in $G$. Thus $(N\backslash\{ x\})\cup F_{G}(x)$ is nested in $G$.
\(c) Let $F_{G}(x)$ be not nested in $G$ and $N\in\mathcal{N}(P,\tilde{G})\backslash\mathcal{N}(P,G)$. As in (b), $x\in N$ and $N\backslash\{ x\}$ nested in $G$. Let $n\in N\backslash\{ x\}$. If $\{ n,x\}\subset N$ is incomparable, then $n\vee x$ exists and is not in $\tilde{G}$, which is impossible by the choice of $x$ since $n\vee x\geq x$. Thus $n\in C_{G}(x)$.
Let $F_{G}(x)$ be not nested in $G$, let $N\subset\tilde{G}$ with $x\in N$ and let $N\backslash\{ x\}$ be a subset of $C_{G}(x)$ that is nested in $G$. Since $x\in N$, $N$ is not a subset of $G$, so not nested in $G$. Let $A\subset N$ be incomparable with $|A|\geq2$, so $A\subset N\backslash\{ x\}$, so $\bigvee A\notin G$ exists. Hence by choice of $x$, $A\subset G_{<x}$, that is for all $a\in A$ exists $x_{i}\in F_{G}(x)$ with $a\leq x_{i}$. As $x\in\operatorname{ub}F_{G}(x)$ (by isomorphism of $[\hat{0},x]$ to the product of the intervals $[\hat{0},x_{i}]$) and $F_{G}(x)$ is incomparable but not nested in $G$, $\bigvee F_{G}(x)$ does not exist, so there exists $y\in\operatorname{ub}F_{G}(x)$, $y\neq x$. Since $y\geq A$, assuming $\bigvee A=x$ implies $y\geq x$, a contradiction to the choice of $y$. Hence $\bigvee A$ is even not in $\tilde{G}=G\cup\{ x\}$, so $N$ is nested in $\tilde{G}$.
![\[cap:nestedcomp\]Nested set complexes of the poset $P$ shown in Figure \[cap:buildingset\], with the following building sets (from left to right): $G_{1}=\{ a,b,c,v\}$, $G_{2}=\{ a,b,c,v,u\}$, $G_{3}=\{ a,b,c,v,u,w,k\}$, $G_{4}=\{ a,b,c,v,u,w,k,m\}$. All triangles are part of the corresponding complex.](nestedsetcomplexes.eps)
![\[cap:ordercomp\]The reduced order complex of the poset $P$ shown in Figure \[cap:buildingset\], identical to the nested set complex for the building set $P_{>\hat{0}}$. Again, all triangles are part of the complex.](ordercomplex.eps)
Note that for the maximal building set $P_{>\hat{0}}$ the nested set complex $\mathcal{N}(P,P_{>\hat{0}})$ coincides with the order complex $\Delta(P_{>\hat{0}})$ of $P_{>\hat{0}}$ by definition. Thus, by successively expanding a building set of $P$ as in the preceding theorem, we get a sequence of nested set complexes, eventually arriving at the order complex of the poset. Some steps of this process are shown in Figures \[cap:nestedcomp\] and \[cap:ordercomp\]. Now it turns out that by considering the big cuts of a poset, a guarantee can be given for some building sets to only yield stellar subdivisions in every expansion step.
\[lem:all-cuts->factors-nested\]If $G$ is a building set of $P$ with $\operatorname{ub}A\subseteq G$ for all $A\subseteq P$ with $|\operatorname{ub}A|\geq2$, then $F_{G}(x)\in\mathcal{N}(P,G)$ for all $x\in P$.
Let $x\in P$; if $x\in G$ then $F_{G}(x)=\{ x\}$ is nested in $G$. If $x\notin G$, then $F_{G}(x)=\{ x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{t}\}$, let $\psi:=\psi_{x}$. Let $A\subseteq F_{G}(x)$ with $|A|\geq2$. Then $z=\psi(z_{1},\ldots,z_{t})\in\operatorname{ub}A$, where $z_{i}=x_{i}$ if $x_{i}\in A$ and $z_{i}=\hat{0}$ otherwise. Since we have $x_{i}<z\leq x$ for all $x_{i}\in A$, $z\notin G$ holds by the definition of $F_{G}(x)$. So $\operatorname{ub}A=\{ z\}$, or in other words, the join of $A$ exists (and equals $z$). Thus $F_{G}(x)$ is nested in $G$.
For any building set $G$ of $P$ fulfilling the condition in Lemma \[lem:all-cuts->factors-nested\], $\Delta(P_{>\hat{0}})$ is a subdivision of $\mathcal{N}(P,G)$.
Stepwise expanding $G$ to the maximal building set $P_{>\hat{0}}$ along a linear extension of $P_{>\hat{0}}\backslash G$ yields a stellar subdivision of the corresponding nested set complex in each step by Lemma \[lem:all-cuts->factors-nested\] and Theorem \[lem:expand-to-sd-or-cone\], so $\mathcal{N}(P,G)$ subdivides to $\mathcal{N}(P,P_{>\hat{0}})=\Delta(P_{>\hat{0}})$.
Application to Bier posets
==========================
The condition given in Lemma \[lem:all-cuts->factors-nested\] is not at all necessary as we will see now. The special structure of Bier posets allows to determine easily that for a certain building set all extensions induce only stellar subdivisions of the corresponding nested set complexes, despite the occurence of possibly many big cuts outside of this building set.
But first of all we will recall the definition of a Bier poset.
Given a poset $P$ of finite length with $\hat{0}$ and a proper ideal $I$ of $P$, the Bier poset $\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)$ is a poset with
elements $\{\hat{1}\}\cup\{[x,y]\textnormal{ intervals of }P:x\in I,y\notin I\}$,
order relation $[x,y]\leq[v,w]$ iff $x\leq v<w\leq y$ and $[x,y]\leq\hat{1}$ for all $I\ni x<y\notin I$.
We now present a new structural proof using nested sets of the following result of Björner, Paffenholz, Sjöstrand and Ziegler in its full generality:
\[thm:bpsz-bier-is-edge-sd\][@BPSZ05 Thm. 2.2] Let $P$ be a bounded poset of finite length with a proper ideal $I$. Then the order complex of $\overline{\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)}$ is obtained from the order complex of $\bar{P}$ by stellar subdivision of the edges $\{ x,y\}$ with $x<y$, $x\in I_{>\hat{0}}$, $y\in\bar{P}\backslash I$ in order of increasing length of the corresponding intervals.
The argumentation follows [@CD07], starting with a building set for $\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)_{<\hat{1}}$:
[@CD07 Prop. 2.1] For any bounded poset $P$ of finite length with proper ideal $I$, $$\begin{aligned}
G & = & \{[x,\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y]:x\in I_{>\hat{0}},y\in\bar{P}\backslash I\}\end{aligned}$$ is a building set of $\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)_{<\hat{1}}$.
The proof of the above proposition in [@CD07] does not use the lattice property or the finiteness and thus remains valid in the poset case. This building set of the Bier poset is very well behaved: Let $x\in I_{>\hat{0}},y\in\bar{P}\backslash I$, let $[a,b]\in\overline{\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)}_{\geq\{[x,\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y]\}}$. Then we have $x\leq a<b\leq\hat{1}$ and $\hat{0}\leq a<b\leq y$, so $[x,y]\leq[a,b]$. Hence $[x,\hat{1}]\vee[\hat{0},y]=[x,y]$.
This enables us to follow Čukić and Delucchi further; we find that their characterization of the nested sets in $G$ remains valid as well:
\[lem:nested-sets-in-G-Bier\][@CD07 Lem. 2.2] With $G$ as above, a set $N\subset G$ is nested in $G$ iff
1. If $[\hat{0},y_{1}]$, $[\hat{0},y_{2}]\in N$, then $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$ are comparable.
2. If $[x_{1},\hat{1}],[x_{2},\hat{1}]\in N$, then $x_{1}$ and $x_{2}$ are comparable.
3. If $[x,\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y]\in N$, then $x<y$.
Let $N$ be nested in $G$. Assume that (i) is not true, that is, $[\hat{0},y_{1}],[\hat{0},y_{2}]\in N$ exist with $y_{1},y_{2}$ incomparable. Then $[\hat{0},y_{1}],[\hat{0},y_{2}]$ are incomparable as well, so since $N$ is nested, $[\hat{0},y_{1}]\vee[\hat{0},y_{2}]$ exists and is not an element of $G$.
Let $S=\operatorname{lb}\{ y_{1},y_{2}\}$. If $p\in S\cap I$ exists, then for all $[a,b]\in\overline{\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)}_{\geq\{[\hat{0},y_{1}],[\hat{0},y_{2}]\}}$, we have $\hat{0}\leq a<b\leq y_{1},y_{2}$, thus $b\leq p\in I$ holds, so $b\in I$, a contradiction to $[a,b]\in\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)$. Hence $[\hat{0},y_{1}]\vee[\hat{0},y_{2}]$ does not exist. So in the following let $S\cap I$ be empty.
Case 1: If $y_{1}\wedge y_{2}$ exists (and, as noted above, then is in $P\backslash I$), consider $[a,b]\in\overline{\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)}_{\geq\{[\hat{0},y_{1}],[\hat{0},y_{2}]\}}$, which means $\hat{0}\leq a<b\leq y_{1}$ and $\hat{0}\leq a<b\leq y_{2}$, and thus $[\hat{0},y_{1}\wedge y_{2}]\leq[a,b]$. Hence $[\hat{0},y_{1}]\vee[\hat{0},y_{2}]=[\hat{0},y_{1}\wedge y_{2}]\in G$, a contradiction.
Case 2: If $y_{1}\wedge y_{2}$ does not exist, this means that $|S|\geq2$. Observe that $[\hat{0},s]\geq[\hat{0},y_{i}]$ for $i=1,2$ and all $s\in S$. Let $[p,q]\geq[\hat{0},y_{i}]$ for $i=1,2$; that is, $\hat{0}\leq p<q\leq y_{1},y_{2}$. By definition of $S$, there exists $s\in S$ with $\hat{0}\leq p<q\leq s$, so we have $[p,q]\geq[\hat{0},s]$. Thus, $[\hat{0},s]\in\hat{S}:=\operatorname{ub}\{[\hat{0},y_{1}],[\hat{0},y_{2}]\}$ for all $s\in S$, so $|\hat{S}|\geq2$ meaning that $[\hat{0},y_{1}]\vee[\hat{0},y_{2}]$ does not exist.
Analogously we obtain (ii).
For (iii), we see that $[x,\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y]$ are incomparable (since $x\neq\hat{0},y\neq\hat{1}$), so since $N$ is nested, $[x,\hat{1}]\vee[\hat{0},y]=[p,q]\in\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)_{<\hat{1}}$. So $x\leq p<q\leq\hat{1}$ and $\hat{0}\leq p<q\leq y$ hold, implying $x<y$.
Conversely, consider a set $N\subset G$, fulfilling conditions (i)-(iii). Let $$A=\{[x_{1},\hat{1}],\ldots,[x_{s},\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y_{1}],\ldots,[\hat{0},y_{t}]\}$$ be an incomparable subset of $N$, with $|A|\geq2$. By conditions (i) and (ii), $s=t=1$, and as explained above, $[x_{1},\hat{1}]\vee[\hat{0},y_{1}]=[x_{1},y_{1}]\notin G$ since $x_{1}\neq\hat{0},y_{1}\neq\hat{1}$.
So the nested sets in this particular building set $G$ of a Bier poset coincide with those in the lattice case, which allows to follow Čukić and Delucchi further, thus obtaining
[@CD07 Prop. 2.3] For $P,I$ and $G$ as above, $\mathcal{N}(\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)_{<\hat{1}},G)=\Delta(\bar{P})$.
As in [@CD07], by Lemma \[lem:nested-sets-in-G-Bier\] all nested sets $N$ in $G$ are of the form $N=\{[x_{1},\hat{1}],\ldots,[x_{s},\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y_{1}],\ldots,[\hat{0},y_{t}]\}$, where $x_{1}<x_{2}<\ldots<x_{s}<y_{1}<y_{2}<\ldots<y_{t}$, and $f:\mathcal{N}(\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)_{<\hat{1}},G)\rightarrow\Delta(\bar{P})$, mapping a nested set to its underlying chain, is an order-preserving bijection.
Now the good behavior of $G$ noted above comes into play once again. Considering any element $[x,y]\in\overline{\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)}\backslash G$, the factors of $[x,y]$ in $G$ are $F_{G}([x,y])=\{[x,\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y]\}$, which is an incomparable set with join $[x,y]$. Thus $F_{G}([x,y])$ is a nested set in $G$, but also in all building sets $\tilde{G}$ resulting from repeated application of Theorem \[lem:expand-to-sd-or-cone\], starting with the building set $G$. Hence in all applications of Theorem \[lem:expand-to-sd-or-cone\] only stellar subdivisions occur; more precisely we see that $\Delta(\overline{\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)}$ is obtained from $\mathcal{N}(\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)_{<\hat{1}},G)=\Delta(\bar{P})$ by stellar subdivisions of all edges $f(\{[x,\hat{1}],[\hat{0},y]\})=\{ x<y\}$, in order of increasing length $\ell([x,y])$ in $P$ (since an interval of length 1 in $P$ is maximal in $\operatorname{Bier}(P,I)_{<\hat{1}}$, covering there the intervals of length 2 and so on). This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:bpsz-bier-is-edge-sd\] via nested set complexes.
[BPSZ]{} T. Bier, *A remark on Alexander duality and the disjunct join.* Preprint (1992). A. Björner, A. Paffenholz, J. Sjöstrand, G. M. Ziegler, *Bier spheres and posets.* Discrete Comput. Geom. 34, No. 1, 71-86 (2005). S. Lj. Čukić, E. Delucchi, *Simplicial shellable spheres via combinatorial blowups.* Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 135, No. 8, 2403-2414 (2007). B. A. Davey, H. A. Priestley, *Introduction to Lattices and Order, 2nd Edition*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002). E. Delucchi, *Subdivision of complexes of k-trees.* Preprint `arXiv:math/0509378v1` (2005). E. M. Feichtner, *Complexes of trees and nested set complexes.* Pacific J. Math. 227, 271-286 (2006). E. M. Feichtner and D. Kozlov, *Incidence combinatorics of resolutions*. Sel. Math., New Ser. 10, No. 1, 37-60 (2004). E. M. Feichtner and I. Müller, *On the topology of nested set complexes.* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133, 999-1006 (2005). M. de Longueville, *Bier spheres, barycentric subdivision*. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A 105(2): 355-357 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Velleda Baldoni, Nicole Berline and Mich[è]{}le Vergne'
date: December 2006
title: 'Local Euler-Maclaurin expansion of Barvinok valuations and Ehrhart coefficients of a rational polytope'
---
\[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Example]{}
Introduction
============
Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be a rational polytope in $V={{\mathbb R}}^d$ and $h(x)$ a polynomial function on $V$. A classical problem in Integer Programming is to compute the sum of values of $h(x) $ over the set of integral points of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)=\sum_ {x\in {{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d}h(x).$$ When ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is dilated by an integer $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, we obtain a function of $n$ which is quasi-polynomial, the so-called Ehrhart quasi-polynomial of the pair $({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ $$S(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)= \sum_{m=0}^{d+ N} E_m({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,n)n ^m$$ of degree $d+N$ where $N=\deg h$. The coefficients $E_m({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,n)$ are periodic functions of $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, with period the smallest integer $q$ such that $q{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a lattice polytope.
Replacing $h(x)$ by an exponential, we are led to study the analytic function on $V^*$ defined by $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi) = \sum_ {x\in {{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d} e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}}.$$ If ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is any rational polyhedron, this sum still makes sense as a meromorphic function defined near $0$ and the map ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\mapsto
S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)$ is a valuation.
In [@EML], we proved that the meromorphic function $S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)$ has a local Euler-Maclaurin expansion $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)=\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}}\mu({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi) \int_{{\mathfrak{f}}}e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}}dx.$$
The sum is taken over the set of faces ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ of the polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. For each face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$, the function $\mu({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)$ is holomorphic near $0$, and it depends only on the transverse cone ${{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ along ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$. More precisely, once a rational scalar product is chosen on $V$, we define canonically a map ${{\mathfrak{a}}}\mapsto \mu({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ from the set of rational affine cones ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ in quotient spaces of $V$, with values in the space of functions on $V
$ which are analytic near $0$, then we prove that these functions satisfy the above formula. The map ${{\mathfrak{a}}}\mapsto \mu({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ is invariant under lattice translations, equivariant with respect to lattice preserving isometries, and it is a valuation on the set of affine cones with a fixed vertex ([@EML], Theorems 17 and 18).
It is easy to see that the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial can be computed in terms of the Taylor coefficients of the functions $\mu({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)$. For example, if ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a lattice polytope and $h(x)=1$, we have ([@EML], Corollary 28) $$\label{ouralgo}
{\rm Card} (n{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d) =\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}} \mu({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(0){\operatorname{vol}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})
n^{\dim {{\mathfrak{f}}}}.$$
Using the valuation property of $\mu({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ and Barvinok’s decomposition of a cone into unimodular cones, we thus obtained in [@EML] an algorithm for computing the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial. It has polynomial length with respect to the input $({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$, when the dimension $d$ and the degree $N$ are fixed.
The valuation $S({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ has a natural generalization used by Barvinok in [@barvinokEhrhart], the *mixed* valuation $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$, where $L\subseteq V$ is a rational vector subspace. Denote the projected lattice on $V/L$ by ${\Lambda}_L$. For a polytope ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$ and a polynomial $h(x)$ $$S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)= \sum_{y\in {\Lambda}_{V/L}} \int_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap (y+L)} h(x)dx.$$ In other words, the polytope ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is sliced along lattice affine subspaces parallel to $L$ and the integrals of $h$ over the slices are added up. For $L=V$, there is only one term and $S^V({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ is just the integral of $h(x)$ over ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, while, for $L=\{0\}$, we recover $S({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$, the sum of values of $h(x) $ over the set of integral points of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$.
In the case $h(x)=1$, we write $S({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ and $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ in place of $S({{\mathfrak{p}}},1)$ and $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},1)$.
Using these mixed valuations, Barvinok gave an algorithm which computes the $r+1$ highest degree Ehrhart coefficients of $S(n{{\mathfrak{p}}}) =
{\rm Card} (n{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d)$, when ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a simplex in ${{\mathbb R}}^d$. Barvinok’s algorithm has polynomial length when $d$ is an input, provided $r$ is fixed. The method consists in reducing the problem to summations over lattice points in dimension $\leq r$.
Barvinok considers particular linear combinations $$\sum_{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho(L)S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}}),$$ where ${{\cal L}}$ is a finite set of rational vector subspaces of $V$ which is closed under sum, and the coefficients $\rho(L)$ are integers which satisfy the following relation between characteristic functions: $$\chi(\cup_{L\in{{\cal L}}}L^\perp)=\sum _{L\in {{\cal L}}}\rho(L)\chi(L^\perp),$$ where $L^\perp\subseteq V^* $ is the orthogonal of $L$. We call a function ${{\cal L}}\to {{\mathbb Z}}$ with this property a patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}$.
When ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is dilated by an integer $n$, $S^L(n{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ is again given by a quasi-polynomial in $n$, as is a linear combination $$\sum_{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho(L)S^L(n{{\mathfrak{p}}})=\sum _{m=0}^d \nu_m({{\mathfrak{p}}},n)n^m.$$
The main theoretical result of [@barvinokEhrhart], Theorem (1.3), is the following: if ${{\cal L}}$ is a family of subspaces which is closed under sum and contains the vector subspace ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ parallel to ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$, for every face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ of codimension $\leq r$ of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, and if $\rho$ is a patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}$, then the $r+1$ highest degree coefficients $\nu_m({{\mathfrak{p}}},n)$, for $m=
d, \dots, d-r$, are equal to the corresponding Ehrhart coefficients of $S(n{{\mathfrak{p}}}) = {\rm Card} (n{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d)$.
In the present article, we introduce the meromorphic functions which extend $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})$. For any polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, $$S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_{y\in {\Lambda}_{V/L}} \int_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap (y+L)} e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}}dx$$ is defined as a meromorphic function near $\xi=0$. We show that $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)$ also enjoys a local Euler-Maclaurin expansion (Theorem \[maintheorem\]), $$S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi) =\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}} \mu^L({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)\int_{{\mathfrak{f}}}e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}}dx.$$
Furthermore, for a linear combination of Barvinok type, if ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ is a face of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ such that ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})\in {{\cal L}}$, we prove that the ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$-term in the Euler-Maclaurin expansions of $$S^{{{\cal L}},\rho}({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho(L)S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)$$ and of the *usual* valuation $S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)$ are equal (Theorem \[fterm\]): $$\sum_{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho(L)\mu^L({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)= \mu({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi).$$ This is the main result of the present article. From the relation between Ehrhart quasi-polynomials and Euler-Maclaurin expansions, it implies Barvinok’s Theorem (1.3).
Actually, we derive from Theorem \[fterm\] another computation of the $r+1$ highest coefficients of the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial for a pair $({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$, based on Brion’s decomposition of a polytope into cones, in the line of [@barvinok94] and [@latte].
For each vertex $s$ of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, let ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$ be the cone of feasible directions of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ at $s$. Instead of the full family ${{\cal L}}$ generated by taking sums of the subspaces ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$, when ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ runs over the set of faces of codimension $\leq r$ of the polytope ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, we consider, for each vertex $s$ of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, the family ${{\cal L}}_s$ generated by faces of ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$ of codimension $\leq r$. The point in taking a family which depends on $s$ lies in the case where ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is simplicial. Then ${{\cal L}}_s$ consists only of the spaces ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ where $ {{\mathfrak{f}}}$ is a face of ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s $ of codimension $\leq
r$, as this set is already closed under sum. Moreover the coefficients $\rho(L)$ are just signed binomial coefficients (Lemma \[rho\]), and the computation of $S^L({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)$ is easier when $L$ is parallel to a face of ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$ (Example \[face\]).
Let us describe our method in the simpler case of a lattice polytope ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ and polynomial $h(x)=1$. By Brion’s theorem, we have $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_s e^{\langle\xi,s\rangle} S({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi).$$
For each vertex $s$, let $\rho_s: {{\cal L}}_s\to {{\mathbb Z}}$ be a patchwork function. We define $${{\cal B}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_{s}e^{\langle\xi,s\rangle}
S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi).$$ For the dilated polytope $n{{\mathfrak{p}}}$, we have $$S(n {{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi) = \sum_{s}e^{n \langle\xi,s\rangle} S({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)=
\sum_{m\geq 0}\frac{n^m}{m!}\sum_s \langle \xi,s\rangle^m
\;S({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi).$$ Hence, the meromorphic function $\frac{1}{m!}\sum_s \langle
\xi,s\rangle^m \;S({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$ is actually regular at $\xi=0$ and its value at $\xi=0$ is the $m$th Ehrhart coefficient of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$.
We have similarly $${{\cal B}}(n{{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_{m\geq 0}\frac{n^m}{m!}\sum_s \langle
\xi,s\rangle^m \;S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi).$$ The meromorphic functions $S^L({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$ and $S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$ have a special form: they can be written as the quotient of an analytic function by a product of $d'\leq d$ linear forms. Such a function $\phi$ has an expansion into rational functions $\phi=\sum_{j\geq -d}\phi_{[j]}$ where $\phi_{[j]}$ is homogeneous of total degree $j$.
Now it follows from our main theorem that, for $m \geq d-r$, we have $$S({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)_{[-m]}(\xi)= S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)_{[-m]}(\xi),$$ hence the zero degree terms of $\sum_s \langle \xi,s\rangle^m
\;S({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$ and $\sum_s \langle \xi,s\rangle^m
\;S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$ are equal. Therefore the latter is also analytic at $\xi=0$ and its value at $\xi=0$ is the $m$th Ehrhart coefficient of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. This is the content of Theorem \[betterthanbarvinok\].
Thus, besides taking care of any polynomial $h(x)$, not only $h(x)=1$, this method to compute the $r+1$ highest degree Ehrhart coefficients for the pair $({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ leads to a simpler algorithm than the one proposed in [@barvinokEhrhart]. When ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a rational simplex, the contributions of the terms of the form $S^L({{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$ when $L\in {{\cal L}}_s$ are immediately reduced to the computation of a function $S({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ with ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ a simplicial cone of dimension smaller or equal to $r$.
There is also another possible implementation of an algorithm to compute the $r+1$ Ehrhart highest degree coefficients for the pair $({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ based on the results of [@EML]. As seen from Equation (\[ouralgo\]), this involves the computation of the analytic function $\mu({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$, also associated to simplicial cones in dimension smaller or equal to $r$. We plan to compare the implementation of both methods in the near future.
Local Euler-Maclaurin expansion of a mixed valuation $S^L$
==========================================================
We consider a rational vector space $V$ of dimension $d$, that is to say a finite dimensional real vector space with a lattice denoted by ${\Lambda}_V$ or simply ${\Lambda}$. We will need to consider subspaces and quotient spaces of $V$, this is why we cannot just let $V={{\mathbb R}}^d$ and ${\Lambda}= {{\mathbb Z}}^d$. By lattice, we mean a discrete additive subgroup of $V$ which generates $V$ as a vector space. Hence, a lattice is generated by a basis of the vector space $V$. A basis of $V$ which is a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-basis of ${\Lambda}_V$ is called an integral basis. The elements of ${\Lambda}$ are called integral. An element $x\in V$ is called rational if $qx\in {\Lambda}$ for some integer $q\neq 0$. The space of rational points in $V$ is denoted by $V_{{\mathbb Q}}$. A subspace $L$ of $V$ is called rational if $L\cap {\Lambda}$ is a lattice in $L$. If $L$ is a rational subspace, the image of ${\Lambda}$ in $V/L$ is a lattice in $V/L$, so that $V/L$ is a rational vector space. We will call the image of ${\Lambda}$ in $V/L$ the projected lattice.
\[projectedlattice\] Let $V={{\mathbb R}}^2$ with standard lattice ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$. Let $v_1, v_2$ be two primitive integral independent vectors. Using an integral basis with first basis vector $v_1$, a straightforward computation shows that the projected lattice on ${{\mathbb R}}^2 /{{\mathbb R}}v_1$ is ${{\mathbb Z}}\frac{{\overline v_2}}{\det(v_1,v_2)} $, where ${\overline v_2}$ is the projection of $v_2$ on ${{\mathbb R}}^2 /{{\mathbb R}}v_1$.
A rational space $V$, with lattice ${\Lambda}$, has a canonical Lebesgue measure, for which $V/{\Lambda}$ has measure $1$. An affine subspace $L$ of $V$ is called rational if it is a translate of a rational subspace by a rational element. It is similarly provided with a canonical Lebesgue measure. We will denote this measure by $dm_L$.
We will denote elements of $V$ by latin letters $x,y,v,\dots$ and elements of $V^*$ by greek letters $\xi,\alpha,\dots$. We denote the duality bracket by $\langle\xi,x\rangle$.
If $S$ is a subset of $V$, we denote by $<S>$ the affine subspace generated by $S$. If $S$ consists of rational points, then $<S>$ is rational. Remark that $<S>$ may contain no integral point. We denote by ${\operatorname{lin}}(S)$ the vector subspace of $V$ parallel to $<S>$.
If $S$ is a subset of $V$, we denote by $S^{\perp}$ the subspace of $V^*$ orthogonal to $S$: $$S^{\perp}= \{\xi\in V^*\; ;\,\,\langle\xi,x\rangle =0 \;\mbox{for
all}\;
x\in S\}.$$ If $L$ is a subspace of $V$, the dual space $(V/L)^*$ is canonically identified with the subspace $L^{\perp} \subset V^*$.
A convex rational polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ in $V$ (we will simply say polyhedron) is, by definition, the intersection of a finite number of half spaces bounded by rational affine hyperplanes. We say that ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is solid (in V) if $<{{\mathfrak{p}}}>= V$. A polytope ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a [**compact**]{} polyhedron.
The set of non negative real numbers is denoted by ${{\mathbb R}}_+$. A convex rational cone ${{\mathfrak{c}}}$ in $V$ is a closed convex cone $\sum_{i=1}^k{{\mathbb R}}_+ v_i$ which is generated by a finite number of elements $v_i$ of $V_{{\mathbb Q}}$. In this article, we simply say cone instead of convex rational cone.
An affine (rational) cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is, by definition, the translate of a cone in $V$ by a rational element $s\in
V_{{\mathbb Q}}$. This cone is uniquely defined by ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$.
A cone ${{\mathfrak{c}}}$ is called simplicial if it is generated by independent elements of $V_{{\mathbb Q}}$. A simplicial cone ${{\mathfrak{c}}}$ is called unimodular if it is generated by independent integral vectors $v_1,\dots, v_k$ such that $\{v_1,\dots, v_k\}$ can be completed in an integral basis of $V$. An affine cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is called simplicial (resp. simplicial unimodular) if it is the translate of a simplicial (resp. simplicial unimodular) cone.
An affine cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is called pointed if it does not contain any straight line.
The set of faces of an affine cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is denoted by ${{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})$. If ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is pointed, then the vertex of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is the unique face of dimension $0$, while ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is the unique face of maximal dimension $\dim {{\mathfrak{a}}}$.
Let us recall the definition of the *transverse cone* ${{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ of a polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ along one of its faces ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$. Let $x$ be a point in the relative interior of ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$. The cone of feasible directions of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ at $x$ is the set ${{\mathfrak{c}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}):=\{v\in V\;;
x+\epsilon v\in {{\mathfrak{p}}}\;\mbox{for}\; \epsilon>0\; \mbox{small enough}
\}$. It does not depend on the choice of $x$. We denote the projection $V\to V/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ by $\pi_{{\mathfrak{f}}}$. Then ${{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ is the image $ \pi_{{\mathfrak{f}}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}+{{\mathfrak{c}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$ of the affine cone ${{\mathfrak{f}}}+{{\mathfrak{c}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ in $V/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$. It is a solid pointed **affine** cone in the quotient space $V/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ with vertex $\pi_{{\mathfrak{f}}}(<{{\mathfrak{f}}}>)$. In particular, if $v$ is a vertex of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, the transverse cone ${{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},v)$ coincides with the supporting cone $v+{{\mathfrak{c}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},v)\subset V
$.
If ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is an affine cone and ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ is a face of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$, then ${{\mathfrak{c}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})= {{\mathfrak{a}}}+ {\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ and the transverse cone ${{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ along ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ is just the projection $\pi_{{\mathfrak{f}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ on $V/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$.
Denote by ${{\cal H}}(V^*)$ the ring of analytic functions around $0\in
V^*$. Denote by ${{\cal M}}(V^*)$ the ring of meromorphic functions defined around $0\in V^*$ and by ${{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)\subset
{{\cal M}}(V^*)$ the subring consisting of those meromorphic functions $\phi(\xi)$ such that there exists a product of linear forms $D(\xi)$ with $$D(\xi)\phi(\xi)\in {{\cal H}}(V^*).$$ A function $\phi(\xi)\in {{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$ has a unique expansion into homogeneous rational functions $$\phi(\xi)= \sum_{m>>-\infty}\phi_{[m]}(\xi)$$ where $m$ is the total degree.
If $P$ is a homogeneous polynomial on $V^*$ of degree $p$, and $D$ a product of $r$ linear forms, then $\frac{P}{D}$ is an element in ${{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$ homogeneous of degree $m=p-r$.
Let us recall the definition of the function $I({{\mathfrak{p}}})\in
{{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$ associated to a polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, (see for instance the survey [@barpom]).
\[valuationI\] There exists a map $I$ which to every polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$ associates a meromorphic function with rational coefficients $I({{\mathfrak{p}}})\in {{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$, so that the following properties hold:
\(a) If ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ contains a straight line, then $I({{\mathfrak{p}}})$=0.
\(b) If $\xi\in V^*$ is such that $|e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}}|$ is integrable over ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, then $$I({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \int_{{\mathfrak{p}}}e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}} dm_{<{{\mathfrak{p}}}>}(x).$$
\(c) For every point $s\in V_{{\mathbb Q}}$, we have $$I(s+{{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi) = e^{{{\langle}}\xi,s{{\rangle}}}I({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi).$$
\(d) The map $I$ is a [*simple valuation*]{}: if the characteristic functions $\chi({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)$ of a family of polyhedra ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_i$ satisfy a linear relation $\sum_i r_i \chi({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)=0$, then the functions $I({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)$ satisfy the relation $$\sum_{\{i,<{{\mathfrak{p}}}_i>=V\}}r_i I({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)=0.$$
In the following proposition, we define the *mixed valuation* ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\mapsto S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ associated to a rational vector subspace $L\subseteqq V$. To any polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, we associate a *meromorphic function* $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)\in {{\cal M}}(V^*)$. If ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is compact, this function is actually regular at $0$, and its value for $\xi=0$ is the valuation $E_{L^\perp}({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ considered by Barvinok [@barvinokEhrhart].
We denote by ${\Lambda}_{V/L}$ the projection on $V/L$ of the lattice ${\Lambda}$.
\[valuationSL\] Let $L\subseteqq V$ be a rational subspace. There exists a map $S^L$ which to every rational polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$ associates a meromorphic function with rational coefficients $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})\in
{{\cal M}}(V^*)$ so that the following properties hold:
\(a) If ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ contains a line, then $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})$=0.
\(b) $$\label{SL}
S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_{y\in {\Lambda}_{V/L}} \int_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap (y+L)}
e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}}dm_L(x),$$ for every $\xi\in V^*$ such that the above sum converges.
\(c) For every point $s\in {\Lambda}$, we have $$S^L(s+{{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi) = e^{{{\langle}}\xi,s{{\rangle}}}S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi).$$
\(d) The map $S^L$ is a valuation: if the characteristic functions $\chi({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)$ of a family of polyhedra ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_i$ satisfy a linear relation $\sum_i r_i \chi({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)=0$, then the functions $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)$ satisfy the same relation $$\sum_i r_i S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i)=0.$$
For $L=\{0\}$, we recover the valuation $S$ given by $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_{x\in {{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap {\Lambda}}e^{{{\langle}}\xi,s{{\rangle}}},$$ provided this sum is convergent.
For $L=V$, we have $S^V({{\mathfrak{p}}})=I({{\mathfrak{p}}})$, if ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is solid, and $S^V({{\mathfrak{p}}})=0$ otherwise.
The proof is entirely analogous to the case $L= \{0\}$, see Theorem 3.1 in [@barpom], and we omit it.
The function $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}}) $ is actually an element of ${{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$, but we do not prove it at this point. Let ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ be an affine cone and $\{v_i\}$ the generators of its edges. It will follow from the Euler-Maclaurin expansion of $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}}) $ (Theorem \[maintheorem\]) that $\prod_i \langle \xi,v_i\rangle
S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)$ is analytic near zero for any $L$. It would be interesting to prove it a priori. By Brion’s theorem and the valuation property, it follows in particular that $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}}) \in
{{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$.
\[face\] Let ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ be a simplicial affine cone in the space $V$, and assume that $L={\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_1)$ for some face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}_1$ of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$. In this case, $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)$ decomposes as product of an integral and a discrete sum. For simplicity, assume that ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is solid. Let ${{\mathfrak{f}}}_2 $ be the face of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ such $V= {\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_1)\oplus {\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2) $. We write $x=x_1 +x_2 $ and $\xi= \xi_1+ \xi_2$ for the corresponding decompositions of $x\in V$ and $\xi\in V^*$. Then ${{\mathfrak{a}}}={{\mathfrak{a}}}_1+{{\mathfrak{a}}}_2$ where ${{\mathfrak{a}}}_i$ is a simplicial affine cone in ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_i)$. Let us denote by ${\Lambda}_2$ the projected lattice in $V/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_1)\sim
{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2)$. From (\[SL\]), we obtain immediately $$\label{sumface}
S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi_1+ \xi_2)= I({{\mathfrak{a}}}_1)(\xi_1) \sum_{x_2\in {{\mathfrak{a}}}_2\cap
{\Lambda}_{2}}e^{\langle \xi_2,x_2\rangle}.$$ Notice that the lattice ${\Lambda}_2$ is usually bigger than $\Lambda\cap {\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2)$.
\[dim2\] Let $V={{\mathbb R}}^2$ with the standard lattice. We compute $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ when ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ is a cone and $L$ is a line. Let ${{\mathfrak{a}}}= {{\mathbb R}}_+ v_1+ {{\mathbb R}}_+ v_2$, where $v_1, v_2$ are two linearly independent primitive integral vectors.
\(a) Assume that $L$ is the line supporting an edge of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$, say $L=
{{\mathbb R}}v_1$. We identify $V/L$ to ${{\mathbb R}}v_2$. The projected lattice is ${\Lambda}_2= {{\mathbb Z}}\frac{v_2}{\det(v_1,v_2)} $, (Example \[projectedlattice\]), hence, by (\[sumface\]) in Example \[face\], we have $$\label{dim2a}
S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)=-\frac{1}{\langle \xi,v_1\rangle}\; \frac{1}{
1-e^{\frac{\langle \xi,v_2\rangle}{|\det(v_1,v_2)|}}}.$$
\(b) Assume now that $L$ is transverse to both edges of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$. Assume that $ \det(v_1,v_2)>0$. Let $L={{\mathbb R}}u$ where $u$ is a primitive integral vector chosen so that $\det(u,v_2)>0$. Let ${{\mathfrak{a}}}_i= {{\mathbb R}}_+u + {{\mathbb R}}_+ v_i$ for $i=1,2$. We decompose the characteristic function of the cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ as $\chi({{\mathfrak{a}}})= \chi({{\mathfrak{a}}}_2)
+ \chi({{\mathfrak{a}}}_1)- \chi({{\mathbb R}}_+ u)$ or $\chi({{\mathfrak{a}}})= \chi({{\mathfrak{a}}}_2)-\chi({{\mathfrak{a}}}_1)+
\chi({{\mathbb R}}_+ v_1)$, depending on whether $u$ belongs to ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ or not. Using the valuation property, case [*(a)*]{} and the relation $$\frac{1}{1-e^x}+\frac{1}{1-e^{-x}}=1,$$ we obtain in both cases $$\label{dim2b}
S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)=-\frac{1}{\langle \xi,u\rangle}\left(
\frac{1}{1-e^{\frac{\langle \xi,v_2\rangle}{\det(u,v_2)}}}-
\frac{1}{1-e^{\frac{\langle \xi,v_1\rangle}{\det(u,v_1)}}}
\right).$$
In this example, we see that $\langle \xi,v_1\rangle \langle
\xi,v_2\rangle S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)$ is indeed analytic near $\xi=0$.
In the following theorem and its applications, we will consider the functions $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ when the space $V$ is replaced with a quotient space $W$. We denote by ${{\cal C}}(W)$ the set of affine cones in $W$. Thus if ${{\mathfrak{a}}}\in {{\cal C}}(W)$, and $L$ a rational subspace of $W$, the function $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ is a meromorphic function on $W^*$. We are going to show that the function $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ has a local Euler-Maclaurin expansion, which generalizes the case $L=\{0\}$ of [@EML].
\[maintheorem\] Let $V$ be a rational space and $Q$ a rational scalar product on $V^*$. There exists a unique family of maps $\mu_W^L$, indexed by pairs $(W,L)$ where $W$ is a rational quotient space of $V$ and $L$ is a rational vector subspace of $W$ such that the family enjoys the following properties:
\(a) $\mu_W^L$ maps ${{\cal C}}(W)$ to ${{\cal H}}(W^*)$, the space of analytic functions on $W^*$.
\(b) If $W=\{0\}$, then $\mu_{\{0\}}^{\{0\}}(\{0\})= 1 $.
\(c) For $\dim W >0$ and $L=W$, then $\mu_W^W({{\mathfrak{a}}})=0$.
\(d) If the affine cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}\in {{\cal C}}(W)$ contains a straight line, then $\mu_W^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})=0$.
\(e) For any affine cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ in $W$, the following formula holds $$S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})=
\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{a}}})}\mu_{W/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))I({{\mathfrak{f}}})$$ where the sum is over all faces of the cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$.
In this last formula, the function $\mu_{W/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$ is considered as a function on $W^* $ itself by means of the orthogonal projection $W^* \to (W/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}))^*= ({\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}))^\perp $ with respect to the scalar product on $W^*\subset V^*$.
The proof is entirely similar to the case $L=\{0\}$ studied in [@EML]. Note that $\mu_W^{\{0\}}$ coincides with the map denoted by $\mu_W$ in [@EML]. The only new item is (c). It follows immediately from the relation $S^W({{\mathfrak{a}}})= I({{\mathfrak{a}}})$.
Let ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ be a solid cone in $W$, and let ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ be a face of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ such that $\dim{{\mathfrak{f}}}< \dim W$. If $L$ is transverse to the face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$, that is, if $L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})=W$, then $\mu_{W/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))=0$. This follows from (c).
From now on we omit the subscript $W$, thus we write $\mu^{L}$ in place of $\mu_W^L$. The next theorem and its proof are also entirely similar to the case $L=\{0\}$ in [@EML].
\[maintheoremplusmuL\] The analytic functions defined in Theorem \[maintheorem\] have the following properties:
\(a) For any $x\in {\Lambda}$, one has $\mu^L(x +{{\mathfrak{a}}})= \mu^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})$.
\(b) The map $({{\mathfrak{a}}},L)\mapsto \mu^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})$ is equivariant with respect to lattice-preserving isometries. In other words, let $g$ be an isometry of $W$ which preserves the lattice ${\Lambda}_W$. Then $\mu^{g(L)}(g({{\mathfrak{a}}}))( ^{t}g^{-1}\xi)=\mu^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)$.
\(c) If $W$ is an orthogonal sum $W=W_1\oplus W_2$ of rational spaces, $L_i\subseteqq W_i$ and ${{\mathfrak{a}}}_i$ is an affine cone in $W_i$ for $i=1,2$, then $$\mu^{L_1\oplus L_2}({{\mathfrak{a}}}_1 + {{\mathfrak{a}}}_2)= \mu^{L_1}({{\mathfrak{a}}}_1)\mu^{L_2}({{\mathfrak{a}}}_2).$$
\(d) For a fixed $s\in W_{{\mathbb Q}}$, the map ${{\mathfrak{c}}}\to \mu^L(s+{{\mathfrak{c}}})$ is a valuation on the set of cones in $W$.
\(e) Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset W$ be a rational polyhedron, then $$S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})=
\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})}\mu^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))I({{\mathfrak{f}}}).$$
Let us compute the function $\mu^L$ for the various transverse cones of Example \[dim2\]. We define a function $B(u)$ on ${{\mathbb C}}$, holomorphic near $0$, by $$B(u)=\frac{1}{1-e^u}+\frac{1}{u}.$$ We have $$I({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)= \frac{|\det(v_1,v_2)|}{\langle \xi,v_1\rangle \langle
\xi,v_2\rangle}.$$ Consider case (b) where $L$ is transverse to both edges ${{\mathfrak{f}}}_i={{\mathbb R}}_+ v_i$ of ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$.
Using the equation $\det(v_1,v_2)u=\det(u,v_2)v_1-\det(u,v_1)v_2$, we have $$I({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)= \frac{1}{\langle \xi,u\rangle}
\left(\frac{\det(u,v_2)}{\langle \xi,v_2\rangle} -
\frac{\det(u,v_1)}{\langle \xi,v_1\rangle}\right).$$
Thus we can rewrite (\[dim2b\]) as $$S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})=\mu^L({{\mathfrak{a}}}) +
\sum_{i=1,2}\mu^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_i)/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_i)}(({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}_i))I({{\mathfrak{f}}}_i) +
I({{\mathfrak{a}}}),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{muLdim2transverse}
&&\mu^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)= \frac{1}{\langle \xi,u\rangle}
\left[B\left(\frac{\langle
\xi,v_1\rangle}{\det(u,v_1)}\right)-B\left(\frac{\langle
\xi,v_2\rangle}{\det(u,v_2)}\right)\right],
\\
\nonumber && \mu^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_i)/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_i)}(({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}_i))=0 \;\;
{\rm for}\; i=1,2,\end{aligned}$$ Observe that (\[muLdim2transverse\]) is indeed regular at $\xi=0$.
In case [*(a)*]{} where $L= {{\mathbb R}}v_1$, we have $L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_1)/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_1)=\{0\}$. Let us assume that $\det(v_1,v_2)>0$. Then we have, by [@EML], $$\mu^{\{0\}}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}_1))(\xi)= B\left(\frac{- C_1\langle
\xi,v_1\rangle+\langle \xi,v_2\rangle}{\det(v_1,v_2)}\right)$$ with $C_1= \frac{Q(v_1,v_2)}{Q(v_1,v_1)}$.
As $ I({{\mathfrak{f}}}_1)(\xi)=- \frac{1}{\langle \xi,v_1\rangle} $, we can rewrite (\[dim2a\]) as $$S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})=\mu^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})+ \mu^{\{0\}}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}_1))I({{\mathfrak{f}}}_1)+\;
\mu^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2)/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2)}(({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}_2))I({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2)+ I({{\mathfrak{a}}}),$$ with $$\mu^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)=\frac{1}{\langle \xi,v_1\rangle}
\left[B\left(\frac{- C_1\langle \xi,v_1\rangle+\langle
\xi,v_2\rangle}{\det(v_1,v_2)}\right) -B\left(\frac{\langle
\xi,v_2\rangle}{\det(v_1,v_2)}\right)\right],$$ which is indeed regular at $\xi=0$, and, again, $$\mu^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2)/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}_2)}(({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{a}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}_2))=0.$$
Barvinok valuations
===================
Let ${{\cal L}}$ be a finite family of rational vector subspaces of $V$, and let $\rho(L), L\in {{\cal L}}$, be a set of rational coefficients. The linear combination $\sum_{L\in {{\cal L}}} \rho(L) S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ is again a valuation on the set of polyhedra ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$, with values in ${{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$. By taking linear combinations, we obtain a local Euler-Maclaurin expansion for the function $\sum_{L\in {{\cal L}}}
\rho(L) S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)$.
Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$ be a polyhedron.
\(a) We denote $$S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})=\sum_{L\in {{\cal L}}} \rho(L) S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}}).$$ (b) We define the ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$-term in the local Euler-Maclaurin expansion of $S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ to be $$\mu^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))=\sum _{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho_{{{\cal L}}}(L)
\mu^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})).$$
Thus we have $$S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})=
\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})}\mu^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))I({{\mathfrak{f}}}).$$ We are going to compute the ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$-term in the case of the following particular linear combinations introduced by Barvinok [@barvinokEhrhart].
The valuation $S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}$ is called a Barvinok valuation if
\(a) the family of subspaces ${{\cal L}}$ is stable under sum,
\(b) $\rho$ is an integer valued function on the set ${{\cal L}}$ such that the characteristic function of the union of the subspaces $L^\perp
\subseteqq V^*$ can be written as the linear combination $$\label{rhoL}
\chi(\cup_{L\in{{\cal L}}}L^\perp)=\sum _{L\in
{{\cal L}}}\rho(L)\chi(L^\perp).$$
We call a function ${{\cal L}}\to {{\mathbb Z}}$ which satisfies (\[rhoL\]) a patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}$.
As the set of orthogonal subspaces $L^\perp \subseteqq V^*$ is stable under intersection, a particular function $\rho_{{{\cal L}}}$ with this property can be computed in terms of the Moebius function of the partially ordered set ${{\cal L}}$ ([@Stanley], vol I, section 3.7), as explained in [@barvinokEhrhart].
Let us compute a patchwork function $\rho$ in the following case. $V={{\mathbb R}}^d$ with standard basis $e_i, i= 1,\dots,d$, and ${{\cal L}}_{d,q}$ is the set of subspaces $L_I= \oplus _{i\in I}{{\mathbb R}}e_i$ with cardinal $|I|\geq q$. The function $\rho_{d,q}$ defined below is actually the one associated to the Moebius function, but we will not need this fact.
We denote the binomial coefficient $\frac{m!}{k! (m-k)!}$ by $C^{k}_{m}$.
\[rho\] The function $\rho_{d,q}$ on ${{\cal L}}_{d,q}$ defined by $$\rho_{d,q}(L_I)= (-1)^{n-q}C^{q-1} _{n-1} \;\;\; \mbox{ if}\;\;
|I|=n,$$ satisfies Equation (\[rhoL\]).
If $e^i$ is the dual basis, the orthogonal space $L_I^{\perp}$ is equal to $\sum_{i\notin I}{{\mathbb R}}e^i$. Let $\xi=\sum_{i=1}^d \xi_i e^i \in\cup_{L\in{{\cal L}}_q}L^\perp$. Let $I_0$ be the set of indices $i\in [1,\dots, d]$ such that $\xi_i=
0$. Then $|I_0|\geq q$, and $\xi\in L_I^{\perp}$ if and only $I\subseteq I_0$. Let $|I_0|=N$. The value at $\xi$ of the right-hand side of (\[rhoL\]) is equal to $$E(N,q)=\sum_{I\subseteq
I_0}\rho_{d,q}(L_I)=\sum_{n=q}^{N}(-1)^{n-q} C_N^n
C_{n-1}^{q-1}.$$ We want to prove that $E(N,q)= 1$. Writing $n=q+i$, we have $$E(N,q)
=\sum_{i=0}^{N-q}(-1)^{i}\frac{N!}{(q+i)(N-q-i)!i!(q-1)!}.$$ Let us compute $(q-1)! \Big(E(N+1,q)-E(N,q)\Big)$. This is equal to $$(-1)^{N+1-q}\frac{(N+1)!}{(N+1)(N+1-q)!}
+\sum_{i=0}^{N-q}(-1)^{i}\frac{1}{(q+i)i!}\Big(\frac{(N+1)!}{(N+1-q-i)!}-
\frac{N!}{(N-q-i)!}\Big)$$ $$=N! \sum_{i=0}^{N+1-q}(-1)^{i}\frac{N!}{i!(N+1-q-i)!}=0.$$ We obtain $E(N,q)=E(q,q)=1$. $\Box$
In the case of a Barvinok valuation, it turns out that the ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$-term in the Euler-Maclaurin expansion of $S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ coincides with that of $S({{\mathfrak{p}}})$, if the vector subspace ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ belongs to the set ${{\cal L}}$. This is the crucial result of the present article. It is an easy consequence of the following combinatorial lemma.
\[combinatorial\] Let $\cal{L}$ be a finite family of vector subspaces of $V$, stable under sum and let $\rho$ be a patchwork function on $\cal{L}$.
\(a) Let $L_0\in {{\cal L}}$. Then $$\sum _{\{L\in {{\cal L}}, \; L\subseteq
L_0\}}\rho(L)=1.$$
\(b) Let $L_0\subsetneqq L_1$ be two subspaces in the family ${{\cal L}}$. Then $$\sum _{\{L\in {{\cal L}}, \; L+L_0=L_1\}} \rho(L) =0.$$
There exists a $\xi_0\in L_0^\perp$ such that, for $L\in {{\cal L}}$, $\xi_0 \in L^\perp$ if and only if $L\subseteq L_0$. We obtain [*(a)*]{} by evaluating both sides of (\[rhoL\]) at this particular element $\xi_0$. Next, we deduce [*(b)*]{} from [*(a)*]{}, by induction on $\dim L_1- \dim L_0$.
For two subspaces $M\subseteq M'$ in the family ${{\cal L}}$, let us denote $$f(M,M')=\sum _{\{L\in
{{\cal L}}, \; L+M=M'\}} \rho(L).$$ If $M=M'$, we have $f(M,M)= \sum _{\{L\in {{\cal L}}, L\subseteq
M\}}\rho(L)=1$ by [*(a)*]{}.
We apply this with $M=L_1$. Thus $$\sum _{\{L\in {{\cal L}}, L\subseteq L_1\}}\rho(L)= 1.$$
In this sum, we group the $L\in{{\cal L}}$ such that $L+L_0$ is equal to a given $M_1\in {{\cal L}}$ together.
First we consider the case when $\dim L_1- \dim L_0= 1$. Then $M_1$ is either $L_0$ or $L_1$, hence we obtain $$f(L_0,L_0) + f(L_0,L_1)= 1.$$ Since $f(L_0,L_0)=1$ by [*(a)*]{}, we obtain $f(L_0,L_1)= 0$ as required.
Next we consider the case when $\dim L_1- \dim L_0 > 1$. We obtain $$\sum _{\{M_1\in {{\cal L}}, \; L_0\subseteq M_1 \subseteq
L_1\}}f(L_0,M_1)= 1.$$ For $M_1=L_0$, we have $f(L_0,L_0)=1$ by [*(a)*]{}. For $M_1\subsetneqq L_1$, we have $f(L_0,M_1)= 0$ by induction hypothesis. Hence there remains only the term $f(L_0,L_1)$ which must be equal to $0$. $\Box$
We study now the Euler-Maclaurin expansion of a Barvinok valuation.
\[fterm\] Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$ be a rational polyhedron and let ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ be a face of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Let ${{\cal L}}$ be a finite family of rational vector subspaces of $V$, stable under sum. Let $ \rho$ be a patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}$, and let $S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}=\sum_{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho(L)S^L$.
Assume that ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ belongs to ${{\cal L}}$. Then $$\mu^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))= \mu^{\{0\}}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})).$$ In other words, the ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$-term in the local Euler-Maclaurin expansion of $S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ coincides with that of $S({{\mathfrak{p}}})$.
In the sum $\sum _{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho(L) \mu^{L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})/{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$, we group the terms for which $L+{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ is equal to a given $L_1$ together. By Lemma \[combinatorial\] we obtain $\mu^{\{0\}}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$ for $L_1= {\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ and $0$ otherwise. $\Box$
\[lowestdegree\] Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$ be a rational polyhedron. Let $0\leq k\leq d$. Let ${{\cal L}}$ be a finite family of rational vector subspaces of $V$, stable under sum, such that ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})\in {{\cal L}}$ for every $k$-dimensional face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ and let $ \rho$ be a patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}$.
$\bullet$ Let $0< k\leq d$. Then the meromorphic function $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)- S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)$$ has lowest degree $\geq -k+1$.
$\bullet$ Let $k=0$. Then $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi).$$
By Theorem \[fterm\], the local Euler-Maclaurin expansion of the difference involves only faces of dimension $<k$. $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)- S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{p}}})(\xi)= \sum_{\{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}}),\; \dim{{\mathfrak{f}}}<k\}}\left(\mu^{\{0\}}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)-
\mu^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)\right)I({{\mathfrak{f}}})(\xi).$$ For a face of dimension $j$, the function $I({{\mathfrak{f}}})(\xi)$ is homogeneous of degree $-j$. Multiplied by the *holomorphic* function $\mu^{\{0\}}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)- \mu^{{{\cal L}}}({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(\xi)$, its lowest degree can only increase. $\Box$
Remark that the statement of Corollary \[lowestdegree\] above does not involve any scalar product. In the next section, we will show that this corollary implies our main Theorem (Theorem \[betterthanbarvinok\]).
Ehrhart quasi-polynomial
========================
Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be a rational polytope and let $h(x)$ be a polynomial function on $V$. Let $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)=\sum_ {x\in {{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap {{\mathbb Z}}^d}h(x).$$ When ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is dilated by a non negative integer $n$, we obtain the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial of the pair $({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ $$S(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)= \sum_{m=0}^{d+ N} E_m({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,n)n ^m,$$ where $N=\deg h$. The coefficients $E_m({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,n)$ are periodic functions of $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$, with period the smallest integer $q$ such that $q{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a lattice polytope.
If an integer $r\leq d$ is fixed, and $h=1$, Barvinok [@barvinokEhrhart] proved that the $r+1$ highest Ehrhart coefficients $E_d({{\mathfrak{p}}},1,n), \ldots, E_{d-r}({{\mathfrak{p}}},1,n)$ of $S(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},1)$ can be computed in polynomial time with respect to $d$, when ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a rational simplex.
Let $L\subseteq V$ be a rational vector subspace. Denote the projected lattice on $V/L$ by ${\Lambda}_L$. Consider the mixed valuation $$S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)= \sum_{y\in {\Lambda}_{V/L}} \int_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap (y+L)} h(x)dx.$$ As shown by Barvinok, and as we will see here, we can use linear combination of these mixed valuations to approximate $S(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ when $n$ is big.
For any polyhedron ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$, we define the meromorphic function $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}},h)(\xi)\in {{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$ similarly to $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}},h)$. For $\xi\in V^*$ such that the sum converges, we have $$S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}},h)(\xi)= \sum_{y\in {\Lambda}_{V/L}} \int_{{{\mathfrak{a}}}\cap (y+L)}
h(x)e^{{{\langle}}\xi,x{{\rangle}}}dm_L(x).$$
It is clear that $S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}},h)(\xi)=h(\partial_\xi)\cdot
S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)$.
If ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a *polytope*, then $S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)$ is regular at $\xi=0$ and $ S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(0)= S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$.
For a family ${{\cal L}}$ and a function $L\mapsto\rho(L), L\in{{\cal L}},$ we define $$S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}({{\mathfrak{a}}},h)(\xi)= \sum_{L\in {{\cal L}}} \rho(L)S^L({{\mathfrak{a}}},h)(\xi).$$
If ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a polytope, and we dilate by $n\in N$, we have again a quasi-polynomial $$S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(0)=\sum_{m=0}^{d+ N} E_m({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h,n)n
^m.$$
We can replace the quasi-polynomial $S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(0)$ by $q$ legal polynomials in the variable $u$, by splitting ${{\mathbb N}}$ into classes modulo $q$. Writing $n=qu+k$, for $k=0,\dots,q-1$, we obtain the polynomial function of $u$: $$S^{({{\cal L}},\rho)}((qu+k) {{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(0)= \sum_{m=0}^{d+ N}
E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)u ^m.$$
We briefly recall how the usual Ehrhart quasi-polynomial of a polytope can be computed using Brion’s theorem. We will then use a similar method in order to compute efficiently the $r+1$ highest coefficients only, using Barvinok valuations.
Let ${{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})$ be the set of vertices of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. For each vertex $s$, let ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$ be the cone of feasible directions of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ at $s$, so that the supporting cone at $s$ is $ s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$. By Brion’s theorem [@brion], we have $$S({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)= \sum_{s\in {{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} S(s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi).$$ Let $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and consider the dilated polytope $n{{\mathfrak{p}}}$. The supporting cone at the vertex $ns$ is $ns + {{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$. Let $q\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $q {{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a lattice polytope and fix $k\in
{{\mathbb N}}$, $0\leq k\leq q-1$. Let $n=qu+k$. As $qus$ is an integral point, we have $$S((qu+k)s+ {{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi)=
e^{qu\langle
\xi,s\rangle}S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}(ks+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi).$$ Expanding in powers of $u$, we obtain $$S((qu+k){{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)= \sum_{m\geq 0} u^m \frac{q^m}{m!}\sum_{s\in
{{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \langle \xi,s\rangle^m
\;S(k s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi).$$ It follows that for each $m$, the sum of meromorphic functions $$\frac{q^m}{m!}\sum_{s\in {{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \langle \xi,s\rangle^m
\;S(k s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi)$$ is actually analytic. Its value at $\xi=0$ is obtained by taking the zero degree term. We obtain $$S((qu+k){{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(0)=\sum_{m\geq 0} E_m^{(k)}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)\;u^m,$$ with $$E_m^{(k)}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)=\frac{q^m}{m!} \sum_{s\in {{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \langle
\xi,s\rangle^m
\;S(k s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)_{[-m]}(\xi).$$ The right-hand side of this relation, a priori a meromorphic function of $\xi$, is actually constant. Moreover, we have $S(k
s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)_{[-m]}(\xi)= 0 $ if $m> d+N$, hence the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial has degree $\leq d+N$.
We apply now Brion’s theorem to $S^{{{\cal L}},\rho}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)$. We obtain $$S^{{{\cal L}},\rho}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)= \sum_{s\in {{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})}
S^{{{\cal L}},\rho}(s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi).$$ For reasons to be explained later on, instead of one family ${{\cal L}}$, we take a family of subspaces ${{\cal L}}_s$ for each vertex $s$. Let $\rho_s: {{\cal L}}_s\to {{\mathbb Z}}$ be a function on ${{\cal L}}_s$. We denote now by $({{\cal L}},\rho) $ the map $s\mapsto ({{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s)$.
We define: $$\label{sommesommets}
{{\cal B}}^{{{\cal L}},\rho}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)= \sum_{s\in
{{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})}S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}(s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi).$$
If the family does not depend on $s$, $({{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s)=({{\cal L}}_0,\rho_0)$ [for every vertex $s$]{}, then, by Brion’s theorem, we have $${{\cal B}}^{{{\cal L}},\rho}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)=S^{{{\cal L}}_0,\rho_0}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi).$$
We dilate (\[sommesommets\]). Let $n=qu+k$. We obtain $${{\cal B}}^{{{\cal L}},\rho}((qu+k){{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)= \sum_{s\in {{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} e^{qu\langle
\xi,s\rangle}S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}(ks+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi).$$ Expanding in powers of $u$, we obtain $$\label{sommesommetsdilate}
{{\cal B}}^{{{\cal L}},\rho}((qu+k){{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)=\sum_{m\geq 0} u^m
E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)$$ with $$\label{ehrhart-of-BCL}
E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)=\frac{q^m}{m!}\sum_{s\in
{{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \langle \xi,s\rangle^m
\;S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}(k s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)(\xi).$$ If the family does not depend on $s$, $({{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s)=({{\cal L}}_0,\rho_0)$ for all vertices, then ${{\cal B}}^{{{\cal L}},\rho}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi) = S^{{{\cal L}}_0,\rho_0}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)$ is analytic near $\xi=0$, and so are the coefficients (\[ehrhart-of-BCL\]).
On the contrary, if we take a different family ${{\cal L}}_s$ for each vertex $s$, the coefficient $ E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)$ of $u^m$ in (\[sommesommetsdilate\]) is no longer analytic near $\xi=0$, in general. However, the meromorphic function $\xi
\mapsto E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(\xi)$ belongs to ${{\cal M}}_{\ell}(V^*)$, thus it has a term of degree $0$ with respect to $\xi$, given by $$\label{zero-degree-ehrhart-of-BCL}
E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)_{[0]}(\xi)=\frac{q^m}{m!}\sum_{s\in
{{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \langle \xi,s\rangle^m \;S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}(k
s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s,h)_{[-m]}(\xi).$$ For a family $({{\cal L}},\rho)$ as described in the next theorem, it turns out that, for large $m$, this zero-degree part $E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)_{[0]}(\xi)$ is actually analytic, hence constant, and its value is equal to the $m$-th Ehrhart coefficient $E_m^{(k)}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ of $S((k+ qu){{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(0)$.
\[betterthanbarvinok\]
Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be a rational polytope in a rational vector space of dimension $d$. For each vertex $s$ of the polytope ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, let ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$ be the cone of feasible directions of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ at $s$, so that the supporting cone at $s$ is $s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$. For each vertex $s$, let ${{\cal L}}_s$ be a finite family of rational vector subspaces of $V$, stable under sum, such that ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ belongs to ${{\cal L}}_s$ for every face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ of codimension $r$ of the cone ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$, and let $
\rho_s$ be a patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}_s$. Let $q\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $q {{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a lattice polytope and fix $k\in {{\mathbb N}}$, $0\leq k\leq
q-1$. Let $h(x)$ be a homogeneous polynomial of total degree $N$.
Then, for $m\geq d+N-r$, the zero-degree term $
E_m^{(k)}({{\cal L}},\rho,{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)_{[0]}(\xi)$ defined by (\[zero-degree-ehrhart-of-BCL\]) is regular near $\xi=0$, hence constant. Its value is the coefficient $E_m^{(k)}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$ of $u^m$ in the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial $$S((k + qu){{\mathfrak{p}}},h)(0)= \sum _{x\in ((k + qu){{\mathfrak{p}}})\, \cap {\Lambda}}h(x)=
\sum_{m=0}^{d+N}u^m E_m^{(k)}({{\mathfrak{p}}},h).$$
We first consider the case $h(x)=1$. We have, for every $m\geq 0$, $$E_m^{(k)}({{\mathfrak{p}}},1)=\frac{q^m}{m!}\sum_{s\in {{\cal V}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \langle
\xi,s\rangle^m \;S(k s+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)_{[-m]}(\xi)$$ where the right-hand side is actually a constant function of $\xi$. For $m
>d-r-1$, we have, by Corollary \[lowestdegree\], $$S(ks+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)_{[-m]}= S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}(ks+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)_{[-m]}(\xi).$$
This proves the theorem when $h(x)=1$. The case of a non constant polynomial $h(x)$ is quite similar. If $h(x)= x_1^{N_1}\dots
x_d^{N_d}$, we just have to replace the meromorphic functions $S(ks +{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi) $ and $S^{{{\cal L}}_s,\rho_s}(ks+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$ by their derivatives under $\partial_{\xi_1}^{N_1}\dots
\partial_{\xi_d}^{N_d}$. $\Box$
If for each vertex $s$, we take ${{\cal L}}_s={{\cal L}}$, the full collection generated by all $r$ codimensional faces of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, we obtain Corollary \[barvinok\] below, that is Barvinok’s theorem [@barvinokEhrhart], with an extension to the sum of values of any polynomial $h(x)$ over the set of integral points of a rational polytope (Barvinok considers only the case $h(x)=1$).
\[barvinok\] Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset V$ be a rational polytope and let $h(x)$ be a polynomial function on $V$. Let ${{\cal L}}$ be a finite family of rational vector subspaces of $V$, stable under sum. Assume that ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$ belongs to ${{\cal L}}$ for every face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ of codimension $r$ of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. Let $ \rho$ be a patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}$ and let $S^{{{\cal L}},\rho}=\sum_{L\in{{\cal L}}}\rho(L)S^L$. Then the $r+1$ highest Ehrhart coefficients of $S(t{{\mathfrak{p}}}, h)(0)$ and $ S^{{{\cal L}},\rho}(t{{\mathfrak{p}}},
h)(0)$ are equal.
The point in taking a family ${{\cal L}}_s$ which depends on the vertex $s$ lies in the case where ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is *simplicial*. In this case, we can take ${{\cal L}}_s$ to be just the set of subspaces ${\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$, for all faces ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ of codimension $\leq r $ of the supporting cone ${{\mathfrak{c}}}_s$ at vertex $s$. This family is stable under sum. Moreover the patchwork function on ${{\cal L}}_s$ is simple, (Lemma \[rho\]) and the computation of the function $S^{L}(ks+{{\mathfrak{c}}}_s)(\xi)$, when $L\in {{\cal L}}_s$, is immediately reduced (Example \[face\]) to the computation of a function $S({{\mathfrak{a}}})(\xi)$ for a simplicial cone ${{\mathfrak{a}}}$ in a rational vector space of dimension [**smaller or equal**]{} than $r$. When ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is a simplex, we obtain in this way a method for computing the $r+1$ highest Ehrhart coefficients for the pair $({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)$.
Local Euler-Maclaurin formula for mixed sums
============================================
Finally in this last section, we discuss an application of the existence of the coefficients $\mu^L$ (Theorem \[maintheorem\]) in the line of [@EML].
Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be a rational polytope in a rational vector space $V$ of dimension $d$ and let $h(x)$ be a polynomial function on $V$. Let $L$ be a rational subspace of $V$. Consider the mixed sum $$S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)= \sum_{y\in {\Lambda}_{V/L}} \int_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}\cap (y+L)}
h(x)dm_L(x).$$
As in [@EML], we associate to the analytic function $\mu^L({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$ a constant coefficients differential operator (of infinite order) on $V$.
\[dpf\] Let ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ be a face of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. We denote by $ D^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ the differential operator on $V$ associated to analytic function $\mu^L({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$:
$$D^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})(\partial_\xi)\cdot
e^{\langle \xi,x\rangle}=\mu^L({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})))(\xi) e^{\langle
\xi,x\rangle}.$$
The operators $D^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ are [**local**]{}, that is they depend only of the transverse cone ${{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})$ of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ along ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$, and they involve only derivatives in directions orthogonal to the face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$. We can state the following theorem with the same proof as in [@EML].
(Local Euler-Maclaurin formula)\[LEMLF\] Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be a polytope in $V$. For any polynomial function $h(x)$ on $V$, we have $$\label{maclaurin}
S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h)=\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})}\int_{{\mathfrak{f}}}D^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}})\cdot h$$ where the integral on the face ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ is taken with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $<{{\mathfrak{f}}}>$ defined by the lattice ${\Lambda}\cap
{\operatorname{lin}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})$.
In particular, for $h=1$, we obtain $$\label{h1}
S^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},1)=\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \mu^L({{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(0){\operatorname{vol}}({{\mathfrak{f}}}).$$
Let us dilate the polytope ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ by a non negative integer $n$. If ${{\mathfrak{f}}}$ is a face of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, let $q_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}}$ be the smallest positive integer such that $q_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}}<{{\mathfrak{f}}}>$ contains integral points. Define $D({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}},n)=D(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},n{{\mathfrak{f}}})$, if $n>0$, and $D({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}},0)=D(q_{{\mathfrak{f}}}{{\mathfrak{p}}},q_{{\mathfrak{f}}}{{\mathfrak{f}}})$. The function $n\mapsto D({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}},n)$ is periodic of period $q_{{\mathfrak{f}}}$.
Let ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ be a rational polytope and $h$ a polynomial function of degree $N$ on $V$. Then, for any integer $n\geq 0$, we have $$\label{Stph}
S^L(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},h)=\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})}\int_{n{{\mathfrak{f}}}}D^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}},n)\cdot h.$$ Furthermore, if ${{\mathfrak{f}}}\in {{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})$, we have $$\int_{n{{\mathfrak{f}}}}D^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}},n)\cdot h =\sum_{i=\dim{{\mathfrak{f}}}}^{\dim{{\mathfrak{f}}}+
N}E_i({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,{{\mathfrak{f}}},n)\,n^i$$ where the coefficients $E_i({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,{{\mathfrak{f}}},n)$ are periodic with period $q_{{\mathfrak{f}}}$.
Hence the Ehrhart coefficients are given by $$E_m^L({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,n)= \sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}},{\rm dim {{\mathfrak{f}}}} \leq m}E_m({{\mathfrak{p}}},h,{{\mathfrak{f}}},n).$$
When we apply the last proposition to the function $h(x)=1$, we obtain $$\label{h1}
S^L(n{{\mathfrak{p}}},1)=\sum_{{{\mathfrak{f}}}\in{{\cal F}}({{\mathfrak{p}}})} \mu^L(n{{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(0){\operatorname{vol}}({{\mathfrak{f}}})
n^{\dim{{\mathfrak{f}}}}.$$ As $\mu^L(n{{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))$ is invariant by integral translations, the function $\mu^L(n{{\mathfrak{t}}}({{\mathfrak{p}}},{{\mathfrak{f}}}))(0)$ is of period $q_{{\mathfrak{f}}}$.
[99]{} ,*Computing the Ehrhart polynomial of a convex lattice polytope*, Discrete Comput. geom. **12** (1994), 35-48. ,[*Computing the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial of a rational simplex*]{}, Mathematics of Computation, [**75**]{} (2006), 1449–1466. , [*An algorithmic theory of lattice points in polyhedra*]{}, New Perspectives in Algebraic Combinatorics (Berkeley,CA, 1996-97), Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Public [**38**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1999), pp 91-147. *Local Euler-Maclaurin formula for polytopes* (2005), arXiv:math CO/0507256. To appear in Moscow Math. J. , [*Points entiers dans les poly[è]{}dres convexes*]{}, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. [**21**]{} (1988), 653-663. **De Loera J.A., Haws D., Hemmecke R., Huggins H., Tauzer J. and Yoshida R.**, *A User’s Guide for LattE v1.1, 2003*, software package LattE, available at http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/ latte. *Enumerative combinatorics*. Vol 1 (1997), Cambridge Studies in Advanced Math. **49**.
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
[^4]
[^5]
[^6]
[^7]
[^8]
[^1]: Acknowledgments: We thank the various institutions that helped us to collaborate on this work: the Research-in-pairs program at the Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, the University Denis Diderot in Paris and the Centre Laurent Schwartz at Ecole Polytechnique.
[^2]: [**Velleda Baldoni**]{}, Universita di Roma Tor Vergata, Dipartimento di Matematica, via della Ricerca Scientifica, 00133 Roma, Italy.
[^3]: email: [email protected]
[^4]: [**Nicole Berline**]{}, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de mathématiques Laurent Schwartz, 91128, Palaiseau, France.
[^5]: email: [email protected]
[^6]: [**Mich[è]{}le Vergne**]{}, Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu, Th[é]{}orie des Groupes, Case 7012, 2 Place Jussieu, 75251 Paris Cedex 05, France;
[^7]: Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de mathématiques Laurent Schwartz, 91128, Palaiseau, France.
[^8]: email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
$^*$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University, Hoża 69, 00-681, Warsaw, Poland\
$^\#$ Service de Physique Théorique, CEA-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France [^1]\
$^\dagger$ Theory Division, Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
author:
- 'P.H. CHANKOWSKI,$\, ^*$ K. KOWALSKA,$\, ^*$ S. LAVIGNAC$\, ^\#$ and S. POKORSKI$^{\, *,\dagger}$'
title: 'FLAVOUR CHANGING NEUTRAL CURRENTS AND INVERTED SFERMION MASS HIERARCHY [^2]'
---
IFT-05-17\
SACLAY-T05/117
Introduction
============
In contrast with the successful predictions of the Standard Model, supersymmetry does not guarantee suppressed flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) and CP violating processes. Instead the predictions of supersymmetric models depend on two sets of unknown parameters, the soft supersymmetry breaking terms and the Yukawa coupling matrices. Arbitrary phases and flavour structures in these parameters would lead to unacceptably large contributions to FCNC and CP violating observables: this is the well-known supersymmetric flavour problem. At the phenomenological level, there are well-known radical possibilities that make the above mentioned dependence trivial, and the Standard Model predictions are recovered: flavour universal soft terms [@ELNA], or alignment of the sfermion and fermion mass matrices [@NISE]. However, the mechanism of spontaneous supersymmetry breaking and its transmission to the visible sector is unkown and ultimately may not be consistent with any of these options (measurements of the supersymmetric mass spectrum at the LHC may tell us).
It is therefore useful to study the dependence of the FCNC and CP constraints on the supersymmetric mass spectrum and on the pattern of Yukawa couplings. In this work, we perform such an analysis in the framework of supergravity-mediated supersymmetry breaking and in the presence of hierarchical Yukawa couplings, without insisting on keeping a moderate fine-tuning in the Higgs potential. In particular, we quantify and compare the FCNC and CP problems in two regions of the supersymmetric parameter space where they are expected to be less stringent: the region with sub-TeV (GUT-scale) sfermion masses but possibly heavy gauginos, on the one hand, and the region with sfermion masses in the multi-TeV range, on the other hand. We also study the so-called “inverted hierarchy” scenario [@DUPOSA; @COKANE], with heavy first two generation sfermions and lighter third generation sfermions, which has been put forward as a way to suppress the most dangerous flavour and CP violating processes while keeping the fine-tuning at an acceptable level. We investigate the predictions of this scenario for FCNC processes in a specific inverted hierarchy model with $D$-term supersymmetry breaking.
FCNC and CP constraints: heavy gauginos versus heavy sfermions {#sec:FCNC}
==============================================================
The goal of this section is to quantitify and compare the FCNC and CP problems in the two regions of the supersymmetric parameter space where the (GUT-scale) sfermion masses are in the sub-TeV range but the gauginos are relatively heavy, and where the sfermion masses are in the multi-TeV range, respectively.
Let us first specify our assumptions about soft sfermion masses and Yukawa couplings. In the Yukawa sector, we consider matrices of the hierarchical type, for which the smallness of the charged fermion mass ratios result from a hierarchy among Yukawa couplings rather than from cancellations between large entries in the Yukawa matrices. For definiteness, we shall use in our subsequent numerical study one of the quark and lepton Yukawa textures that were analyzed in Ref. [@CHKOLAPO]. These textures are associated with the spontaneous breaking, close to the $GUT$ scale, of a horizontal $U(1)$ symmetry [@FRONI] and have the following structure: $\mathbf{Y}_u^{AB} = C_u^{AB} ~\epsilon^{q_A + \bar u_B + h_u}$, $\mathbf{Y}_d^{AB} = C_d^{AB} ~\epsilon^{q_A + \bar d_B + h_d}$ and $\mathbf{Y}_e^{AB} = C_e^{AB} ~\epsilon^{l_A + \bar e_B + h_d}$, where the $C_{u,d,e}^{AB}$ are arbitrary complex coefficients of order one, $\epsilon \ll 1$ is a small parameter associated with the spontaneous breaking of the horizontal symmetry, and $q_A$, $\bar u_A$, $\bar d_A$, $l_A$, $\bar e_A$, $h_u$, $h_d$ stand for the horizontal charges (assumed to be positive) of the MSSM superfields $Q_A$, $U^c_A$, $D^c_A$, $L_A$, $E^c_A$, $H_u$, $H_d$. Specifically, we choose model 1 from Ref. [@CHKOLAPO], with horizontal charges $q_A = \bar u_A = \bar e_A = (3,2,0)$, $l_A = \bar d_A = (4,2,2)$ and $h_u = h_d = 0$. Since the symmetry breaking parameter $\epsilon$ turns out to be very close numerically to the Cabbibo angle $\lambda \simeq 0.22$, we set $\epsilon = \lambda$. The associated quark and charged lepton Yukawa matrices then read: \_u \~y\_t (
[ccc]{} \^6 & \^5 & \^3\
\^5 & \^4 & \^2\
\^3 & \^2 & 1
) , \_d \~y\_b (
[ccc]{} \^5 & \^3 & \^3\
\^4 & \^2 & \^2\
\^2 & 1 & 1
) , \_e \~y\_(
[ccc]{} \^5 & \^4 & \^2\
\^3 & \^2 & 1\
\^3 & \^2 & 1
) , \[eq:Y\_ude\] where the symbol $\sim$ reminds us that an order one complex factor is understood in each entry of the matrices $\mathbf{Y}_{u,d,e}$. In practice, we shall use randomly generated sets of order one coefficients {$C_u^{AB}$, $C_d^{AB}$, $C_e^{AB}$} that fit the measured values of the quark and lepton masses and mixings, with renormalization group evolution of the Yukawa couplings between the GUT scale and the weak scale taken into account [@CHKOLAPO]. In the neutrino sector, this charge assignment also yields correct agreement with oscillation data upon adjusting the relevant order one parameters [@CHKOLAPO; @ALFEMA].
In the supersymmetry breaking sector, we do not rely on any specific model and make only mild assumptions about the flavour structure of the soft terms. In particular, we consider soft sfermion masses with both splittings among entries on the diagonal and non-vanishing off-diagonal entries (suppressed by some power of $\lambda$): m\^2\_Q, m\^2\_U, m\^2\_D, m\^2\_L, m\^2\_E = () , \[eq:M2\_QudLe\] where, unless otherwise stated, $m^2_1, m^2_2, m^2_3 \sim m^2$, and we have assumed the same level of suppression for all off-diagonal entries. For the $A$-terms, we assume the following flavour structure: A\^[AB]{}\_u = a\^[AB]{}\_u \^[q\_A + |u\_B + h\_u]{} A\_0 , A\^[AB]{}\_d = a\^[AB]{}\_d \^[q\_A + |d\_B + h\_d]{} A\_0 , A\^[AB]{}\_e = a\^[AB]{}\_e \^[l\_A + |e\_B + h\_d]{} A\_0 , \[eq:A\_ude\] where $A_0$ is a mass scale and the $a^{AB}_{u,d,e}$ are complex order one coefficients. While compatible with the horizontal symmetry manifest in the fermion sector, this ansatz departs from the standard proportionality assumption $A^{AB} = A_0 Y^{AB}$, which would correspond to $a^{AB}_{u,d,e} = C^{AB}_{u,d,e}$.
To estimate the contributions to flavour and CP violating processes due to the hierarchical mass matrices (\[eq:Y\_ude\]) – (\[eq:A\_ude\]), we use the standard mass insertion parameters [@HAKORA] (here in matrix form): \^d\_[LL]{} , \^d\_[RR]{} , \^d\_[LR]{} , where $D_L$ (resp. $D_R$) is the rotation that brings the left-handed (resp. right-handed) down quarks to their mass eigenstate basis, $\tilde m^{d 2}_{LR} = (A_d - \mu \tan \beta\, Y_d)\, v_d$, and $\bar m_{\tilde d}$ is an average down squark mass. The diagonal terms, irrelevant to flavour violation, have been omitted in $\delta^d_{LL}$ and $\delta^d_{RR}$. Off-diagonal entries of order $\lambda^n$ in the squark soft mass matrices will give contributions of order $\lambda^n$ to the corresponding [^3] $(\delta^d_{LL})^{AB}$’s and $(\delta^d_{RR})^{AB}$’s, while the contribution of splittings among diagonal entries strongly depends on the magnitude of the mixing in the Yukawa textures. For example, $m^2_1 \neq m^2_2$ in $m^2_Q$ gives a contribution $D^{12}_L D^{22 \star}_L (m^2_2 - m^2_1) / \bar m^2_{\tilde d}
\sim \lambda\, (m^2_2 - m^2_1) / \bar m^2_{\tilde d}$ to $(\delta^d_{LL})^{12}$. Finally, Eq. (\[eq:A\_ude\]) gives $(\delta^d_{LR})^{AB} \sim (A_0 v_d / m^2) \lambda^{q_A+\bar d_B+h_d}$ ($A \neq B$) and [^4] $|\mbox{Im} (\delta^d_{LR})^{AA}| \lesssim |A_0|\, m_{d_A} / m^2$. Analogous quantities $(\delta^u_{MN})^{AB}$ and $(\delta^e_{MN})^{AB}$, where $M, N = L$ or $R$ are defined in the up squark and slepton sectors, respectively.
Let us discuss in greater detail the expected magnitude of the FCNC processes induced by splittings among diagonal entries of the sfermion soft mass matrices. The diagonalization of the Yukawa matrices (\[eq:Y\_ude\]) yields the following hierarchical structures for the rotations that bring the quarks and charged leptons to their mass eigenstate basis: \_L , \_L , \_R , \_R \~(
[ccc]{} 1 & & \^3\
& 1 & \^2\
\^3 & \^2 & 1
) , \_R , \_L \~(
[ccc]{} 1 & \^2 & \^2\
\^2 & 1 & 1\
\^2 & 1 & 1
) . \[eq:R\_ude\] Let us first consider the implications of Eq. (\[eq:R\_ude\]) in the down squark sector. Since $D_L$ has the same hierarchical structure as the CKM matrix $V = U^\dagger_L D_L$, the order of magnitude of the dominant contribution to $(\delta^d_{LL})^{AB}$ is: $$(\delta^d_{LL})^{AB}\ \sim\ V^{AB} (m^2_B - m^2_A) / m^2\ ,$$ Hence $m^2_A \neq m^2_B$ induces a large $(\delta^d_{LL})^{12}$, but a smaller $(\delta^d_{LL})^{13}$ or $(\delta^d_{LL})^{23}$. Furthermore, $(\delta^d_{RR})^{12}$ and $(\delta^d_{RR})^{13}$ are of order $\lambda^2 (m^2_B - m^2_A) / m^2$, while $(\delta^d_{RR})^{23} \sim (m^2_3 - m^2_2) / m^2$. We therefore expect large contributions from splittings among diagonal entries in the squark mass matrices to $\Delta m_K$ and to $\epsilon_K$ (since large phases are generally present in the rotation matrices $D_L$ and $D_R$), while the contributions to $B^0_d - \bar B^0_d$ mixing should be suppressed. Large effects are also expected in $b \rightarrow s$ transitions, due to $(\delta^d_{RR})^{23}$, as well as in $D^0$-$\bar D^0$ mixing (including CP violating effects, which are absent in the Standard Model) and in $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, since Eq. (\[eq:R\_ude\]) implies $U^{12}_L \sim U^{12}_R \sim E^{12}_R
\sim D^{12}_L \sim \lambda$, as well as $E^{12}_L \sim D^{12}_R \sim \lambda^2$. Finally, since $E^{23}_R \sim D^{23}_R\sim 1$, $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$ may also receive sizeable contributions from splittings among the diagonal entries of $m^2_E$.
So far our discussion has been qualitative and has ignored the effect of the renormalization group evolution on soft supersymmetry breaking terms, as well as the dependence of the flavour and CP violation observables on the superparticle mass spectrum. We now move to the quantitative study of a few observables in the low ($\lesssim 1$ TeV) and the high ($5-50$ TeV) sfermion mass regions for various values of the GUT-scale parameters $A_0$ and $M_{1/2}$, $|\mu|$ and $B \mu$ being determined from radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. Our goal is to compare the FCNC and CP problems in these two regions for the hierarchical Yukawa couplings (\[eq:Y\_ude\]). In order to do this, we scan over the different flavour and CP violating (GUT-scale) parameters in the sfermion sector [^5]: (i) the splittings $m^2_A - m^2_B$ among diagonal entries of the soft sfermion mass matrices; (ii) the off-diagonal entries of the soft sfermion mass matrices (in practice the complex order one coefficients multiplying some fixed power of $\lambda$); (iii) the complex order one coefficients $a^{AB}_{u,d,e}$ in the $A$-terms, Eq. (\[eq:A\_ude\]). Order one parameters are scanned in the range $[0.3-3]$. We also vary the Yukawa couplings by using 100 randomly generated sets of the order one coefficients $C^{AB}_{u,d,e}$ fitting the measured values of the quark and lepton masses and mixing angles.
.1cm
\(a) 0.45(b)
Let us first consider off-diagonal entries of order $\lambda^3$. Fig. \[fig:a0e3g4\_10\] shows $\Delta m_K$, $\epsilon_K$, $\mbox{BR} (\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$ and $\Delta m_D$ as a function of the GUT-scale sfermion mass parameter $m$, assuming $m_1 = m_2 = m_3 \equiv m$, off-diagonal entries of order $\lambda^3$ in the sfermion mass matrices, $A_0 = 0$ and $M_{1/2} = 400$ GeV and $1000$ GeV, respectively. Not surprisingly, the most severe constraints come from $\epsilon_K$ and $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$. For $M_{1/2} = 400$ GeV, the scatter plots for $\Delta m_K$, $\epsilon_K$ and $\Delta m_D$ look approximately symmetric around $m = 1$ TeV, where these observables reach a maximum. Above $1$ TeV, the effect of decoupling the squarks running in the loop is clearly visible: $\Delta m_K$, $\epsilon_K$ and $\Delta m_D$ decrease as $1/ m^2$, as expected. This effect is practically insensitive to the value of $M_{1/2}$. Below $1$ TeV, on the other hand, one can see the “aligning effect” of the gluino mass on the squark mass matrices [@BRIBMU] (for a recent discussion of this effect, see Ref. [@CHLEPO]). Indeed, the one-loop renormalization group equations of squark masses receive a large and negative contribution from the gauginos, whose effect is to enhance the diagonal entries of the squark mass matrices by a universal piece. Schematically, one has: 16 \^2 = () - \_i c\_i g\^2\_i M\^2\_i \_[3 3]{} + . For the first two generations, the Yukawa couplings can be neglected, implying $m^2_A (M_Z) \approx m^2_{A} (M_{GUT}) + c\, M^2_{1/2}$ ($A=1,2$), with $c \approx (6-7)$. Hence, $(\delta^d_{LL})^{12}$ is suppressed with respect to its “GUT-scale value” $\lambda^3$: $(\delta^d_{LL})^{12} \approx m^2 \lambda^3 / (m^2 + c\, M^2_{1/2})$, and this effect is more important for larger values of the ratio $M_{1/2} / m$. This is illustrated in the two sets of plots of Fig. \[fig:a0e3g4\_10\], which only differ by the value of $M_{1/2}$: the supersymmetric contributions to $\Delta m_K$ and $\epsilon_K$ are under much better control, in the low $m$ region, for $M_{1/2} = 1000$ GeV than for $M_{1/2} = 400$ GeV; in both case, $\Delta m_K$, $\epsilon_K$ and $\Delta m_D$ decrease quickly when $m$ drops below $1$ TeV. Note that $m = 200$ GeV and $M_{1/2} = 400$ ($1000$) TeV correspond to $m_{\tilde q_{1,2}} \approx 1$ ($2.5$) TeV and $M_{\tilde g} \approx 1.2$ ($3$) TeV; thus a GUT-scale sfermion mass parameter $m$ in the few $100$ GeV range does not necessarily mean light squarks. In the lepton sector, the aligning effect is much milder, since $c \approx 0.5$ ($0.15$) for $m^2_L$ ($m^2_E$). It follows that, for moderate values of $M_{1/2}$, the $\mu \to e \gamma$ constraint becomes more and more severe when $m$ decreases; for large values of $M_{1/2}$, however, $\mbox{BR} (\mu \to e \gamma)$ start decreasing when $m$ drops below $1$ TeV.
.1cm
\(a) 0.45(b)
Let us now consider a splitting between the first two diagonal entries of the sfermion mass matrices. Fig. \[fig:m1a0r1g4\_8\] shows $\Delta m_K$, $\epsilon_K$, $\mbox{BR} (\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$ and $\Delta m_D$ as a function of the GUT-scale sfermion mass parameter $m$, assuming $m_2 = m_3 \equiv m$ and scanning over $m_1$ in the range $[0.5 m, m]$, with vanishing off-diagonal entries in the sfermion mass matrices, $A_0 = 0$ and $M_{1/2} = 400$ GeV and $800$ GeV, respectively. One can observe qualitatively similar effects to the case of non-vanishing off-diagonal entries in the low and high $m$ regions. However, as already mentioned above, there is a substantial difference between the two sources of flavour violations. While the contribution of off-diagonal entries to FCNC processes only weakly depends on the Yukawa couplings, especially if the latter are of the hierarchical type, this is no so for the contribution of splittings between the diagonal entries. For the “generic” hierarchical case considered in this paper, $U_L$ and $D_L$ have the same hierarchical structure as the CKM matrix. In particular, $D^{12}_L$ is of order the Cabibbo angle and gives a large $(\delta^d_{LL})^{12}$; furthermore, $D^{12}_R$ is only suppressed by an additional factor of $\lambda$ relative to $D^{12}_L$ (remember that the strongest constraints from the kaon sector are on the combination [@GAGAMASI] $(\delta^d_{LL})^{12} (\delta^d_{RR})^{12}$). Yukawa textures with suppressed mixing among down-type quarks (either in the left-handed or in the right-handed sector, or in both) would yield a much smaller contribution to $\Delta m_K$ and $\epsilon_K$, thus softening the constraint on the $m^2_1 - m^2_2$ splitting in the squark sector. Similarly, a much stronger hierarchical structure for $Y_e$, with the large lepton mixing angles coming solely from the neutrino sector, would at least partially relax the strong constraints from lepton flavour violating processes such as $\mu \to e \gamma$.
Finally, non-zero $A$-terms have little impact on FCNCs, due to their proportionality to Yukawa couplings; their main effects show up in the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the neutron and of the charged leptons. For $A_0 \sim m$ and $M_{1/2} = 400$ GeV, the contribution of $|\mbox{Im}\, (\delta^d_{LR})^{11}|$ to the neutron EDM is under control, while the contribution of $|\mbox{Im}\, (\delta^u_{LR})^{11}|$ provides a strong constraint (this is however mainly due to the fact that the charge assignment predicts $A^{11}_u / A_0 \sim \lambda^6 \gg m_u / m_t$). Still this constraint becomes weaker at high $m$ as well as for large values of $M_{1/2}$ at low $m$.
We conclude that there are two regions in the (GUT-scale) MSSM parameter space where the constraints associated with flavour and CP violating processes are significantly weakened, both in the quark and lepton sectors: (i) a low sfermion mass / high gaugino mass region, with $m \lesssim 500$ GeV and $M_{1/2} \gtrsim 800$ GeV; and (ii) a high sfermion mass region, with $m \gtrsim 10$ TeV and practically no constraint on $M_{1/2}$. It is essentially flavour violation in the lepton sector that requires high values of $M_{1/2}$ at low $m$. Unless $m$ or $M_{1/2}$ are pushed towards very large values, however, a strong suppression of off-diagional entries in the sfermion mass matrices is still needed, especially in the $1$-$2$ sector. Splittings among the diagonal entries are also constrained, but the allowed level of non-degeneracy strongly depends on the Yukawa structure.
Inverted sfermion mass hierarchy and $D$-term supersymmetry breaking
====================================================================
However, if the supersymmetric FCNC and CP problems appear to be less stringent in the previous regions, they are less appealing from the point of view of naturalness – not even mentioning the possibility of detecting superpartners at the LHC. As is well-known indeed, in the MSSM the weak scale is determined by the following relation: M\_Z = - \^2 + - \^2 - m\^2\_[H\_u]{} , \[eq:Mz\] where the last equality holds for $\tan \beta \gtrsim 10$. Naturalness requires the absence of fine-tuned cancellations in the right-hand side of [@ELENNAZW] Eq. (\[eq:Mz\]). Since $m^2_{H_u}$ receives large corrections from third generation sfermions and gluinos, these should be light enough to keep fine-tuning in the Higgs potential still “reasonable” (say at the level of $1 \%$). The naturalness criterion then appears to select the region of the parameter space where the FCNC problem is maximized.
There is, however, a potential compromise, namely the so-called “inverted hierarchy” scenario [@DUPOSA; @COKANE], with heavy first two generation squarks and sleptons in order to suppress FCNC and CP violating processes, and light third generation sfermions and gluinos, in order to maintain the fine-tuning at an acceptable level. In this section, we study a specific realization of this scheme in the framework of gauge anomalous horizontal $U(1)$ models [@anomalous].
Before doing so, let us review the constraints that apply to the inverted hierarchy scenario. As first pointed out in Ref. [@ARMU], large two-loop renormalization group effects associated with the heavy first scalar generations could drive the squared masses of the third generation squarks and sleptons negative. Schematically, one has: 16 \^2 = 6 y\^2\_3 m\^2\_3 - \_i c\_i g\^2\_i M\^2\_i + \_i c’\_i g\^4\_i m\^2 + . This contribution has to be compensated for by the contribution of gauginos and by the initial value of the third generation mass $m_3$. Avoiding tachyonic scalars then implies a lower bound on the GUT-scale ratio $m_3 / m$ (where $m_1 \approx m_2 \approx m$), as a function of $M_{1/2}$ and $m$. An even stronger bound is obtained, for large $m$ values, by requiring that the lightest Higgs mass be larger than its experimental limit. We point out that actually a more stringent constraint comes from the requirement of correct electroweak symmetry breaking. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:ftgg\], in which one can see that, for $m \gtrsim 5$ TeV, the ratio $m_3/m$ is constrained to be larger than $0.2-0.3$ for radiative electroweak symmetry breaking to be possible. A smaller value of $M_{1/2}$ (which has been set to $400$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:ftgg\]) would not change this lower bound, but it would also apply to lower values of $m$.
Let us now consider an explicit realization [@NEWR] of the inverted hierarchy scenario based on $D$-term supersymmetry breaking [@BIDU] in the framework of gauge anomalous horizontal $U(1)$ models [^6]. Neglecting corrections associated with non-canonical kinetic terms from the Kähler potential, we can write e.g. the squark doublet soft supersymmetry breaking masses as: (m\^2\_Q)\^[AB]{} = q\_A \^[AB]{} m\^2\_D + C\^[AB]{}\_Q \^[|q\_A - q\_B|]{} m\^2\_F , \[eq:m2\_Q\] and similarly for the other squark and slepton soft masses. The first term in Eq. (\[eq:m2\_Q\]) is the contribution of the anomalous $D$-term (with $m^2_D \equiv g <D>$), and the second term the contribution of the $F$-terms. We assume a supergravity scenario leading to a hierarchy of the contributions $m^2_F \ll m^2_D$, with however $m_F / m_D \geq 0.3$ in order to satisfy the constraints discussed above. The inverted hierarchy scenario is then straightforwardly implemented by assigning zero horizontal charges to the third generation superfields whose scalar components couple most strongly to the Higgs bosons, namely $\tilde t_L$, $\tilde t_R$ and $\tilde b_L$, and strictly positive horizontal charges to the other quark and lepton superfields [@NEWR]. This condition is fulfilled by the charge assignment used in section \[sec:FCNC\] to describe the quark and lepton masses and mixings.
In view of the FCNC problem, the main virtue of the $D$- term-induced inverted hierarchy scenario is to suppress the off-diagonal entries in sfermion mass matrices, since a suppression factor of $m^2_F / m^2_D$ comes in addition to the power of $\lambda$ associated with the breaking of the horizontal symmetry (this however assumes a canonical Kähler potential). The diagonal entries, however, are strongly split. Fig. \[fig:320422r3g4\] shows $\Delta m_K$, $\epsilon_K$, $\mbox{BR} (\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$ and $\Delta m_D$ as a function of $m_D$ for model 1 of Ref. [@CHKOLAPO], assuming $m_F / m_D = 0.3$, $A_0 = 0$ and $M_{1/2} = 400$ GeV. In addition to the Yukawa couplings, the coefficients of the off-diagonal entries $C^{AB}_{Q,U,D,L,E}$ in the sfermion mass matrices are varied randomly in the range $[0.3,3]$. Supersymmetric contributions to $\Delta m_K$, $\mbox{BR} (\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)$ and $\Delta m_D$ are under control in the region $m_D \gtrsim 5$ TeV; however, $\epsilon_K$ still requires values of $m_D$ in the several tens of TeV range, corresponding to even larger values of the sfermion masses (one has e.g. $m_{Q_1} = m_{U_1} = 1.7 m_D$ and $m_{D_1} = 2 m_D$). This is due to the fact that phases in the Yukawa couplings and in off-diagonal entries are taken to be random in our analysis, and can therefore be large. Also, due to the 2-loop renormalization group effect mentioned above, the stops, left sbottom and right stau are light and can give significant contributions to $1-2$ flavour changing processes due to the flavour mixing present in the fermion and sfermion mass matrices. This also implies that some scalar superpartners could be accessible at the LHC, even though the first two generations are very heavy.
.1cm
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
We have studied the contraints on non-flavour-blind soft supersymmetry breaking terms coming from FCNC and CP violating processes in the presence of hierarchical Yukawa couplings. These constraints are significantly weakened in the “low” sfermion mass / high gaugino mass region, with $m \lesssim 500$ GeV and $M_{1/2} \gtrsim 800$ GeV (where both $m$ and $M_{1/2}$ are GUT-scale parameters), as well as in the high sfermion mass region, with $m \gtrsim 10$ TeV and essentially no restriction on $M_{1/2}$. Unless $m$ or $M_{1/2}$ are pushed towards very large values, however, a strong suppression of off-diagonal entries in the sfermion mass matrices is still needed, especially in the $1$-$2$ sector. Splittings among the diagonal entries are also constrained, but the allowed level of non-degeneracy strongly depends on the Yukawa structure. Quark textures for which the CKM matrix comes mainly from the up quark sector (see e.g. Ref. [@NIRA]), while the mixing in the left-handed down quark sector is strongly suppressed, would allow for larger splittings than the “generic” hierarchical textures that we have considered. A similar statement can be made about the charged lepton Yukawa texture.
We have also studied the inverted sfermion mass hierarchy scenario in the framework of gauge anomalous horizontal $U(1)$ models with $D$-term supersymmetry breaking. In such a scheme, the diagonal entries of the sfermion mass matrices are strongly split, but the off-diagonal entries are suppressed. FCNC and CP constraints can be satisfied at the price of very heavy first generation squarks, with masses in the few $10$ TeV range. However, the situation could improve with different quark Yukawa textures arising e.g. from less minimalistic anomalous $U(1)$ models.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
It is pleasure to thank the organizers of the XLth Rencontres de Moriond for creating a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere at the conference. This work has been supported in part by the RTN European Program MRTN-CT-2004-503369. P.H.Ch. and S.P. were supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research Grant 2 P03B 129 24 for 2003-2005.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} J.R. Ellis and D.V. Nanopoulos, . Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, . E. Dudas, S. Pokorski and C.A. Savoy, . A.G. Cohen, D.B. Kaplan and A.E. Nelson, . P.H. Chankowski, K. Kowalska, S. Lavignac and S. Pokorski, . C.D. Frogatt and H.B. Nielsen, . G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio and I. Masina, . L.J. Hall, V.A. Kostelecky and S. Raby, . F. Borzumati and A. Masiero, . A. Brignole, L.E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, ; D. Choudhury, F. Eberlein, A. Konig, J. Louis and S. Pokorski, ; P. Brax and C.A. Savoy, . P. H. Chankowski, O. Lebedev and S. Pokorski, . F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini, . J.R. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. V. Nanopoulos and F. Zwirner, ; R. Barbieri and G.F. Giudice, . L.E. Ibanez and G.G. Ross, ; P. Binetruy and P. Ramond, ; V. Jain and R. Shrock, ; E. Dudas, S. Pokorski and C.A. Savoy, ; Y. Nir, ; P. Binetruy, S. Lavignac and P. Ramond, . N. Arkani-Hamed and H. Murayama, . A.E. Nelson and D. Wright, . P. Binetruy and E. Dudas, ; G.R. Dvali and A. Pomarol, . P. Brax and C.A. Savoy, . Y. Nir and G. Raz, .
[^1]: Unité de Recherche associée au CNRS (URA 2306).
[^2]: Talk given by S.L. at the XLth Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, La Thuile, Aosta Valley, Italy, 5-12 March 2005.
[^3]: Needless to say, a non-vanishing ($1,3$) entry in $m^2_Q$, for instance, also gives a contribution to $(\delta^d_{LL})^{12}$, but with an additional suppression by the rotation angle $D^{23}_L$.
[^4]: We assume here that the phases of the common gaugino mass and of the $\mu$ parameter can be simultaneously rotated away.
[^5]: We do not include in this list the right-handed neutrino couplings needed for the seesaw mechanism, which are known to induce large flavour violations in the slepton sector through radiative corrections [@BOMA]. In fact our charge assignment suppresses the corresponding contribution to the $l_j \rightarrow l_i \gamma$ amplitude by a factor $\lambda^{l_i+l_j+2 \bar n_3}$, where $\bar n_3$ is the horizontal charge of the third generation right-handed neutrino; for $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, this is already $\lambda^6 \sim 10^{-4}$ for $\bar n_3=0$, which can safely be neglected.
[^6]: The fine-tuning issue in such a scenario has been discussed in Ref. [@BRASA].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Studying caricature recognition is fundamentally important to understanding of face perception. However, little research has been conducted in the computer vision community, largely due to the shortage of suitable datasets. In this paper, a new caricature dataset is built, with the objective to facilitate research in caricature recognition. All the caricatures and face images were collected from the Web. Compared with two existing datasets, this dataset is much more challenging, with a much greater number of available images, artistic styles and larger intra-personal variations. Evaluation protocols are also offered together with their baseline performances on the dataset to allow fair comparisons. Besides, a framework for caricature face recognition is presented to make a thorough analyze of the challenges of caricature recognition. By analyzing the challenges, the goal is to show problems that worth to be further investigated. Additionally, based on the evaluation protocols and the framework, baseline performances of various state-of-the-art algorithms are provided. A conclusion is that there is still a large space for performance improvement and the analyzed problems still need further investigation.'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'WebCaricature: a benchmark for caricature recognition'
---
Introduction {#Sec:Introduction}
============
In the past few years, face recognition performance, even in unconstrained environments, has improved substantially. For instance, the recognition accuracy on the LFW dataset has reached 99%, even outperforming most humans [@sun2014deep]. However, caricature recognition performances by computers are still low [@huo2017variation; @klare2012towards].
Caricatures are facial drawings by artists with exaggerations of certain facial parts or features. The exaggerations are often beyond realism and yet the caricatures are effortlessly recognizable by humans. In some cases, people even find that caricatures with exaggerations are easier to recognise as compared to face photos [@mauro1992caricature; @Perkins]. However, this is not the case for computers. For computers, the basic goal of caricature recognition consists of deciding whether a caricature image and a photo are from the same person. As caricatures are of varying styles and different shape exaggerations, such recognition is difficult.
Caricatures have long fascinated psychologists, neuroscientists and now computer scientists and engineers in their seemingly and grossly distorted views of veridical faces while still possessing distinctively recognizable features of the subjects [@mauro1992caricature; @sinha2006face; @rodriguez2011reverse]. Studying caricatures can offer valuable insights to how face recognition is robustly performed by humans. Studying caricature recognition can also lead to a better understanding of human perception of faces. For example, studies on caricature recognition [@mauro1992caricature] have shown that faces may be encoded as distinctive features deviated from prototype faces in human brain. It is thus interesting to see what will happen if this result is used in the current deep learning methods to explicitly encode face features as their distinctiveness from the prototypes. However, this has been rarely studied. Therefore, it is fundamentally imperative to study caricature recognition to shed light on the intrinsic nature of human perception of faces. Computer scientists can take insights gained from psychological studies to develop machine learning methods to further improve caricature and face recognition performance.
[|l|l|l|l|l|]{} &\
& & &
-----------------
Dataset purpose
-----------------
\
Klare [@klare2012towards] & 196 subjects&392 images &
------------------------
Caricature recognition
------------------------
\
Abaci and Akgul [@abaci2015matching] & 200 subjects&400 images &
------------------------
Caricature recognition
------------------------
\
Crowley [@BMVC2015_65] &
---------------------
Dev: 1,088 subjects
NPG: 188 subjects
Train: 496 subjects
---------------------
&
-----------------------
Dev: 8,528 images
NPG: 3,128 images
Train: 257,000 images
-----------------------
&
--------------------
Painting retrieval
--------------------
\
Mishra [@MishraECCV16] & 100 subjects &
--------------------------
Caricature: 8,928 images
Face: 1,000 images
--------------------------
& Cartoon recognition\
This paper & 252 subjects & 12,016 images &
------------------------
Caricature recognition
------------------------
\
\
Currently, there is only limited work on caricature recognition. Besides, there also lack suitable caricature datasets for such research. In fact, there are only four publicly available datasets [@klare2012towards; @abaci2015matching; @MishraECCV16; @BMVC2015_65] that are related to caricature recognition, shown in Table \[Table:SummaryOfCaricatureRecognition\]. The dataset of Klare [@klare2012towards] only has 392 images, while the dataset of Abaci and Akgul [@abaci2015matching] has 400 images, which certainly limits the study of caricature recognition. Another limitation of these two datasets is that they do not provide benchmark evaluation protocols, which may prove difficult to compare studies and performances. The dataset of Mishra [@MishraECCV16] has more images, but only from 100 subjects. Another related dataset is from Crowley [@BMVC2015_65]. However, this dataset was developed for painting retrieval rather than caricature recognition.
The main contribution of this paper is that we have built a new, larger dataset of caricatures and photos (called WebCaricature[^1]) with over 12,000 images to facilitate the study on caricature recognition. Examples of photos and caricatures of this new dataset are shown in Fig. \[Fig:ExampleCaricatures\]. This dataset is much larger than any existing ones and contains more challenging intra-class variations for both photos and caricatures. In addition, we have provided facial landmark annotations on each images of the entire dataset, as well as several evaluation protocols and their baseline performances for comparison.
On caricature recognition, Klare [@klare2012towards] proposed to use attribute features, labeled by human via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk service. Logistic regression (LR) [@freedman2009statistical], multiple kernel learning (MKL) [@bach2008consistency], and support vector machines (SVM) [@cortes1995support] were then used to calculate the similarity of a caricature and a photo based on these features. Authors in [@ouyang2014cross] proposed to learn a facial attribute model. Facial attribute features were then combined with low-level features for recognition using canonical correlation analysis (CCA). Abaci and Akgul [@abaci2015matching] proposed a method to extract facial attribute features for photos. For caricatures, the attribute features were manually labeled. Then the weights of these attribute features were learned by a genetic algorithm (GA) or LR and then used for recognition.
The existing work is monotonous with main effort on extracting facial attribute features. Little work [@huo2017variation] has discussed the possibility of applying low-level features and/or deep learning features for caricature recognition. Besides, the existing work did not consider the detection and facial landmark localization of caricatures, an important process for automatic recognition. To complement this absence of related work, a caricature recognition framework is presented. Similar to the current face recognition framework, we present challenges of caricature recognition within the framework as compared to face recognition. Based on this newly constructed dataset and its evaluation protocols, a combination of many state-of-the-art methods under the framework are tested. The experiments not only help to demonstrate the challenges but also offer baseline performances. With the presented framework, future researchers are advocated to focus more on key challenges rather than stalling at attribute feature learning. To summarize, in additional to a new large caricature dataset, WebCaricature, this paper presents a framework for caricature recognition. With the framework, we analyze the challenges of caricature recognition and hence provide baseline performances on the dataset.
![Examples of photos and caricatures. For each person, a photo is given in the first column. The next five columns are corresponding caricatures of various artistic styles, exhibiting large intra-class variability.[]{data-label="Fig:ExampleCaricatures"}](EPS/ExampleFaceImages2.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
Dataset Collection {#Sec:DatasetCollection}
==================
Collection Process
------------------
For collecting both face photos and caricature drawings, we first drew up a list of names of celebrities. For each person, we manually searched for caricatures and photos and saved these images. All the photos were searched using the Google image search, while caricatures were mainly from the Google image search and the Pinterest website.
After all the images were downloaded, a program was written to detect and remove duplicated caricatures and photos. This was done by extracting features of any two caricatures or photos, pairs of features with large similarities were selected. We then manually checked whether they were indeed duplicated images. The process resulted in a dataset of 252 subjects with a total of 6042 caricatures and 5974 photos. For each person, the number of caricatures ranges from 1 to 114 and the number of photos from 7 to 59.
Labeling Process
----------------
For each caricature, 17 landmarks were manually labeled. The first four landmarks are the basic face contours. The next four are eye brows. Landmarks 9-12 are eye corners. The 13th landmark is nose tip. The 14th-17th are mouth contours. Details can be found from the dataset website.
The landmark labeling procedure for photos was different. For each photo, firstly we used the facial landmark detection software provided by the Face++ software [@face++]. The software could locate up to 83 facial landmarks, from which we used only the parts of the face landmarks that corresponded to the 2nd-17th landmarks labelled on the caricatures. The first landmark was then manually labeled for each of the photos. Note that there were some photos the software did not label well or failed to locate landmarks. For those cases, we manually corrected the labeling or manually labeled them with the same scheme as for the caricatures. After the above two processes, 17 landmarks for each caricature and photo were obtained.
Evaluation Protocols {#Sec:Protocols}
====================
Generally, face recognition can be categorized into two categories: verification and identification. As the two kinds of recognition generally deal with different problems. To promote the study of both caricature verification and identification, four experimental protocols covering both scenarios are developed on the constructed WebCaricature dataset. All the protocols are public available along with the dataset.
**Caricature Verification.** The task of caricature verification is to verify whether a caricature and a photo are from the same person. Therefore, the algorithm is presented with a pair of images (a caricature and a photo) and the output is either yes or no. To evaluate the performance of this protocol, we have built two settings, similar to that used for LFW [@LFWTech]. One is image restricted setting and the other is image unrestricted setting. For each setting, the dataset is divided into training and testing sets.
In the image restricted setting, there are two views. View 1 is for parameter tuning and View 2 for testing. Pairs of images are provided with the information on whether the pairs are from the same person. There is no extra identity information. For training, only the provided pairs should be used. In the image unrestricted setting, there are also two views. In this setting, training images together with person identities are given. Therefore, as many pairs as possible can be formulated for training. For View 1 of both restricted and unrestricted settings, the proportion of subjects in training and testing were set to close to 9:1. For View 2, 10-fold cross validation should be used. Therefore, to report results on View 2, training must be carried out for ten times; and each time, 9 folds of the data are used for training and the remaining fold for testing. For these two settings, researchers are encouraged to use the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, area under the ROC curve (AUC), VR@FAR=0.1%, and VR@FAR=1% to report performance, where VR@FAR=0.1% corresponds to the verification rate (VR) with false accept rate (FAR) equal to 0.1%, and VR@FAR=1% denotes VR with FAR of 1%.
**Caricature Identification.** The task of caricature identification can be formulated into two settings. One is to find the corresponding photo(s) of a given caricature from a photo gallery (denoted as Caricature to Photo or C2P). The second is to find the corresponding caricature(s) for a given photo from a set of caricatures (denoted as Photo to Caricature or P2C). For each of the two settings, there are two views. View 1 is for development and parameter tuning and View 2 for testing. While generating data for these two views, subjects were evenly split to training and testing sets. For View 2, the dataset was randomly split for ten times. Thus for results reporting, the algorithm should run ten times and report the average results. Besides, for C2P, photos are used as the gallery and caricatures are used as the probe. For each subject in the gallery set, only one photo is randomly selected. Reversely, for P2C, caricatures are used as the gallery and each subject has only one randomly selected caricature in the gallery. For these two settings, we encourage researchers to use the cumulative match curve (CMC) for evaluation and report average Rank-1 and Rank-10 results.
Recognition Framework and Challenges {#Sec:Framework}
====================================
As reviewed in Section \[Sec:Introduction\], most existing work on caricature recognition tries to extract descriptive attribute features for recognition. In this paper, we illustrate how to solve the recognition problem without using attributes, as they are subjective and require extensive manual labeling. The proposed recognition framework is shown in Fig. \[Fig:RecognitionProcess\]. There are four main steps in the framework. The process is similar to the traditional face recognition process, albeit more challenges at each step.
\
**Caricature Face Detection and Landmark Localization.** The first step of the recognition process is to perform caricature face detection and landmark localization. For the detection, as caricatures can vary greatly in artistic styles and facial appearances, it is more difficult to find detection patterns of caricatures compared to real faces in photos. For localizing landmarks, the shapes of caricatures and the positions of eyes, noses and mouths can be exaggerated and sometimes appear at odd positions beyond realism, making most of the existing localization techniques unusable. Although this paper is devoted mainly for studying caricature recognition, further research on automatic caricature detection and landmark localization can also be performed on the proposed dataset, as our dataset only provides 17 landmarks for each caricature.
**Face Alignment.** The second step is face alignment. For this task, the objective is to make the eyes, noses or mouths appear at the same positions on two cropped face images, such that the two images are comparable. Three alignment methods (details can be found in Section \[SubSec:Verification\_Align\]), which work well for traditional face recognition, were tested in this paper. However, we found that in caricature recognition, caricatures can still be misaligned even after alignment is applied, because many facial parts are exaggerated and distorted. An illustration of misaligned caricatures after applying the eye-based alignment method is given in Fig. \[Fig:Misalign\]. The eye-based alignment method forces the eye distance to a fixed number and the center of two eyes at a fixed position in an aligned face image. As can be seen, the photos are well aligned. Eyes of the caricatures are also well aligned. However, there are mismatches in nose and mouth areas of the caricatures. Hence for caricature recognition, more sophisticated methods need to be developed to address the misalignment problem.
**Face Feature Extraction.** The goal of face feature extraction is to extract robust and discriminant person specific features. Besides the challenges of traditional face feature extraction, such as illumination, expression and viewing angle variations, one major challenge for caricature feature extraction is to remove the variation across different drawing styles (also identified as modality variation, as photos and caricatures can be seen as from two modalities). Besides, if misalignment problem is not addressed well in the previous step, the feature extraction step should also take the exaggeration and distortion problems into consideration, making the feature extraction even more difficult.
In the experiments, we have tested two kinds of feature extraction methods. The first kind is hand-crafted feature extraction: local binary patterns (LBP) [@1717463], Gabor [@999679] and scale invariant feature transform (SIFT) [@Lowe2004] features were tested. The second is the convolutional neural network (CNN) based method, where the VGG-Face model [@Parkhi15] was directly adopted. In these experiments, the feature extraction process was the same for caricatures and photos. However, researchers are advocated to design more sophisticated feature extraction methods to solve both the modality variation and misalignment problems.
\
**Matching Algorithm.** The last step is to compute the similarity of two sets of features from a caricature and a photo to decide whether they are from the same person. If the misalignment problem is not addressed and the image style variation is not removed, then the matching algorithm should consider removing both alignment and modality variations first. In this case, cross-modality metric learning methods can be useful [@huo2017variation; @7959077; @8246530]. Otherwise, if the two problems are fairly well addressed by the previous steps, traditional matching algorithm can be directly applied.
For this step, nine subspace and metric learning methods were tested, including both single modality and cross-modality based methods. For single modality based methods, principal component analysis (PCA) [@kim1996face], kernel discriminant analysis (KDA) [@Cai11SRKDA], keep it simple and straightforward metric (KISSME) [@koestinger2012large], the information-theoretic metric learning (ITML) [@davis2007information], the large margin nearest neighbor (LMNN) [@weinberger2009distance] were tested. For cross-modality based methods, tested methods include canonical correlation analysis (CCA) [@hotelling1936relations], multi-view discriminant analysis (MvDA) [@kan2016multi], coupled spectral regression (CSR) [@lei2009coupled], kernel coupled spectral regression (KCSR) [@lei2009coupled]. In the experiments, we demonstrate that removing modality variation by cross-modality based methods, such as CSR and KCSR, can largely improve the performance.
Baseline Performance {#Sec:Baseline}
====================
Following the proposed evaluation protocols and the caricature recognition framework, various alignment methods, feature extraction methods, subspace and metric learning methods were tested on the developed dataset to demonstrate the challenges of caricature recognition and also to provide baseline performances on the WebCaricature dataset. For the following experiments, under the verification settings, adopted evaluation performance measures include VR@FAR=0.1% (denoted as FAR=0.1% in Tables \[Table:AlignmentVerification\], \[Table:SubspaceVerification\], \[Table:Best\_Results\_Verification\]), VR@FAR=1% (denoted as FAR=1% in Tables \[Table:AlignmentVerification\], \[Table:SubspaceVerification\], \[Table:Best\_Results\_Verification\]) and AUC. Under the identification settings, the evaluation performance measures used include Rank-1 and Rank-10.
Influence of Alignment Methods {#SubSec:Verification_Align}
------------------------------
To study the influence of alignment, three alignment methods were tested. The alignment process of the first method was to rotate the image first to align the two eyes to horizontal position. Then, the image was resized to make eye distance of 75 pixels. After this step, the cropped region was defined by making the eye center to the upside of the bounding box by 70 pixels and to the left/right side of the bounding box by 80 pixels. The bounding box is of size $160\times 200$. This alignment method is denoted as eye location based. In the second alignment method, the first two steps were the same. Then, small regions of $40\times 40$ centered at each of the 17 labeled landmarks were also cropped out. This alignment method is denoted as landmark based. The third alignment method was done according to the face contour (defined by the landmarks 1-4). Then the bounding box was enlarged by a scale of 1.2 in both width and height. With the enlarged bounding box, the face image inside the bounding box was resized to $160\times 200$. This alignment method is denoted as bounding box based. The three alignment methods were combined with two feature extraction methods (SIFT and VGG-Face). The resulting feature vectors were combined with PCA for evaluation and all the principal components were kept.
-------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------
\*[Method]{}
FAR=0.1% (%) FAR=1% (%) AUC FAR=0.1% (%) FAR=1% (%) AUC
SIFT-Eye $2.78\pm0.46$ $10.46\pm1.43$ $0.738\pm 0.016$ $2.74\pm 0.75$ $10.74\pm 1.53$ $0.734\pm 0.016$
SIFT-Land $\mathbf{4.67}\pm\mathbf{1.08}$ $\mathbf{15.39}\pm\mathbf{1.85}$ $\mathbf{0.777}\pm \mathbf{0.017}$ $\mathbf{4.43}\pm \mathbf{0.82}$ $\mathbf{15.24}\pm \mathbf{2.03}$ $\mathbf{0.780}\pm \mathbf{0.017}$
SIFT-Box $2.96\pm0.72$ $9.15\pm1.17$ $0.720\pm 0.018$ $3.42\pm 0.52$ $11.76\pm 1.21$ $0.724\pm 0.013$
VGG-Eye $21.42\pm2.02$ $40.28\pm2.91$ $0.896\pm 0.013$ $19.24\pm 1.95$ $40.88\pm 2.23$ $0.898\pm 0.007$
VGG-Box $\mathbf{28.42}\pm\mathbf{2.04}$ $\mathbf{55.53}\pm\mathbf{2.76}$ $\mathbf{0.946}\pm \mathbf{0.009}$ $\mathbf{32.07}\pm \mathbf{2.60}$ $\mathbf{56.76}\pm \mathbf{2.35}$ $\mathbf{0.946}\pm \mathbf{0.005}$
LBP-Eye $0.33\pm0.15$ $1.92\pm0.38$ $0.600\pm 0.015$ $0.19\pm 0.04$ $1.65\pm 0.27$ $0.597\pm 0.006$
Gabor-Eye $3.23\pm0.74$ $9.75\pm1.36$ $0.716\pm 0.017$ $2.76\pm 0.47$ $10.36\pm 1.54$ $0.718\pm 0.016$
SIFT-Eye $2.78\pm0.46$ $10.46\pm1.43$ $0.738\pm 0.016$ $2.74\pm 0.75$ $10.74\pm 1.53$ $0.734\pm 0.016$
VGG-Eye $\mathbf{21.42}\pm\mathbf{2.02}$ $\mathbf{40.28}\pm\mathbf{2.91}$ $\mathbf{0.896}\pm \mathbf{0.013}$ $\mathbf{19.24}\pm \mathbf{1.95}$ $\mathbf{40.88}\pm \mathbf{2.23}$ $\mathbf{0.898}\pm \mathbf{0.007}$
-------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------
The first 5 rows of Table \[Table:AlignmentVerification\] summarise the results. It can be seen: (1) for SIFT features, it is obvious that landmark based feature extraction (denoted with a suffix ‘-Land’) obtains the best performance. The results of eye location based (denoted by suffix ‘-Eye’) and bounding box based (denoted by suffix ‘-Box’) methods are worse. *In fact, landmark based method is a hard alignment method that forces two patches of images at the same landmark to be directly compared so as to alleviate misalignment problem. Hence it is consistently the best for extracting hand-crafted features, such as SIFT.* (2) For deep features, the bounding box based alignment is much better than the eye location based method. This is perhaps because that the bounding box based alignment can retain more face information. The cropped face images of eye location based method may miss certain part of the face such as chin and mouth due to the exaggerations in caricatures. *The deep learning based methods may have mechanisms to alleviate misalignments. Thus the results of bounding box based alignment are better. Note that landmark based method is not applicable for deep learning, but it is straightforward to think that introducing a hard alignment scheme into deep learning would address the misalignment problem.*
Evaluation of Feature Extraction Schemes
----------------------------------------
To study the influence of features, LBP, Gabor, SIFT and CNN (VGG-Face) is adopted for experiments, where the first three are hand-crafted features. For all these feature extraction methods, eye location based alignment is used. All the extracted features were combined with PCA for evaluation. In Table \[Table:AlignmentVerification\], 6-9 rows summarizes results. From the table, SIFT feature is almost the best among the hand-crafted features. Gabor is the next. The results of LBP are the worst. The results of VGG-Face are the best, significantly improving over that of SIFT. This illustrates the superiority of deep learned features. Note that VGG-Face was not fine-tuned in this application. Still, the performance is much better than that of any hand-crafted features. *However, under the eye location based alignment setting, the results of VGG-Face for VR@FAR=0.1% and VR@FAR=1% are 21.42% and 40.28% for the restricted setting and 19.24% and 40.88% for the unrestricted setting. Thus, there is still much room for improvement even with deep learning.* Note that there are many other modern deep learning based algorithms that can also be used as baseline. Besides, fine-tuning VGG-Face model is also an interesting approach. These results will be updated in our future work.
-------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------
\*[Method]{}
FAR=0.1% (%) FAR=1% (%) AUC FAR=0.1% (%) FAR=1% (%) AUC
Euc $2.12\pm0.68$ $8.28\pm1.13$ $0.661\pm 0.014$ $2.56\pm 0.38$ $8.40\pm 0.87$ $0.661\pm 0.009$
PCA $4.67\pm1.08$ $15.39\pm1.85$ $0.777\pm 0.017$ $4.43\pm 0.82$ $15.24\pm 2.03$ $0.780\pm 0.017$
KDA - - - $6.62\pm 1.37$ $24.23\pm 3.26$ $0.875\pm 0.014$
KissME $4.55\pm1.07$ $12.15\pm1.73$ $0.724\pm 0.011$ $4.56\pm 0.89$ $14.66\pm 1.70$ $0.781\pm 0.016$
ITML $\mathbf{5.08}\pm\mathbf{1.82}$ $\mathbf{18.07}\pm\mathbf{4.72}$ $\mathbf{0.841}\pm \mathbf{0.018}$ $5.35\pm 1.20$ $18.48\pm 2.40$ $0.828\pm 0.016$
LMNN - - - $6.59\pm 1.61$ $21.37\pm 3.22$ $0.842\pm 0.014$
CCA $4.77\pm0.68$ $12.96\pm1.40$ $0.775\pm 0.016$ $5.02\pm 1.19$ $17.66\pm 2.49$ $0.812\pm 0.017$
MvDA - - - $1.41\pm 0.37$ $8.29\pm 0.72$ $0.753\pm 0.014$
CSR - - - $\mathbf{11.76}\pm \mathbf{2.72}$ $31.86\pm 3.85$ $0.887\pm 0.013$
KCSR - - - $11.66\pm 2.69$ $\mathbf{32.00}\pm \mathbf{3.94}$ $\mathbf{0.888}\pm \mathbf{0.013}$
-------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------
-------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
\*[Method]{}
Rank-1 (%) Rank-10 (%) Rank-1 (%) Rank-10 (%)
Euc $13.38\pm 1.10$ $38.40\pm 1.92$ $9.04\pm 0.80$ $29.63\pm 1.35$
PCA $15.63\pm 0.82$ $43.48\pm 1.69$ $12.47\pm 1.14$ $40.13\pm 1.53$
KDA $19.32\pm 1.36$ $56.77\pm 1.58$ $18.92\pm 1.35$ $57.19\pm 2.61$
KissME $15.16\pm 1.63$ $43.95\pm 2.13$ $13.30\pm 1.18$ $43.63\pm 1.64$
ITML $15.25\pm 3.07$ $46.39\pm 6.46$ $16.48\pm 1.77$ $49.88\pm 2.29$
LMNN $17.92\pm 0.86$ $50.58\pm 1.72$ $15.90\pm 1.73$ $48.08\pm 1.95$
CCA $10.84\pm 0.78$ $40.76\pm 1.08$ $10.73\pm 0.94$ $41.12\pm 1.87$
MvDA $4.77\pm 0.74$ $27.73\pm 1.90$ $4.71\pm 0.87$ $27.19\pm 2.55$
CSR $\mathbf{25.18}\pm \mathbf{1.39}$ $60.95\pm 1.20$ $23.36\pm 1.47$ $60.27\pm 1.97$
KCSR $24.87\pm 1.50$ $\mathbf{61.57}\pm \mathbf{1.37}$ $\mathbf{23.42}\pm \mathbf{1.57}$ $\mathbf{60.95}\pm \mathbf{2.34}$
-------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Evaluation of Different Matching Methods {#Sec:EvalLearningVerification}
----------------------------------------
In this section, we tested several single modality subspace learning methods as mentioned in Section \[Sec:Framework\], including PCA [@kim1996face], KDA [@Cai11SRKDA] and multi-modality subspace learning methods such as, CCA [@hotelling1936relations], MvDA [@kan2016multi], CSR [@lei2009coupled] and KCSR [@lei2009coupled]. The state-of-the-art single modality metric learning methods include the KISSME [@koestinger2012large], ITML [@davis2007information] and LMNN [@weinberger2009distance]. Landmark based alignment and SIFT features were used for comparing all these methods. Prior to applying these methods, PCA was applied.
As the restricted setting only provides information that two images are either of the same class or not and algorithms such as KDA, LMNN, MvDA, CSR, KCSR require explicit label information for each image, they are not applicable for the image restricted setting. From Table \[Table:SubspaceVerification\], the best result was achieved by ITML under the restricted setting. For the unrestricted setting, the best and second best results were achieved by CSR and KCSR, respectively. *In summary, all these learning methods were better than simple Euclidean distance on original features.* For the unrestricted setting, the performance of CSR and KCSR was the best, because they were designed for cross-modality subspace learning. *This suggests that further studies on cross-modality metric learning or cross-modality subspace learning will be beneficial, due to limited work on this direction.* Under the identification settings, from the results in Table \[Table:SubspaceIdentification\], CSR and KCSR achieved similarly the best results. The best rank-1 performance for C2P setting was only $25.18 \pm 1.39$ and ${23.42}\pm {1.57}$ for P2C setting. *This means that there is a large room for improvement on these two settings with the traditional face recognition process.*
Summary of Results
------------------
A summary of the best combinations of the methods at three stages are provided as baselines. Results under verification settings are given in Table \[Table:Best\_Results\_Verification\]. For identification settings, the results are summarized in Table \[Table:Best\_Results\_Identification\]. From the tables, the deep learning feature based methods outperform the hand-crafted feature based methods to a large extent. Another observation is that the results of VGG-Face can be further improved with KCSR. *This is mainly because that VGG-Face is trained using only photos and may not be able to deal with modality variations. With the help of KCSR to further remove modality variations, the performance can be enhanced. Thus one future direction is to develop end-to-end modality invariant deep learning methods.* Another finding is that performances, *VR@FAR=0.1%, VR@FAR=1%, Rank-1 and Rank-10, of deep learning based methods are still far from satisfactory, indicating that there is still room for improvement.* Lastly, although bounding box based alignment is better than eye based alignment, as analyzed in Section \[SubSec:Verification\_Align\], *there is still lack of good alignment methods of caricatures for deep learning.*
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusion}
===========
A new benchmark dataset of face caricatures and photos is presented, together with a framework and protocols, to facilitate caricature recognition and tackling its challenges. The main contribution of this paper includes: a large caricature dataset of 252 people with 6024 caricatures and 5974 photos, which is made publicly available. Facial landmarks, evaluation protocols and baseline performances are provided on the dataset. Following these protocols and the framework, a set of face alignment methods, hand-crafted and deep learning features, and various subspace and metric learning methods are tested. A conclusion is that there is still room for improvement even with the best results. With this dataset and from the baseline evaluations, there are several future directions. Caricature face landmark detection is of great interest and a key step for caricature recognition. As the performance on this dataset is still far from saturated, future work on caricature and face feature extraction and cross-modal metric learning methods are also promising directions.
Acknowlegement {#acknowlegement .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China under Grant 61432008, Grant 61673203, in part by the Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST under Grant YESS 2016QNRC001, and in part by the Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization.
[^1]: https://cs.nju.edu.cn/rl/WebCaricature.htm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
\[sec:abs\]
Generic Kerr orbits exhibit intricate three-dimensional motion. We offer a classification scheme for these intricate orbits in terms of periodic orbits. The crucial insight is that for a given effective angular momentum $L$ and angle of inclination $\iota$, there exists a discrete set of orbits that are geometrically $n$-leaf clovers in a precessing [*orbital plane*]{}. When viewed in the full three dimensions, these orbits are periodic in $r-\theta$. Each $n$-leaf clover is associated with a rational number, $1+q_{r\theta}=\omega_\theta/\omega_r$, that measures the degree of perihelion precession in the precessing orbital plane. The rational number $q_{r\theta}$ varies monotonically with the orbital energy and with the orbital eccentricity. Since any bound orbit can be approximated as near one of these periodic $n$-leaf clovers, this special set offers a skeleton that illuminates the structure of all bound Kerr orbits, in or out of the equatorial plane.
author:
- Rebecca Grossman
- Janna Levin
- 'Gabe Perez-Giz'
bibliography:
- 'kerr\_tax.bib'
title: The harmonic structure of generic Kerr orbits
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Black hole orbits are defined by precession. The perfectly closed ellipse of Kepler’s Laws gives way to the relativistic precession of Mercury’s perihelion in the weak field around a star. In the strong-field, perihelion precession in the equatorial plane of a black hole can result in zoom-whirl orbits for which the precession is so great at closest approach that the particle executes multiple circles before falling out to apastron again. An orbit out of the equatorial plane, the plane perpendicular to the spin axis of the black hole, is shaped by yet another kind of precession – precession of the orbital plane. These most general black hole orbits live in three dimensions, are not confined to a stationary plane, and are dynamically intricate. A complete classification of these $3D$ orbits is the purview of this article.
Carter famously showed that there were four constants of motion[@carter1968; @misner] for the orbits of spinning black holes, one for each canonical momentum, so that the orbits are integrable. Still, black hole orbits have long evaded a simple geometric classification. While any geodesic orbit could be computed easily, a concise general account of how changes to the constants of motion would alter its shape was unavailable. Recently a topological taxonomy based on periodic orbits provided a complete classification of all *equatorial* orbits [@levin2008].
In brief, Ref. [@levin2008] shows that just as Mercury is a precession of the ellipse, any relativistic orbit can be understood as a precession of a periodic orbit. Although there is no ellipse in relativity, no 1-leaf clover, there are 2-leaf, 3-leaf,... $n$-leaf clovers as well as $n$-leaf clovers with nearly circular whirls. The equatorial periodic orbits are defined by a rational number $$q_{r\varphi}=\frac{\omega_\varphi}{\omega_r}-1$$ where $\omega_\varphi $ is an average angular frequency in the equatorial plane and $\omega_r$ is the radial frequency. Aperiodic orbits correspond to irrational ratios of frequency while periodic orbits correspond to rational $q_{r\varphi}$. The number $q_{r\varphi}$ explicitly measures the degree of perihelion precession beyond the ellipse as well as the topology of the orbit. The $q_{r\varphi}=1/3$ orbit is a 3-leaf clover while the $q_{r\varphi}=1+1/3$ orbit is a 3-leaf clover with 1 whirl per radial cycle. And, importantly, the $q_{r\varphi}=1/3+\epsilon$ orbit looks like a $3$-leaf clover precessing at a rate of $2\pi\epsilon$ of azimuth per radial cycle. (For a complete description see Ref. [@levin2008; @levin2009].) The classification is especially effective since $q_{r\varphi}$ varies monotonically with the energy of an orbit for a given $L$. As the value of $q_{r\varphi}$ increases, the topology of the orbit varies in a systematic way as the energy and orbital eccentricity also increase (for a given $L$). The resulting taxonomy nicely exposes the complete equatorial dynamics.
The goal here is to generalize the equatorial taxonomy to fully generic $3D$ Kerr motion. We could identify fully periodic orbits and argue that all generic orbits are approximated at arbitrary precision by that set of measure zero [@levin2008]. However, it is sufficient to consider the less restrictive, larger set of orbits that are periodic only in $r-\theta$, as these will be shown to be perfectly periodic when projected into an instantaneous orbital plane, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:per\_int\_cond\].
A series of orbits is shown in $3D$ on the leftmost column of Fig. \[fig:per\_int\_cond\], in the $r-\cos{\theta}$ plane in the middle column, and projected in an effective orbital plane in the final column. These orbits are closed in $r-\theta$ and also in the orbital plane, but are not fully closed in $3D$. The following sections will be devoted to realizing this argument. Similar reasoning led to a taxonomy of generic $3D$ orbits in a Post-Newtonian expansion of two black holes in Ref. [@levin2008:2; @grossman2008].
The Basics {#sec:thebasics}
==========
We begin with the Kerr metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates and geometrized units $\left(G=c=1\right)$ and the conventional choice of $M=\mu=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kerr_metric}
ds^{2} = &-d{\tau}^2 \\ \nonumber =
&-\left(1-\frac{2r}{\Sigma}\right)dt^{2}
-\frac{4ar\sin^{2}{\theta}}{\Sigma}dtd\varphi+
\frac{\Sigma}{\Delta}dr^{2} + \Sigma d{\theta}^2 \\ \nonumber &+
\sin^{2}{\theta}\left(r^{2} + a^{2} +
\frac{2a^{2}r\sin^{2}{\theta}}{\Sigma}\right)d{\varphi}^2 \quad ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sigma_delta}
\Sigma &\equiv r^{2} + a^{2}\cos^{2}{\theta}
\\
\nonumber
\Delta &\equiv r^{2} - 2r +a^{2}
\quad .\end{aligned}$$ Carter reduced the equations to first integrals of motion [@carter1968; @misner], exploiting the four constants of motion $E,L_z,Q$ and $\mu$:
\[eq:dimcarter\] $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\dot r &= \pm \sqrt{R}
\label{subeq:dimcarter-r}\\
\dot \theta &= \pm \sqrt{\Theta}
\label{subeq:dimcarter-theta}\\
\dot \varphi &=
\frac{a}{\Delta} \left( 2rE - aL_z \right)
+ \frac{L_z}{\sin^2 \theta}
\qquad \quad ,
\label{subeq:dimcarter-phi}\\
\dot t&=
\frac{(r^2 + a^2)^2 E - 2arL_z}{\Delta}
- a^2 E \sin^2 \theta \quad\quad .
\label{subeq:dimcarter-t}\end{aligned}$$
We will often refer to equations (\[eq:dimcarter\]) as the Carter equations. In those equations, an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to Mino time [@mino2003], $\lambda$, which is related to the particle’s proper time, $\tau$, by $d\lambda =
\frac{d\tau}{\Sigma}$, and the quantities $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\Theta(\theta) &= Q - \cos^2\theta
\left\{
a^2(1- E^2) + \frac{L_z^2}{\sin^2\theta}
\right\}
\label{eq:Thetaeq}\\
\begin{split}
R(r) &= -(1 - E^2)r^4 + 2r^3 - \left[ a^2(1 - E^2) + L_z^2 \right]r^2 \\
&= {}+ 2(aE - L_z)^2\, r - Q \Delta
\end{split}
\label{eq:Rpoly}\end{aligned}$$ are the polar and radial quasi-potentials, respectively [@wilkins1972].
The quasi-potentials reveal some well-known geometric information about bound non-plunging orbits (orbits that neither escape to infinity nor cross the horizon of the central black hole). First, they reveal the radial turning points, which occur at roots of $R(r)$. For a given $E, L_{z}$ and $Q$, the quartic polynomial has four roots. The outermost two are periastron and apastron, between which the radial position of a bound orbit oscillates. A similar analysis of the roots of $\Theta(\theta)$ reveals that every bound orbit oscillates between a fixed $\theta_{\rm min}$ and $\theta_{\rm max}$ symmetrically distributed about the equatorial plane[^1], i.e. $\theta_{\rm
min}=\pi-\theta_{\rm max}$ [@levin2008:3; @wilkins1972; @hughes2001]. The upshot is that every $3D$ orbit will generally lie in a toroidal wedge around the equatorial plane bounded $r_{p}$ and $r_{a}$ in radial coordinate and between $\theta_{\rm max}$ and $\pi-\theta_{\rm max}$ in polar angle [@drasco2006].
Every bound Kerr orbit also has an associated triplet of fundamental frequencies $(\omega_{r}, \omega_{\theta}, \omega_{\varphi})$ , which can be defined for any choice of time coordinate [@schmidt2002]. The simplicity afforded by the choice of Mino time and exploited heavily in [@mino2003; @drasco2004] is that, since the radial and polar motions decouple in Mino time, each of $r(\lambda)$ and $\theta(\lambda)$ is independently periodic. As a result, the Mino-time frequencies can be defined and computed directly from equations (\[subeq:dimcarter-r\]) and (\[subeq:dimcarter-theta\]).
We will only be concerned with the radial and polar frequencies here. To obtain them, we first define the radial and polar Mino periods via
$$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\Lambda_r=2\int_{r_p}^{r_a}\frac{d\lambda}{dr}{dr} &=
2\int_{r_p}^{r_a}\frac{ dr}{\sqrt{R(r)}}
\\
\Lambda_\theta=4\int^{\pi/2}_{\theta_{\rm min}}
\frac{d\lambda}{d\theta}d\theta &=
4\int^{\pi/2}_{\theta_{\rm min}} \frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{\Theta(\theta)}}
\quad .\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding Mino-time frequencies are then
$$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\omega_{r} &\equiv \frac{2\pi}{\Lambda_{r}}
\\
\omega_{\theta} &\equiv \frac{2\pi}{\Lambda_{\theta}}
\quad .\end{aligned}$$
Note that we use Mino time purely for ease and convenience and that the frequency *ratios* which figure prominently in our analysis are independent of the choice of time variable.
We want to consider $3D$ orbits that are closed in $r-\theta$. That closure will result when the polar and radial frequencies are rationally related, or in language more directly useful for our orbital plane description of the motion, when the quantity $$q_{r\theta} \equiv \frac{\omega_\theta}{\omega_r}-1$$ is rational. To be useful, a classification based on orbits with rational $q_{r\theta}$ has to have two properties: the rational $q_{r\theta}$ must tell us about the topology of the orbit, and it must relate that topology to more physical conserved quantities. In the subsequent sections, we show that this is indeed the case.
The Energy Spectrum
-------------------
 
In the spirit of the equatorial classification of [@levin2008], we begin by describing how $q_{r\theta}$ varies with energy. For ease, and in anticipation of the fact that our analysis will ultimately focus on the discrete set of $E$ values for those orbits with rational values of $q_{r\theta}$, we will refer (loosely) to the dependence of $E$ on $q_{r\theta}$ as an energy spectrum. The subtlety in establishing a simple relationship between $q_{r\theta}$ and $E$ is the choice of which other parameters to keep fixed as $E$ is varied. In the appendix we show that the key combinations are an effective total angular momentum $L$ and angle of inclination $\iota$ for orbits around a black hole of a given spin $a$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
L^{2} &\equiv L_{z}^{2} + Q
\\
\nonumber
\cos{\iota} &\equiv \frac{L_{z}}{L}
\quad ,\end{aligned}$$ first used by [@ryan1995; @ryan1996] and used occasionally in other references [@drasco2006; @hughes2001; @hughes2001:2; @glampedakis2002:2]. Our construction turns out to be greatly facilitated by varying $L$ while keeping $\iota$ fixed, as opposed to varying $L_z$ while keeping $Q$ fixed.
This choice of orbital parameters allows us to write equations (\[eq:Thetaeq\]) and (\[eq:Rpoly\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\Theta(\theta) &= L^{2}\sin^{2}{\iota} - \cos^2\theta
\left\{
a^2(1- E^2) + \frac{L^2\cos^{2}{\iota}}{\sin^2\theta}
\right\}
\label{eq:Thetaeq_iL}\\
\begin{split}
R\left(r\right) &= \left(E^2 - 1 \right) r^4 + 2r^3 + \left(a^2
\left\{E^2 - 1\right\} - L^2 \right)r^2 \\
&+ 2r \left(a^2 E^2 - 2 a E L\cos{\iota}
+ L^2 \right) \\
&+ a^{2}L^{2}\left(\cos^{2}{\iota} -1 \right)
\qquad .
\end{split}
\label{eq:Rpoly_iL}\end{aligned}$$ With this particular combination of constants, we can produce an analog of the familiar Schwarzschild effective potential for nonequatorial Kerr motion. Consider a black hole of given spin $a$. For a non-spinning black hole ($a=0$), we can rewrite the radial equation (\[subeq:dimcarter-r\]) as $$\label{eq:Schwarz_Veff_eqn}
\frac{1}{2}\left (\frac{dr}{d\tau}\right )^2+V_{\rm eff}=\epsilon_{\rm eff}
\quad .$$ This standard effective potential formulation of Schwarzschild motion relates the radial velocity with respect to particle proper time to an effective energy $\epsilon_{\rm eff}=E^2/2$ and an effective potential $V_{\rm eff}$ that is a different function of $r$ for each fixed $L$ – crucially, $V_{\text{eff}}$ is independent of $E$. The result is a simple visual way to describe the different types of allowed motion as $L$ is varied.
However, for fully $3D$ orbits around a spinning black hole, an analogous potential is not self-evident. The counterpart to equation (\[eq:Schwarz\_Veff\_eqn\]) (which must involve velocities with respect to Mino-time in order to decouple the radial motion from the polar motion) is $$\label{eq:rearrange}
\frac{1}{2}\dot r^2- \frac{R}{2}=0
\quad .$$ In this case, the dependence on $E$ in $R(r)$ cannot be simply separated and moved to the right-hand side. It would seem that the best we can do with eqn. (\[eq:rearrange\]) is end up with a $V_{\rm eff}$ that depends on *all* the constants of motion. We therefore lose the ability to visualize easily the variation of orbits with energy, as we can in the Schwarzschild case, because even at fixed $L_{z}$ and $Q$ (or $L$ and $\iota$), changing $E$ also causes the potential to shift. As written, then, equation (\[eq:rearrange\]) admits a one-dimensional effective potential description, but that description is not *useful* because there is a different potential for every combination of orbital parameters.
However, if we consider only the behavior at the [*turning points*]{}, we can construct a useful pseudo-effective potential. The idea is to set $\dot r=0$ in Eqn. (\[eq:rearrange\]), which amounts to setting $R(r)=0$, and to solve for $E$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:V_eff}
E\left(a,\iota, L, r \right) &=
\frac{2a\cos{\iota}Lr+\sqrt{r\left(a^{2}+\left(-2+r\right)r\right)\left(r^{3}\left(L^{2}+r^{2}\right) +a^{2}\left(2+r\right)\left(L^{2}-\cos^{2}{\iota}L^{2}+r^{2}\right)\right)}}{r\left(r^{3}+a^{2}\left(2+r\right)\right)}\end{aligned}$$
.
We then define a pseudo-effective potential $$\left. V_{\rm eff}\right |_{\dot r=0}=\frac{E^2}{2} \quad .$$ that will allow us to draw various lines of fixed $E$ on a potential that maintains its shape and visually identify turning points of the motion, even if the difference between $E$ and the value of $V_{\rm eff}$ no longer gives the value of $\dot{r}^2$.
Fig. \[fig:Veff\_kerr\_general\] illustrates the utility of this approach. For every fixed $\iota$, as $L$ is lowered we get an analogous pattern of orbits to the Schwarzschild case. There is a minimum of $V_{\rm eff}$, which corresponds to a stable constant radius orbit. There is a maximum of $V_{\rm eff}$, which corresponds to an unstable constant radius orbit. Unlike the Schwarzschild case, the constant radius orbits are not circles. Instead they lie on the surface of a sphere bounded between $\theta_{\rm max}$ and $\theta_{\rm min}=\pi-\theta_{\rm max}$. We hereafter call these spherical orbits.
The parallel story continues. As $L$ is lowered, the unstable spherical orbit becomes bound once a certain critical $L$ value is crossed. That value $L_{\text{ibso}}$ is the angular momentum of the innermost bound spherical orbit (ibso), the unstable spherical orbit with critical energy $E=1$. An innermost stable spherical orbit (isso) appears as a saddle point of $V_{\text{eff}}$ once $L$ drops to yet another critical value $L_{\text{isso}}$. For $L<L_{\text{isso}}$, all orbits plunge into the central black hole. Fig. \[fig:Veff\_kerr\_general\] demonstrates the consistency for both prograde and retrograde orbits.
If we had chosen to keep $L_z$ fixed while varying $Q$ instead of keeping $L$ fixed while varying $\iota$, we would not have seen the same simple pattern. Appendix \[sec:cons\_quant\] shows the breakdown in the Schwarzschild analogy when using orbital parameters $(L_{z},Q)$.
The result, for a given $L,\iota$, is that $q_{r\theta}$ increases monotonically with energy. The lowest energy bound orbit is the stable spherical orbit, and, importantly, this orbit has the lowest value of $q_{r\theta}$ for that combination of $L,\iota$. As detailed in Ref. [@levin2008], the constant radius orbits do not have rational value zero, as can be proven by taking the zero eccentricity limit, $e\rightarrow 0$.
Since $q_{r\theta}$ is monotonic, its upper bound $q_{r\theta}^{\text{max}}$ is the value of $q_{r\theta}$ for the maximum energy bound non-plunging orbit for a given $L$. Whether $q_{r\theta}^{\text{max}}$ is finite or infinite depends on whether $L$ is greater than or less than $L_{\text{ibso}}$. If $L>L_{\text{ibso}}$, the unstable spherical orbit is unbound and has energy $E > 1$. $q_{r\theta}^{\text{max}}$ is therefore the $q_{r\theta}$ value of the $E=1$ orbit, and despite the fact that the $E=1$ orbit just reaches $r=\infty$ after infinite time, its $q_{r\theta}$ is nonetheless finite. As we reduce $L$, $q_{r\theta}^{\text{max}}$ increases monotonically, and eventually $q_{r{\theta}}^{\text{max}}\rightarrow \infty$ once $L=L_{\text{ibso}}$. For all $L<L_{\text{ibso}}$, $q_{r{\theta}}^{\text{max}}$ remains infinite . This happens because the maximum energy bound non-plunging orbit is now the homoclinic orbit (or separatrix orbit), which formally has an infinite number of whirls during its lone infinite-period radial cycle. A detailed analysis of the homoclinic orbit can be found in .
Figure \[fig:E\_q\_rth\_mono\] is a plot of the $q_{r\theta}$ versus energy for a given $a,\iota$ and $3$ sets of $L$ values. It is representative of the general trend we see for any combination[^2] of $a,L,\iota$. As the energy increases, so does $q_{r\theta}$. As $L$ decreases towards $L_{\text{isso}}$, the minium value of $q_{r\theta}$ increases. This trend was seen equatorially in Ref. [@levin2008].
In figure \[fig:E\_q\_rth\_mono\] we see that the $q_{r\theta}$ also increases with eccentricity, $e$. Again this is a general trend so that $q_{r\theta}$ is monotonic with eccentricity. The larger $q_{r\theta}$, again for a fixed $(a,L,\iota)$, the more eccentric the orbit.
![Top: The plot shows the monotonic relationship between $q_{r\theta}$ and energy for all bound orbits with a given $a$, $L$ and $\cos{\iota}$. We show three different $L$ values all with $a=0.99$ and $\cos{\iota}=0.4$. The graphs cut off on the left at the energy value for the stable spherical orbit with that $a,
\iota$ and $L$. Bottom: The plot shows, for the above parameter values, the monotonic relationship between $q_{r\theta}$ and orbital eccentricity $e \equiv \frac{r_a - r_p}{r_a +r_p}$. The lower eccentricity bound is $e=0$, also corresponding to the stable spherical orbits.[]{data-label="fig:E_q_rth_mono"}](plots/qE "fig:") ![Top: The plot shows the monotonic relationship between $q_{r\theta}$ and energy for all bound orbits with a given $a$, $L$ and $\cos{\iota}$. We show three different $L$ values all with $a=0.99$ and $\cos{\iota}=0.4$. The graphs cut off on the left at the energy value for the stable spherical orbit with that $a,
\iota$ and $L$. Bottom: The plot shows, for the above parameter values, the monotonic relationship between $q_{r\theta}$ and orbital eccentricity $e \equiv \frac{r_a - r_p}{r_a +r_p}$. The lower eccentricity bound is $e=0$, also corresponding to the stable spherical orbits.[]{data-label="fig:E_q_rth_mono"}](plots/qec "fig:")
We have shown that $q_{r\theta}$ corresponds to an energy spectrum for $3D$ orbits. What we want now is to show this also corresponds to a measure of zoom-whirliness and so is also a toplogical indicator. As we will see, quite incredibly, this $q_{r\theta}$ measures the amount by which the angle [*in the orbital plane*]{} overshoots $2\pi$, that is, precesses, in one radial period. In other words, when $q_{r\theta}$ is rational, it is a direct measure of the topology of the orbit in the orbital plane and increases monotonically with energy, thereby defining a spectrum of zoom-whirl orbits in the orbital plane.
Periodic Tables and the Orbital Plane
-------------------------------------
We preface this section with the caveat that the orbital plane construction below naively employs flat space vector algebra and vector calculus constructions (e.g. cross products of 3-vectors) without fully taking into account the curvature of the background Kerr spacetime. Prima facie, it is not obvious that the formalism should accurately capture geometric or topological features of 3D orbits. Nevertheless, we have the amazing result that the $r-\theta$ periodic orbits correspond to a spectrum of zoom-whirl orbits in this effective orbital plane, beautifully mirroring the equatorial result of Ref. [@levin2008]. For now, we simply state our results, which are compelling, and report that a more precise analysis of the connection between the orbital plane construction and a relativistically precise projection of the motion using local tetrads is underway. A very precise implementation for the PN-expansion of two black holes can be found in Refs. [@levin2008:2; @grossman2008].
We consider the projection of $r-\theta$ periodic orbits in an instantaneous orbital plane that we define naively as the plane in the tangent space spanned by $\vec R$ and $\vec P$, defined below, with a corresponding angular momentum $\vec {{\mathcal L}}=\vec R\times \vec P$. At every instant, the orbital plane is the plane perpendicular to the angular momentum vector.
It is useful to define $$\begin{aligned}
\rho= &(r^2+a^2)^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ and convert from ellipsoidal to Cartesian coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
x=&\rho\sin\theta\cos\varphi \nonumber \\
y=&\rho\sin\theta\sin\varphi \nonumber \\
z=& r\cos\theta \quad .\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\vec {{\mathcal L}}=\vec R\times \vec P$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\vec R& =(x,y,z) \nonumber \\
\vec P & =(P_x,P_y,P_z)\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ for which $$P^i=\frac{\partial x^i}{\partial q^j}g^{kj} P_k$$ where $i=x,y,z$ and $k,j=r,\theta,\varphi$. For convenience we take the $M\rightarrow 0$ limit [@carroll], $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &=& -dt^2+\frac{(r^2+a^2\cos^2\theta)}{(r^2+a^2)}dr^2
\\
\nonumber
& & +(r^2+a^2\cos^2\theta)d\theta^2+ (r^2+a^2)\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
P_x =&\frac{r\rho}{{\Sigma}}\sin\theta\cos\varphi P_r+\frac{\rho}{\Sigma}\cos\theta\cos\varphi P_\theta
-\frac{\sin\varphi}{\rho\sin\theta}P_\varphi\nonumber \\
P_y =&\frac{r\rho}{{\Sigma}}\sin\theta\sin\varphi P_r+\frac{\rho}{\Sigma}\cos\theta\sin\varphi P_\theta
+\frac{\cos\varphi}{\rho\sin\theta}P_\varphi \nonumber \\
P_z = & \frac{\rho^2}{{\Sigma}}\cos\theta P_r
-\frac{r}{\Sigma}\sin\theta P_\theta \quad .\end{aligned}$$ To find the orbital plane, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\vec {{\mathcal L}}=&{{\mathcal L}}_z\hat k+{{\mathcal L}}_{\perp}\hat \perp \nonumber \\
{{\mathcal L}}_{\perp}\hat \perp= &{{\mathcal L}}_x\hat i+{{\mathcal L}}_y\hat j \end{aligned}$$ so that we can define $$\begin{aligned}
\hat X=& \hat k\times \hat \perp \nonumber \\
\hat Y =& \hat {{\mathcal L}}\times \hat X \quad .\end{aligned}$$ The orbital plane is spanned by $\hat X, \hat Y$. (For a more detailed exposition on the orbital plane variables, see Ref. [@levin2008:2; @grossman2008].) This informally defined orbital plane is sufficient, as we will see, since it effectively soaks out any $\varphi$ motion.
Fig. \[fig:orb\_plane\_periodic\] shows a table of orbits in the effective orbital plane. Our periodic table assembles orbits with rational $q_{r\theta}$ as an energy spectrum, with energy increasing from top to bottom and then from left to right. The topology of zoom-whirl orbits in the effective orbital plane is encoded in $q_{r\theta}$ through $$q_{r\theta}=w+\frac{v}{z}
\quad ,$$ where $w$ is the number of nearly circular whirls and $v$ indicates the order in which the $z$ zooms, or leaves, are traced out. So the $q_{r\theta}=1+2/3$ orbit is a $(z=3)$-leaf clover, that executes $w=1$ whirls during each each radial cycle before it moves to the $v=2$ leaf in the pattern.
This result is quite remarkable: $q_{r\theta}$ is a measure of the number of times the orbit returns to $\theta_{\rm min}$ per radial cycle, yet it gives topological information about the degree of precession in a very different angular variable, namely the angle swept out in the oribtal plane. Had we instead projected the orbit onto the $r-\cos\theta$ plane, our $r-\theta$ periodic orbits would look like Lissajous figures as in Fig. \[fig:liss\_periodic\]. The geometric information in Fig. \[fig:orb\_plane\_periodic\] is severely obscured when the trajectories are plotted as Lissajous figures.
Fig. \[fig:per\_int\_cond\] shows trajectories with the same orbital parameters but different $r-\theta$ phasing. All orbits have the same $E,L,\iota$ and therefore the same $(r_a,r_p,\theta_{\rm max})$. However, $r_{a}$ coincides with different initial values of $\theta$ in the range $\pi-\theta_{\rm max}<\theta_o<\theta_{\rm max}$ for each picture. Under shifts in $r-\theta$ phase, the $3D$ orbits are all rather different (illustrated in the first column) as are their corresponding Lissajous figures (illustrated in the second column). Notice, in stark contrast, that varying the initial phasing of $r$-vs.-$\theta$ merely corresponds to an overall rotation of the *very same* zoom-whirl orbit in the orbital plane (illustrated in the final column).
Summary
=======
Our results are neatly summarized in Figures \[fig:orb\_plane\_periodic\] and \[fig:per\_int\_cond\]. Fig. \[fig:orb\_plane\_periodic\] illustrates that orbits periodic in $r-\theta$ assemble into a spectrum of multi-leaf clovers when projected in a loosely defined orbital plane. The topology of the orbit is encoded in a rational number $q_{r\theta}=\frac{\omega_\theta}{\omega_r}-1$, from which one can immediately read off the number of leaves (or zooms), the ordering of the leaves, and the number of whirls. For a given $L,\iota$, the rational number $q_{r\theta}$ monotonically increases with energy and with eccentricity. So, a simple $3$-leaf clover ($q_{r\theta}=1/3$) has less energy and is less eccentric than a $2$-leaf ($q_{r\theta}=1/2$) of the same $L,\iota$. Significantly, the rational number $q_{r\theta}$ is bounded below so that there are no $q_{r\theta}\rightarrow 0$ orbits in the strong-field regime. [*There are therefore no tightly precessing elliptical orbits*]{} in the strong-field regime. All eccentric orbits will have a countable number of leaves.
Moreover, as Fig. \[fig:per\_int\_cond\] illustrates, a change in $r-\theta$ phase corresponds to a simple rotation of the orbit in the effective orbital plane. An orbit that hits apastron at $\theta_{\rm
max}$ will be rotated by $\pi/2$ in the orbital plane relative to an orbit with identical $(E,L,\iota)$ that hits apastron at $\theta=\pi/2$.
Any aperiodic orbit will be arbitrarily well-approximated by a nearby periodic orbit. What’s more, aperiodic orbits will look like precessions of low-leaf clovers. Just as Mercury is a precession of the ellipse, an orbit with $q_{r\theta}=1/2+\epsilon$ is the precession of a $2$-leaf clover that accumulates an extra $2\pi\epsilon$ of azimuth during each radial cycle. Our results therefore provide a complete taxonomy for generic Kerr orbits.
\*\*Acknowledgements\*\*
This work was supported by an NSF grant AST-0908365. JL gratefully acknowledges support of a KITP Scholarship, under Grant no. NSF PHY05-51164.
Spherical Orbits {#sec:spherical}
================
In the cases of Schwarzschild and equatorial Kerr motion, orbits of constant $r$ — circular orbits — serve to organize the ranges of orbital parameters over which bound, nonplunging motion exists. Constant $r$ orbits in the general Kerr geometry play a similar organizational role but need not lie in a plane. Thus, they are not necessarily circular orbits but rather spherical. Spherical orbits were first treated in [@wilkins1972] and later analyzed in the context of radiation reaction in [@hughes2001; @hughes2001:2] (in the latter references, these constant $r$ orbits are refered to as “circular, nonequatorial orbits”, but we use the original shorter moniker “spherical” from Ref. [@wilkins1972]). Like circular orbits, spherical orbits have $\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0$; unlike their circular counterparts, spherical orbits do not have $\dot{\theta}=0$.
An initial analysis of equatorial Kerr motion (we can think of Schwarzschild motion as the $a=0$ subcase) begins with expressions for $L_z$ and $E$ of circular orbits as a function of $r$ and the (fixed) central black hole spin $a$. Our generic Kerr analysis will reproduce one such equatorial-like picture for each inclination $\iota$ and will have an effective total angular momentum $L$ take the place of the more conventional conserved quantity $L_{z}$ but otherwise proceed analogously. We therefore turn now to deriving expressions for the effective angular momentum $L$ and $E$ of spherical orbits as functions of $r, a$ and $\iota$. Ref. [@hughes2001] has similar expressions for $Q$ and $L_{z}$ of spherical orbits in terms of $r, a$ and $E$, but as we explain in Appendix \[sec:cons\_quant\], aggregating orbits with fixed values of the constants $\iota$ and $L$ is most conducive to a clear exposition of the dynamics.
As in the equatorial Kerr case, our starting point is the radial quasi-potential $R(r)$. We begin by expressing $R(r)$ and its derivatives in terms of $E, \iota$ and $L$. From eqn. (\[eq:Rpoly\_iL\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:R}
\begin{split}
R\left(r\right) &= \left(E^2 - 1 \right) r^4 + 2r^3 + \left(a^2
\left\{E^2 - 1\right\} - L^2 \right)r^2 \\
&+ 2r \left(a^2 E^2 - 2 a E L\cos{\iota}
+ L^2 \right) + a^{2}L^{2}\left(\cos^{2}{\iota} -1 \right)
\end{split}
\\
\label{eq:R_prime}
\begin{split}
R'\left(r\right) &= 4\left(E^2 - 1 \right) r^3 + 6r^2+ 2\left(a^2 \left\{E^2 - 1\right\} - L^2 \right)r \\
&+ 2\left(a^2 E^2 - 2 a E L\cos{\iota}
+ L^2 \right)
\end{split}
\\
\label{eq:R_double_prime}
R''\left(r\right) &= 12\left(E^2 - 1 \right) r^2 + 12r+ 2\left(a^2
\left\{E^2 - 1\right\} - L^2 \right)
\quad .\end{aligned}$$ The condition $\dot{r}=0$ implies $R\left(r\right)=0$ from equation (\[subeq:dimcarter-r\]). Solving for $\ddot{r}$ from equation (\[subeq:dimcarter-r\]) we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ddotr}
\ddot{r} &=&
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{R}}{\sqrt{R}}
\\
\nonumber
&=&
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\dot{r}R'}{\sqrt{R}}
\\
\nonumber
&= & \frac{1}{2} R'
\quad ,\end{aligned}$$ where $R'\left(r\right)=\frac{dR}{dr}$. We can see immediately from equation (\[eqn:ddotr\]) that $\ddot{r}=0$ implies $R'\left(r\right)=0$. Similarly, $\dddot{r}=0$ implies that $R''\left(r\right)=0$.
To find expressions for all $E_{s}$ and $L_{s}$ for a fixed $a$ and ${\iota}$, we set $R\left(r\right)=R'\left(r\right)=0$ and solve for $E_{s}\left(r,a,\iota\right)$ and $L_{s}\left(r,a,\iota\right)$. Solving the two coupled quadratic equations yields four solutions for each of $E_{s}$ and $L_{s}$. We determine the physically admissible solutions by imposing that $L_{s}$ always be positive, i.e. an effective angular momentum *magnitude*. Additionally, because each fixed ${\iota}$ should replicate the orbital structure of the Schwarzschild geometry, both the $L_{s}$ and $E_{s}$ solutions should asymptote at low $r$-values to the innermost time-like spherical orbit. There should also be a minimum $L_{s}$ and $E_{s}$ value corresponding to the innermost bound spherical orbit (ibso). And the $r$ at which the minima occur on the $L_{s}$ and $E_{s}$ graphs should be the same. Finally, at large $r$, our $L_{s}$ plot should reproduce the Newtonian limit, $\sqrt{L}\propto r$ and $E_{s}$ should asymptote to $1$.
Combining the above conditions, we find
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
E_{s}\left(r,a,\iota\right)
&=\biggl[\left(-3+r\right)\left(-2+r\right)^{2}r^{7}+a^{8}\sin^{4}\iota\left(1+r\right)
\\
& -2ar\cos{\iota}\Delta\left(-a^{2}\sin^{2}\iota+r^{2}\right)\sqrt{r\left(-a^{4}\sin^{2}\iota+2a^{2}\sin^{2}\iota\Delta+r^{4}\right)}
\\
& - a^{4}r^{2}\sin^{2}\iota\big[ a^{2}\left\{4-4\left(-1+r
\right)r+\cos^{2}\iota\left(1+r \right)\left(-5+4r \right)\right\}
\\
& + 2\left(-1+r \right)r\left\{2-3\left(-2+r\right)r
+\cos^{2}\iota\left(-4+r\left(-1+2r \right) \right)\right\}\big]
\\
& + a^{2}r^{5}\big[4\left(-2+r \right)\left\{1+\left(-3+r \right)r
\right\} +\cos^{2}\iota \big\{8+r\left(-23+\left(17-4r \right)r
\right)\big\}\big]\biggr]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\\
& /
\biggl[\left(-a^{4}\sin^{2}\iota-2a^{2}r^{2}\sin^{2}\iota-r^{4}
\right) \times
\\
&\quad
\left\{-\left(-3+r\right)^{2}r^{4}-a^{4}\sin^{2}\iota\left(1+r
\right)^{2}+2a^{2}r^{2}\left(-\left(-3+r \right)\left(1+r
\right)+\cos^{2}\iota\left(-3+r^{2} \right) \right) \right\} \biggr]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{split}
\label{eq:E_spherical_kerr}
\\
L_{s}\left(r, a,\iota \right) &=
\frac{-\Delta\sqrt{r\left(-a^{4}\sin^{2}\iota+2a^{2}\sin^{2}\iota\Delta +
r^{4}\right)}+ar\cos{\iota}\left(a^{2}+r\left(-4+3r\right)\right)}{-a^{4}\sin^{2}{\iota}-\left(-2+r\right)^{2}r^{2}+a^{2}r
\left(4-2r+\cos^{2}{\iota}\left(-3+2r\right)\right)} E_{s}\left(r,a,\iota\right)
\label{eq:L_spherical_kerr}\end{aligned}$$
.
We recover the functions $E_{c}$ and $L_{c}$ given in [@bardeen1972] for equatorial Kerr circular orbits by setting $\iota=0$ for prograde and $\iota=\pi$ for retrograde in equations (\[eq:E\_spherical\_kerr\]) and (\[eq:L\_spherical\_kerr\]). From there, we recover the well-known Schwarzschild functions $E_{c}$ and $L_{c}$ (see, for instance, Ref. [@carroll]) by setting $a=0$ in (\[eq:E\_spherical\_kerr\]) and (\[eq:L\_spherical\_kerr\]) (note that, by spherical symmetry, those values must be and are independent of $\iota$).
![Top: The figure shows a plot of $L_{s}$ vs $r$ for spherical Kerr orbits with $a=0.99$ and $\cos{\iota}=0.4$. Bottom: Shows a plot of $E_{s}$ vs $r$ for spherical Kerr orbits with the $a=0.99$ and $\cos{\iota}=0.4$.[]{data-label="fig:L_E_r_kerr_noneq"}](plots/L_sphere_kerr "fig:") ![Top: The figure shows a plot of $L_{s}$ vs $r$ for spherical Kerr orbits with $a=0.99$ and $\cos{\iota}=0.4$. Bottom: Shows a plot of $E_{s}$ vs $r$ for spherical Kerr orbits with the $a=0.99$ and $\cos{\iota}=0.4$.[]{data-label="fig:L_E_r_kerr_noneq"}](plots/E_sphere_kerr "fig:")
Figure \[fig:L\_E\_r\_kerr\_noneq\] shows both $L_{s}$ and $E_{s}$ as functions of $r$ with parameters $\cos{\iota}=0.4$ and $a=0.99$. The following qualitative features are representative of all $\iota$ and $a$ values and mimic the features of Schwarzschild. Both $E_{s}$ and $L_{s}$ have minima that occur at the same $r$. The minimum $L_{s}$, $L_{\text{isso}}$, corresponds to the least $L_{s}$ for which there exists a spherical orbit. The $V_{\rm eff}$ plot corresponding to $L=L_{\text{isso}}$ has a saddle point where the stable and unstable spherical orbits merge. For all $L>L_{\text{isso}}$ there are two spherical orbits, whose $r$-values exactly correspond to the local minimum and maximum of the effective potential plots of that $L, \iota
\text{ and } a$. The maximum is the unstable spherical orbit and the minimum is the stable spherical orbit. There is a critical value $L_{s} =L_{\text{ibso}}$ at which the unstable spherical orbit has $E_{s}=1$, and for all $L_{s}>L_{\text{ibso}}$, the unstable spherical orbit is unbound with $E_{s}>1$. For a fixed $\iota$ and $a$, all the qualitative properties of the generic Kerr orbits replicate the Schwarzschild system.
The innermost bound spherical orbit, $\text{ibso}$, is defined as the spherical orbit with critical energy $E_{\text{ibso}}=1$. To find the $L_{\text{ibso}}$ and $r_{\text{ibso}}$, we set (\[eq:R\]) and (\[eq:R\_prime\]) to zero with $E=1$. The innermost stable spherical orbit, $\text{isso}$, is the minimum of the $L_{s}$ plot and is subject to the further constraint $R''\left(r\right)=0$. We therefore find the $\text{isso}$ for a given $\iota$ and $a$ by setting all three of equations (\[eq:R\]), (\[eq:R\_prime\]) and (\[eq:R\_double\_prime\]) to zero simultaneously and solving for $L_{\text{isso}}$, $r_{\text{isso}}$ and $E_{\text{isso}}$.
Choosing conserved quantities {#sec:cons_quant}
=============================
The Kerr metric has four conserved quantities. They are conventionally chosen to be the black hole mass ($\mu$), the orbital energy ($E$), the $z$-component of angular momentum ($L_{z}$) and the carter constant ($Q$). Because each of those quantities are constants of the motion, any combination of them is also a constant of the motion. Therefore, there are an infinite number of choices of four independent quantities we could make for our conserved quantities.
We have chosen to use $\mu$, $E$, effective angular momentum ($L$, where $L=\sqrt{Q+L_{z}^2}$) and inclination angle ($\iota$, where $\cos{\iota}=\frac{L_{z}}{L}$). This section provides an explanation for our choice.
Our goal was to realize a generic Kerr orbit structure that generalized the Schwarzschild and equatorial Kerr orbit structures presented in [@levin2008]. To bring that goal to fruition, we look for a set of conserved quantities such that we could hold one fixed and reproduce all the qualitative features of Schwarzschild dynamics ($\text{isso}$, $\text{ibso}$, etc.).
Using the conventional $Q$, $L_{z}$ and $E$, the equatorial Kerr system is defined by $Q=0$. There are two sets of $L_{z}$ and $E$ solutions for circular orbits, one prograde and one retrograde. Figure \[fig:Q0LzE\] shows the two solutions for $a=0.995$ and $Q=0$. We can see that the solutions never intersect and each solution has all the qualitative features present in the standard organization of Schwarzschild orbits.
 
However, when $Q$ becomes large enough, regardless of the spin, we see a loss of adherence to these features. Specifically, there is no longer an $\text{isso}$, and the two sets of solutions for $L_{z}$ and $E$ for a fixed $Q$ mix. While this phenomenon is not seen until $Q$ gets large, it is present for all spin values. The discontinuity in the $L_{z}$ and $E$ spherical graphs, as well as the loss of the $\text{isso}$ is seen for the full range of $a$ values.
The upshot is that there are values of $Q$ that do not allow us to reproduce the familiar qualitative organization of Schwarzschild dynamics if we choose to look at orbits of constant $Q$ as an ensemble. In contrast, we find that with $(E,L,\iota)$, for every fixed $\iota$, the qualitative dynamical picture mimics the familiar Schwarzschild one beautifully. In this picture, each $\iota$ corresponds to a fixed orbital inclination so that equatorial orbits correspond to one of two $\iota$ values: $\iota=0$ for prograde, and $\iota=\pi$ for retrograde. Furthermore, whereas each fixed $Q$ admits two associated $E$ and $L_{z}$ solutions each for spherical orbits, each $\iota$ produces only one curve each for $L_{s}$ and $E_{s}$.
Figure \[fig:ELpts\] shows a set of $E$ and $L_{z}$ plots for spherical orbits with $Q=12.5$. We can see the loss of the $\text{isso}$ and the mixing of the two seperate solutions. The curves are no longer even single-valued at a given $r$. Moreover, the $E_{s}(r)$ curve can have more than 2 orbits with a given $E$, as opposed to only the stable and unstable constant $r$ orbits we are used to in the Schwarzschild effective potential picture. We have picked four points on the fixed $Q$ plots, each with a unique set of orbital parameters, $E$, $L_{z}$ and $Q$. For each of those points, we have determined the corresponding $E$, $L$ and $\iota$ and plotted the $E_{s}(r)$ and $L_{s}(r)$ curves for each of those $\iota$ values. Notice that there is no such breakdown when we look at curves of fixed $\iota$ rather than fixed $Q$. Instead, the latter curves faithfully reproduce the expected qualitative features of the corresponding Schwarzschild or equatorial Kerr curves.
[^1]: For equatorial orbits, $\theta_{\text{min}}
=\theta_{\text{max}} \equiv \pi/2$.
[^2]: The case of $\iota=0,\pi$ needs to be handled as in Ref. [@levin2008] because that is motion that takes place entirely in the equatorial plane.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study the thermodynamical properties of the $\left(2+1\right)$ dimensional black hole with a non-linear electrodynamics and without cosmological constant using the Generalized Uncertainty Principle (GUP). This approach shows that there is a maximum temperature for the black hole depending only on the electric charge and corresponding to the minimum radius of the event horizon, of the order of the Planck scale. Finally, we show that the heat capacity for this black hole has the expected behavior.'
author:
- Alexis Larrañaga
title: 'Thermodynamics of the $\left(2+1\right)$-dimensional Black Hole with non linear Electrodynamics and without Cosmlogical Constant from the Generalized Uncertainty Principle'
---
Keywords: Black Holes Thermodynamics, Generalized Uncertanty Principle.\
PACS: 04.70.Dy; 04.20.-q; 11.10.Lm\
In $\left(2+1\right)$ dimensional gravity, the charged black hole (static BTZ solution) has an electric field that is proportional to the inverse of $r$, hence its potential is logarithmic. If the source of the Einstein equations is the stress-energy tensor of non-linear electrodynamics, which satisfies the weak energy conditions, one can find a solution with a Coulomb-like electric field (proportional to the inverse of $r^{2}$). This kind of solution was reported by Cataldo et. al. [@cataldo], and describes charged-AdS space when considering a negative cosmological constant.
The thermodynamical properties of black holes are associated with the presence of the event horizon. As shown recently [@larranagagarcia], the threedimensional black hole with nonlinear electrodynamics satisfies a differential first law with the usual form
$$dM=TdS+\Phi dQ,$$
where $T$ is the Hawking temperature that can be expressed in terms of the surface gravity at the horizon $\kappa$ by
$$T=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi}.\label{eq:hawkingtemp}$$
However, in recent years the uncertainty relation that includes gravity effects, known as the Generalized Uncertaintly Principle (GUP), has shown interesting results in the context of black hole evaporation [@arraut], extending the relation between temperature and mass to scales of the order of the Planck lenght, $l_{p}=1.61\times10^{-33}cm$. This treatment has shown that $l_{p}$ is the smallest length scale in the theory and it is related to the existence of an extreme mass (the Planck mass $m_{p}=1.22\times10^{19}GeV$, which becomes the black hole remnant), that corresponds to the maximum possible temperature.
In this paper we investigate the thermodynamics of the three-dimensional black hole with a nonlinear electric field reported in [@cataldo], to show how the GUP can be used to calculate the Hawking temperature associated with the black hole. The $T\left(M\right)$ equation gives the usual relation for small masses but gets deformed when the mass becomes larger. We also show how there is a maximum temperature for the black hole that corresponds to a horizon with size in the Planck scale. Finally we calculate the heat capacity for this black hole, to show that it has the right physical behavior.
The 3-dimensional Black Hole with non-linear Electrodynamics
============================================================
The metric reported by Cataldo et. al. [@cataldo] is a solution of the $\left(2+1\right)$ dimensional Einstein’s field equations with a negative cosmological constant $\Lambda<0$,
$$G_{\mu\nu}+\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=8\pi GT_{\mu\nu}.$$
To obtain a Coulomb-like electric field, Cataldo et. al. used a nonlinear electodynamics. In the non-linear theory, the electromagnetic action $I$ does not depend only on the invariant $F=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$, but it can be a generalization of it, for example
$$I\propto\int d^{3}x\sqrt{\left|g\right|}\left(F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right)^{p},$$
where $p$ is some constant exponent. If the energy-momentum tensor is restricted to be traceless, the action becomes a function of $F^{3/4}$, and the static circularly symmetric solution obtained has the line element
$$ds^{2}=-f\left(r\right)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{f\left(r\right)}+r^{2}d\varphi^{2},\label{eq:staticmetric}$$
where
$$f\left(r\right)=-M-\Lambda r^{2}+\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3r}.$$
The electric field for this solution is
$$E\left(r\right)=\frac{Q}{r^{2}},\label{eq:electric field}$$
which is the standard Coulomb field for a point charge. The metric depends on two parameters $Q$ and $M$, that are identified as the electric charge and the mass, respectively. The horizons of this solution are defiened by the condition $$f\left(r\right)=0$$ or
$$-M-\Lambda r^{2}+\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3r}=0.\label{eq:horizonmass}$$
However, if we consider a zero cosmological constant, $\Lambda=0$, the resulting black hole has interesting properties. The line element becomes
$$ds^{2}=-\left(-M+\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3r}\right)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{\left(-M+\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3r}\right)}+r^{2}d\varphi^{2},$$
that shows how this spacetime is asymptotically flat. Note that this charged black hole has just one horizon, located at
$$r_{H}=\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3M}.\label{eq:horizon}$$
The Hawking temperature for this black hole is given by the usual definition (\[eq:hawkingtemp\]), where the surface gravity can be calculated as
$$\kappa=\chi\left(x^{\mu}\right)a,$$
with $a$, the magnitude of the four-acceleration and $\chi$, the red-shift factor. In order to calculate $\chi$, we will consider a static observer, for whom the red-shift factor is just the proportionality factor between the timelike Killing vector $K^{\mu}$ and the four-velocity $V^{\mu}$, i.e.
$$K^{\mu}=\chi V^{\mu}.$$
The metric (\[eq:staticmetric\]) has the Killing vector
$$K^{\mu}=\left(1,0,0\right)$$
while the four-velocity is calculated as
$$V^{\mu}=\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau}=\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau},0,0\right).$$
This gives
$$V^{\mu}=\left(f^{-1}\left(r\right),0,0\right)=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-M+\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3r}}},0,0\right),$$
and therefore, the red-shift factor is
$$\chi\left(r\right)=\sqrt{-M+\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3r}}.$$
On the other hand, the four-acceleration is given by
$$a^{\mu}=\frac{dV^{\mu}}{d\tau},$$
that has components
$$\begin{aligned}
a^{0}=a^{\varphi} & = & 0\\
a^{r} & = & -\frac{2}{3}\frac{GQ^{2}}{r^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
and therefore, the magnitude of the four-acceleration is
$$a=\sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}a^{\mu}a^{\nu}}=\frac{-\frac{2}{3}\frac{GQ^{2}}{r^{2}}}{\sqrt{-M+\frac{4GQ^{2}}{3r}}}.$$
Then, the surface gravity at the event horizon is given by the absolute value
$$\kappa=\left|-\frac{2}{3}\frac{GQ^{2}}{r^{2}}\right|_{r=r_{H}}$$
$$\kappa=\frac{2GQ^{2}}{3r_{H}^{2}}=\frac{3M^{2}}{8GQ^{2}}$$
and the Hawking temperature is,
$$T=\frac{GQ^{2}}{3\pi r_{H}^{2}}=\frac{3M^{2}}{16\pi GQ^{2}}.\label{eq:bhtemperature}$$
Hawking Radiation and the Generalized Uncertainty Principle
===========================================================
Now we will consider the GUP and the Hawking radiation derived from it. We will show how the GUP will produce a deformation in the temperature-mass relation when considered close to the Planck lenght. As stated by Adler and Santiago [@adler] the GUP is given, in units with $c=1$, by the relation
$$\Delta x\Delta p\gtrsim\hbar+G\hbar\left(\Delta p\right)^{2}.$$
where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $\hbar$ is the Planck constant. Since the Planck lenght $l_{p}$ can be written as
$$l_{p}^{2}=G\hbar=\frac{\hbar^{2}}{m_{p}^{2}},$$
where $m_{p}$ is the mass of Planck, the GUP can be written as
$$\Delta x\Delta p\gtrsim1+l_{p}^{2}\left(\Delta p\right)^{2},$$
or
$$\Delta x\Delta p\gtrsim1+\frac{\left(\Delta p\right)^{2}}{m_{p}^{2}},$$
in units with $\hbar=1$. To apply this uncertainty principle to the black hole evaporation process consist in identifying the $\Delta x$ with the event horizon radius $r_{H}$ and the momentum $\Delta p$ with the Hawking temperature up to a $2\pi$ factor [@myung]. Therefore, we can write the GUP as a quadratic equation for the temperature,
$$r_{H}2\pi T=1+\frac{4\pi^{2}T^{2}}{m_{p}^{2}}$$
$$T^{2}-\frac{2Q^{2}}{3\pi M}T+\frac{m_{p}^{2}}{4\pi^{2}}=0.$$
From which it follows that the temperature-mass relation is
$$T\left(M\right)=\frac{Q^{2}}{3\pi M}\left[1+\sqrt{1-\frac{9M^{2}m_{p}^{2}}{4Q^{4}}}\right],\label{eq:bhtemperature2}$$
where we have chosen the plus sign of the root in order to obtain the black hole temperature (\[eq:bhtemperature\]) in the limit of small $M$. Note that the argument in the square root defines a maximum mass for the black hole,
$$M^{max}=\frac{2Q^{2}}{3m_{p}}.$$
This mass gives, using equation (\[eq:bhtemperature\]), the maximum temperature permited to the black hole,
$$T^{max}=\frac{Q^{2}}{12\pi}.$$
Equation (\[eq:horizon\]) implies that the black hole with the maximum temperature has an event horizon with a minimum radius
$$r_{H}^{min}=\frac{2}{m_{p}}=2l_{p}.$$
Therefore, we conclude that $r_{H}$ can not be smaller than twice the Planck lenght. On the other hand, the heat capacity for the $\Lambda=0$ black hole can be calculated using equation (\[eq:bhtemperature2\]),
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{Q} & = & \left(\frac{\partial M}{\partial T}\right)_{Q}\\
& = & -\frac{3\pi M}{Q^{2}}\left[\frac{1}{M}\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{9M^{2}m_{p}^{2}}{4Q^{4}}}\right)+\frac{9M^{2}m_{p}^{2}}{4Q^{4}}\left(1-\frac{9M^{2}m_{p}^{2}}{4Q^{4}}\right)^{-1}\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Since the heat capacity of this black hole is always negative, $\frac{\partial T}{\partial M}<0$, the behavior of $T$ is the expected, as $M$ increases, the temperature decreaces.
Conclusion
==========
We have studied the thermodynamics of the $\left(2+1\right)$ dimensional black hole with non-linear electrodynamics and without cosmological constant using the Generalized Uncertainty Principle. This gives a maximum mass for the black hole, that corresponds to a maximum Hawking temperature depending only on the electric charge $Q$. The solution with the maximum temperature is obtained when the black hole has a size of the order of the Planck scale (minimum horizon).
Equation (\[eq:bhtemperature2\]) gives the temperature-mass relation, and as is shown, it gives the standard Hawking temperature (\[eq:bhtemperature\]) for small masses, but gets deformed for masses close to $M^{max}$. Finally, the heat capacity of this black hole is negative, giving the right physical behavior.
This analysis confirms that Planck lenght seems to be the smallest lenght in nature, even in $\left(2+1\right)$ dimensions. In a forthcoming paper, consequences of the GUP in the $\left(2+1\right)$ dimensional black hole with non-lineal elctrodynamics and non-zero cosmological constant will be discussed.
[1]{} M. Cataldo, N. Cruz, S. del Campo and A. Garcia. *Phys. Lett. B* ***484****, 154 (2000)*
A. Larranaga and L. A. Garcia. arXiv: 0811.3368 [\[]{}gr-qc\]
I. Arraut, D. Batic and M. Nowakowski. arXiv: 0810.5156 [\[]{}gr-qc\]
R. J. Adler and D. I. Santiago. Mod. Phys. Lett. **A14**, (1999) 1371
Y. S. Myung, Y. W. Kim, Y. J. Park. Phys. Lett. **B645** (2007) 393-397
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'High-magnification microlensing events provide an important channel to detect planets. Perturbations near the peak of a high-magnification event can be produced either by a planet or a binary companion. It is known that central perturbations induced by both types of companions can be generally distinguished due to the basically different magnification pattern around caustics. In this paper, we present a case of central perturbations for which it is difficult to distinguish the planetary and binary interpretations. The peak of a lensing light curve affected by this perturbation appears to be blunt and flat. For a planetary case, this perturbation occurs when the source trajectory passes the negative perturbation region behind the back end of an arrowhead-shaped central caustic. For a binary case, a similar perturbation occurs for a source trajectory passing through the negative perturbation region between two cusps of an astroid-shaped caustic. We demonstrate the degeneracy for 2 high-magnification events of OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 and OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336. For OGLE-2011-BLG-0526, the $\chi^2$ difference between the planetary and binary model is $\sim$ 3, implying that the degeneracy is very severe. For OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336, the stellar binary model is formally excluded with $\Delta \chi^2 \sim$ 105 and the planetary model is preferred. However, it is difficult to claim a planet discovery because systematic residuals of data from the planetary model are larger than the difference between the planetary and binary models. Considering that 2 events observed during a single season suffer from such a degeneracy, it is expected that central perturbations experiencing this type of degeneracy is common.'
author:
- |
J.-Y. Choi$^{1}$, I.-G. Shin$^{1}$, C. Han$^{1,G1,S}$, A. Udalski$^{O01,G1}$, T. Sumi$^{M01,G2}$, A. Gould$^{u01,G3}$, V. Bozza $^{702,722,G4}$, M. Dominik $^{703,\star,G4}$, P. Fouqué$^{P01,G5}$, K. Horne$^{703,G6}$,\
and\
M.K. Szyma[ń]{}ski$^{O01}$, M. Kubiak$^{O01}$, I. Soszy[ń]{}ski$^{O01}$, G. Pietrzy[ń]{}ski$^{O01,O02}$, R. Poleski$^{O01}$, K. Ulaczyk$^{O01}$, P. Pietrukowicz$^{O01}$, S. Koz[ł]{}owski$^{O01}$, J. Skowron$^{u01}$, [Ł]{}. Wyrzykowski$^{O01,O03}$\
(The OGLE Collaboration),\
F. Abe$^{M02}$, D.P. Bennett$^{M03}$, I.A. Bond$^{M04}$, C.S. Botzler$^{M05}$, P. Chote$^{M06}$, M. Freeman$^{M05}$, A. Fukui$^{M07}$, K. Furusawa$^{M02}$, Y. Itow$^{M02}$, S. Kobara$^{M02}$, C.H. Ling$^{M04}$ K. Masuda$^{M02}$, Y. Matsubara$^{M02}$, N. Miyake$^{M02}$, Y. Muraki$^{M02}$, K. Ohmori$^{M02}$, K. Ohnishi$^{M08}$, N.J. Rattenbury$^{M05}$, To. Saito$^{M10}$, D.J. Sullivan$^{M06}$, D. Suzuki$^{M01}$, K. Suzuki$^{M02}$, W.L. Sweatman$^{M04}$, S. Takino$^{M02}$, P.J. Tristram$^{M06}$, K. Wada$^{M01}$, P.C.M. Yock$^{M05}$\
(The MOA Collaboration),\
D.M. Bramich$^{R04}$, C. Snodgrass$^{R06}$, I.A. Steele$^{R05}$, R.A. Street$^{R02}$, Y. Tsapras$^{R02,R03}$\
(The RoboNet Collaboration),\
K.A. Alsubai$^{701}$, P. Browne$^{703}$, M.J. Burgdorf$^{704,705}$, S. Calchi Novati$^{702, 706}$, P. Dodds$^{703}$, S. Dreizler$^{707}$, X.-S. Fang$^{708}$, F. Grundahl$^{709}$, C.-H. Gu$^{708}$, S. Hardis$^{710}$, K. Harps[ø]{}e $^{710,711}$, T.C. Hinse$^{710,712,713}$, A. Hornstrup$^{714}$, M. Hundertmark$^{703,707}$, J. Jessen-Hansen$^{709}$, U.G. J[ø]{}rgensen$^{710,711}$, N. Kains$^{715}$, E. Kerins$^{716}$, C. Liebig$^{703}$, M. Lund$^{709}$, M. Lunkkvist$^{709}$, L. Mancini$^{717,718}$, M. Mathiasen$^{710}$, M.T. Penny$^{716, u01}$, S. Rahvar$^{719,728}$, D. Ricci$^{720}$, G. Scarpetta$^{702,706,722}$, J. Skottfelt$^{710}$, J. Southworth$^{725}$, J. Surdej$^{720}$, J. Tregloan-Reed$^{725}$, J. Wambsganss$^{726}$, O. Wertz$^{720}$\
(The MiNDSTEp Consortium),\
L. A. Almeida$^{u02}$, V. Batista$^{u01}$, G. Christie$^{u03}$, D.L. DePoy$^{u04}$, Subo Dong$^{u05}$, B.S. Gaudi$^{u01}$, C. Henderson$^{u01}$, F. Jablonski$^{u02}$, C.-U. Lee$^{713}$, J. McCormick$^{u07}$, D. McGregor$^{u01}$, D. Moorhouse$^{u08}$, T. Natusch$^{u03,u09}$, H. Ngan$^{u03}$, S.-Y. Park$^{1}$, R.W. Pogge$^{u01}$, T.-G. Tan$^{u10}$, G. Thornley$^{u08}$, J.C. Yee$^{u01}$\
(The $\mu$FUN Collaboration),\
M.D. Albrow$^{P04}$, E. Bachelet$^{P01}$, J.-P. Beaulieu$^{P03}$, S. Brillant$^{P08}$, A. Cassan$^{P03}$, A.A. Cole$^{P05}$, E. Corrales$^{P03}$, C. Coutures$^{P03}$, S. Dieters$^{P05}$, D. Dominis Prester$^{P09}$, J. Donatowicz$^{P10}$, J. Greenhill$^{P05}$, D. Kubas$^{P08,P03}$, J.-B. Marquette$^{P03}$, J.W. Menzies$^{P02}$, K.C. Sahu$^{P06}$, M. Zub$^{726}$\
(The PLANET Collaboration),\
title: 'A NEW TYPE OF AMBIGUITY IN THE PLANET AND BINARY INTERPRETATIONS OF CENTRAL PERTURBATIONS OF HIGH-MAGNIFICATION GRAVITATIONAL MICROLENSING EVENTS'
---
Introduction {#sec:two}
============
Microlensing constitutes one of the major methods to detect and characterize extrasolar planets [@mao91; @gould92a]. The method is sensitive to planets that are difficult to be detected by using other methods such as cool planets at or beyond the snow line [@bond04; @gaudi08; @dong09; @sumi10; @muraki11] and planets at large distances [@janczak10]. It is also sensitive to low-mass planets [@beaulieu06; @bennett08], making it possible to detect terrestrial planets from ground observations. Due to the weak dependence on the host-star brightness, it also enables to detect planets around low-mass stars down to M-type dwarfs [@udalski05; @miyake11; @batista11] and even to sub-stellar mass objects. In addition, it is the only method that can detect old planetary-mass objects that are not bound to stars [@sumi11]. Therefore, microlensing is important for the complete census of the frequency and properties of planets [@gould10; @cassan12].
Current microlensing planet searches are being conducted based on a specially designed strategy where survey and follow-up observations work in close coordination. There are two main reasons for this strategy. The first reason is that the probability of a lensing event is very low. For a star located in the Galactic bulge, toward which planetary microlensing searches are being conducted, the chance to detect a lensed star at a specific time is of order $10^{-6}$ [@udalski94; @alcock00]. Considering that a planet can be detected for a small fraction of lensing events, it is essential to maximize the detection rate of lensing events to increase the rate of planet detections. Survey observations are designed for this purpose by monitoring a large area of the Galactic bulge field. The second reason for the survey/follow-up strategy is that the duration of a planetary signal is short. The planetary signal is a short-term perturbation to the smooth standard light curve of the primary-induced lensing event. To densely cover planetary perturbations, follow-up observations are designed to focus on events detected by survey observations.
Under the current strategy of microlensing searches, high-magnification events are important targets for follow-up observations. A typical number of events alerted at a certain time by survey experiments is of order 10. Considering that each event typically lasts for several dozens of days, it is difficult to follow all alerted events with a restricted number of telescopes. To maximize the planet detection efficiency, therefore, priority is given to events for which the planet detection probability is high. Currently, the highest priority is given to high-magnification events. For a lens with a planet, there exist two sets of disconnected caustics, where one set is located away from the planet-host star (planetary caustic) while the other set is always located close to the host star (central caustic). For a high-magnification event, the sensitivity to a planetary companion is very high because the source trajectory always passes close to the perturbation region around the central caustic induced by the planet [@griest98]. The efficiency of the strategy focusing on high-magnification events is demonstrated by the fact that 7 out of 13 microlensing planets detected as of the end of 2011 were detected through this channel.
Perturbations near the peak of a high-magnification lensing event (central perturbations) can be produced not only by a planet but also by a binary companion [@han09; @shin12]. For a binary lens where the projected separation between the lens components is substantially smaller than the Einstein radius (close binary), there exists a small single set of caustics formed around the barycenter of the binary. For a binary where the projected separation is substantially larger than the Einstein radius (wide binary), on the other hand, there exist two sets of caustics each of which is located close to each lens component. Then, for a high-magnification event resulting from the source trajectory passing close to the center of mass of a close binary or close to one of the lens components of a wide binary, there can be a short-term perturbation near the peak of the lensing light curve, similar to the central perturbation induced by a planet. It is known that the central perturbation induced by a planet can be generally distinguished from that induced by a binary because the caustic shapes and the resulting magnification patterns around the two types of caustics are different from each other.
In this paper, we present a case of central perturbations for which it is difficult to distinguish between the planetary and binary interpretations. In $\S$2, we describe details of the degeneracy. In $\S$3, we demonstrate the degeneracy for two microlensing events OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 and OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336 that were detected during the 2011 observation season. In $\S$4, we summarize the results and conclude.
DEGENERACY
==========
[ll]{} OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 & OGLE 1.3 m Warsaw telescope at Las Campanas Observatory in Chile\
& MiNDSTEp 1.54 m Danish telescope at La Silla Paranal Observatory in Chile\
& PLANET 0.6 m at Perth Observatory in Australia\
& PLANET 1.0 m at SAAO in South Africa\
& RoboNet 2.0 m Liverpool telescope (LT) in La Palma, Spain\
OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/ & OGLE 1.3 m Warsaw telescope at Las Campanas Observatory in Chile\
MOA-2011-BLG-336 & MOA 1.8 m at Mt. John Observatory in New Zealand\
& $\mu$FUN 1.3 m SMARTS telescope at CTIO in Chile\
& $\mu$FUN 0.4 m at Auckland Observatory in New Zealand\
& $\mu$FUN 0.4 m at Farm Cove Observatory (FCO) in New Zealand\
& $\mu$FUN 0.4 m at Kumeu Observatory in New Zealand\
& $\mu$FUN 0.6 m at Observatorio do Pico Dos Dias (OPD) in Brazil\
& $\mu$FUN 1.0 m at Wise Observatory in Israel\
& MiNDSTEp 1.54 m Danish telescope at La Silla Paranal Observatory in Chile\
& PLANET 1.0 m at SAAO in South Africa\
& RoboNet 2.0 m Faulkes Telescope North (FTN) in Hawaii\
& RoboNet 2.0 m Faulkes Telescope South (FTS) in Australia\
& RoboNet 2.0 m LT in La Palma, Spain
The pattern of central perturbations in a lensing light curve is basically determined by the shape of the central caustic. For both planetary and binary cases, the central caustics form a closed figure that is composed of concave curves that meet at cusps. The general magnification pattern is that a positive perturbation occurs when the source is located in the region outside the caustic extending from cusps while a negative perturbation occurs when the source is located in the region between cusps. Here a “positive” (“negative”) perturbation means that the magnification of the perturbed part of the light curve is higher (lower) than the magnification of the corresponding single-lensing event. The central caustics induced by a planet and a binary companion have different shapes and thus the resulting patterns of magnification around the two types of caustics are different from each other. In Figure \[fig:one\], we present the central caustics and the magnification patterns around them for the representative cases of the planetary and binary lenses, respectively.
The central caustic induced by a planet has a shape of an arrowhead with four cusps. One cusp corresponding to the sharp tip of the arrowhead-shaped caustic is located on the star-planet axis. This cusp is strong in the sense that light curves resulting from source trajectories passing close to the cusp exhibit strong deviations from the single-lens expectation. Two other cusps are located off the star-planet axis corresponding to the blunt ends of the arrowhead-shaped caustic. These two cusps are moderately strong. The fourth cusp, which is located on the star-planet axis between the two off-axis cusps, is weak in the sense that it creates relatively weak deviations. Due to the weakness of the last cusp, there exists an extended region of negative perturbation between the two off-axis cusps.
The central caustic induced by a wide or a close binary has an asteroid shape with four cusps. Two of the cusps are located on the binary-lens axis and the other two are along a line perpendicular to the axis. The caustic is symmetric with respect to the two lines connecting the on-axis and off-axis cusps. Due to the symmetry of the caustic, all cusps are of similar strength. Regions of positive perturbations form outside the caustic extending from the cusps and regions of negative perturbations form between the positive-perturbation regions.
[l|llll|llll]{} $\chi^2$ & 423.6 & 420.0 & 422.2 & 422.9 & 3073.5 & 2968.6 & 2969.0 & 3076.9\
$u_0$ & 0.141$\pm$0.001 & 0.117$\pm$0.002 & 0.117$\pm$0.002 & 0.140$\pm$0.020 & (9.3$\pm$0.1)$10^{-3}$ & (8.6$\pm$0.1)$10^{-3}$ & (8.7$\pm$0.1)$10^{-3}$ & (9.0$\pm$0.3)$10^{-3}$\
$t_{\rm E}$ (days) & 11.63$\pm$0.08 & 12.15$\pm$0.09 & 12.37$\pm$0.10 & 11.60$\pm$1.91 & 61.39$\pm$0.67 & 65.21$\pm$0.85 & 65.27$\pm$0.76 & 62.41$\pm$1.90\
${\it s}$ & 0.311$\pm$0.003 & 0.48$\pm$0.01 & 1.94$\pm$0.02 & 6.43$\pm$0.05 & 0.075$\pm$0.001 & 0.70$\pm$0.01 & 1.43$\pm$0.01 & 22.7$\pm$0.3\
${\it q}$ & 0.91$\pm$0.04 & (3.5$\pm$0.2)$10^{-2}$ & (3.9$\pm$0.2)$10^{-2}$ & 28.5$\pm$10.6 & 0.83$\pm$0.09 & (5.8$\pm$0.2)$10^{-4}$ & (6.0$\pm$0.2)$10^{-4}$ & 2.36$\pm$0.21\
$\alpha$ & -0.795$\pm$ 0.010 & 4.718$\pm$0.004 & 4.718$\pm$0.004 & 0.765$\pm$0.007 & 0.739$\pm$0.005 & 4.664$\pm$0.002 & 4.664$\pm$0.002 & 0.722$\pm$0.002\
$\rho_{\star}$ $(10^{-3})$ & 80$\pm$2 & – & – & 79$\pm$7 & 3.2$\pm$0.3 & 4.6$\pm$0.1 & 4.6$\pm$0.1 & 3.4$\pm$0.3\
$\pi_{{\rm E},N}$ & – & – & – & – & 0.22$\pm$0.15 & -0.10$\pm$0.17 & -0.29$\pm$0.14 & 0.12$\pm$0.09\
$\pi_{{\rm E},E}$ & – & – & – & – & -0.04$\pm$0.03 & 0.02$\pm$0.03 & 0.03$\pm$0.02 & -0.03$\pm$0.02
Despite the basically different caustic shapes and the resulting magnification patterns, we find a case of central perturbations for which it is difficult to distinguish between the planetary and binary interpretations. This degeneracy is illustrated in Figures \[fig:one\] and \[fig:two\]. The planetary lensing case for this degeneracy occurs when the source trajectory passes the negative perturbation region behind the back end of the arrowhead-shaped central caustic with an angle between the source trajectory and the star-planet axis (source-trajectory angle) of $\alpha \sim 90^{\circ}$. For a binary case, a similar perturbation occurs when the source trajectory passes through the negative perturbation region between two cusps of an astroid-shaped caustic with a source-trajectory angle of $\sim 45^{\circ}$. For both cases, the morphology of the resulting perturbation is that the peak of the light curve appears to be blunt and flat.
ACTUAL EVENTS
=============
We search for high-magnification events with similar central perturbations among those detected during the 2011 observation season. From this search, we find that two events including OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 and OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336 exhibit such central perturbations. In this section, we investigate the severity of the degeneracy by conducting detailed modeling of the light curves for these events.
The event OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 occurred on a Galactic bulge star that is positioned at $(\alpha,\delta)_{J2000}$ = $(18^{\rm h}02^{\rm m}45^{\rm s}\hskip-2pt.37,
-28^{\circ}01^{\prime}25^{\prime\prime}\hskip-2pt.8)$, which correspond to the Galactic coordinates $(l,b)$ = $(2.69^{\circ},-2.79^{\circ})$. The event was detected and alerted to the microlensing community by the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) group. High-magnification events are usually realerted after the first alert. Unfortunately, no high-magnification alert was issued for this event and thus follow-up observations were conducted by using a fraction of telescopes available for follow-up observations. As a result, the coverage of the peak is not very dense. The telescopes used for the observations of this event are listed in Table \[table:one\].
The event OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336 also occurred on a Galactic bulge star located at $(\alpha,\delta)_{J2000}$ = $(17^{\rm h}57^{\rm m}16^{\rm s}\hskip-2pt.63,
-32^{\circ}39^{\prime}57^{\prime\prime}\hskip-2pt.0)$, corresponding to $(l,b)$ = $(358.07^{\circ},-4.05^{\circ})$. It was independently discovered from the survey experiments conducted by the OGLE and the Microlensing Observation in Astrophysics (MOA) groups. A high-magnification alert was issued for this event 4 days before the peak. Based on this alert, follow-up observations were conducted by using 13 telescopes located in 8 different countries. As a result, the perturbation was more densely covered than the perturbation of OGLE-2011-BLG-0526. In Table \[table:one\], we also list the telescopes used for the observations of this event.
Initial reductions of the data taken from different observatories were processed by using photometry codes developed by the individual groups. For the purpose of improving the data quality, we conducted additional photometry for all follow-up data of OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336 by using codes based on difference imaging photometry. For the use of modeling, we rescaled the error bars of the data sets so that $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom becomes unity for each data set, where the value of $\chi^{2}$ is calculated based on the best-fit solution obtained from modeling. We eliminated 3$\sigma$ outliers from the best-fit solution in the modeling.
In Figures \[fig:three\] and \[fig:four\], we present the light curves of the two events. Also drawn are the best-fit single-lensing light curves. For both events, the light curves are well represented by those of standard single-lensing events except for the short-lasting perturbations near the peak. The common morphology of the perturbations is that the peak appears to be flat and blunt.
To investigate the nature of the perturbations, we conducted binary-lens modeling of the light curves. In the modeling of each light curve, we searched for the solution of the binary-lensing parameters that best describe the observed light curve by minimizing $\chi^{2}$ in the parameter space. For OGLE-2011-BLG-0526, the time scale of the event is not long ($t_{\rm E} \sim$ 12 days) and thus we modeled the light curve using 7 basic binary-lens parameters. The first 3 of these parameters characterize the geometry of the lens-source approach and they include the Einstein time scale, $t_{\rm E}$, the time of the closest lens-source approach, $t_0$, and the lens source separation at that moment, $u_0$, in units of the Einstein radius. The other 3 parameters characterize the binary lens. These parameters include the mass ratio between the lens components, $q$, the projected separation in units of the Einstein radius, $s$, and the angle between the source trajectory and the binary axis, $\alpha$. The last parameter of the normalized source radius $\rho_{\star}$ describes the deviation of the light curve affected by the finite-source effect and it represents the angular source radius $\theta_{\star}$ in units of the angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$, i.e. $\rho_{\star}=\theta_{\star}/\theta_{\rm E}$. For OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336, the duration of the event ($t_{\rm E} \sim$ 65 days) is relatively long. For such a case, the motion of the source with respect to the lens may deviate from a rectilinear one due to the change of the observer’s position caused by the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun and this deviation can cause a long-term deviation in the light curve [@gould92a]. Consideration of this “parallax effect” requires to include two additional parameters $\pi_{{\rm E},N}$ and $\pi_{{\rm E},E}$, which represent the two components of the lens parallax ${{\bf \pi}_{\rm E}}$ projected on the sky in the north and east equatorial coordinates, respectively. The direction of the parallax vector corresponds to the relative lens-source motion in the frame of the Earth at a specific time of the event. Its size corresponds to the ratio of the Earth’s orbit to the physical Einstein radius, $r_{\rm E}$ = $D_{L}\theta_{\rm E}$, projected on the observer plane, i.e. $\pi_{\rm E}=({\rm AU}/r_{\rm E})[(D_{\rm S}-D_{\rm L})/D_{\rm S}]$.
Knowing that central perturbations can be produced either by a planet or by a binary companion, we conduct a thorough search for solutions in the $s-q$ parameter space encompassing both planet and binary regimes to investigate the possible existence of local minima. In Figures \[fig:five\] and \[fig:six\], we present the resulting distributions of $\Delta\chi^2$ in the $s-q$ parameter space for the individual events. From the distributions, it is found that there exist four distinct local minima for both events. Among them, two minima are located in the region with $s > 1$ and the other two are located in the region with $s < 1$. For each close/wide binary pair, one local minimum is located in the regime of a binary mass ratio ($q \sim 1$) and the other minimum is located in the regime of a planet mass ratio ($q \ll 1$). We designate the individual minima by “A” ($s < 1$ with binary $q$), “B” ($s < 1$ with planetary $q$), “C” ($s > 1$ with planetary $q$), and “D” ($s > 1$ with binary $q$).
In Table \[table:two\], we present the lensing parameters of the individual local minima that are obtained by further refining the local solutions in the corresponding parameter space. The exact locations of the local minima are marked by “X” on the $\Delta\chi^2$ maps in Figures \[fig:five\] and \[fig:six\]. For each local solution, we also present the caustic and the source trajectory. We note that the size of the caustic for the binary with $s < 1$ is scaled by the Einstein radius corresponding to the total mass of the lens, while the caustic size for the binary with $s > 1$ is scaled by the Einstein radius corresponding to the mass of the lens component that the source approaches.
The findings from the comparison of the local solutions and the corresponding lens-system geometries are summarized as below.
1. For both events, $\chi^2$ differences from the best-fit single-lensing models are very big. We find that $\Delta\chi^2$ = 1085 for OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 and $\Delta\chi^2$ = 5644 for OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336, implying that the perturbations of both events are clearly detected.
2. Despite the clear signature of the perturbation, we find that the degeneracy of the four local solutions is severe. To better show the subtle differences between the local solutions, we present the residuals of the data from the individual local solutions in Figures \[fig:seven\] and \[fig:eight\] for OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 and OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336, respectively. We also present the enlargement of the perturbed parts of the light curve in the upper panel of each figure. For the case of OGLE-2011-BLG-0526, the $\chi^2$ difference between the planetary and binary models is $\sim$ 3, implying that the degeneracy is very severe. For the case of OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336, the planetary solution is favored over the binary solution with $\Delta\chi^2 \sim$ 105 and thus the stellar binary model is formally excluded. However, from the visual inspection of the residuals, it is found that systematic residuals of the data from the planetary model are larger than the difference between the planetary and binary models. In addition, the CTIO, Danish, and OGLE data of overlapping coverage appear to be different from each other by an amount at least as large as the difference between the planetary and stellar binary models. Therefore, it is difficult to claim a planet discovery based on < 1% variations in the light curve.
3. For a pair of solutions with similar mass ratios, the solutions with $s > 1$ and $s < 1$ result in a similar caustic shape. The degeneracy between these solutions, often referred to as $s \leftrightarrow s^{-1}$ degeneracy, is known to be caused by the symmetry of the lens-mapping equation between close and wide binaries [@dominik99; @albrow99; @afonso00; @an05; @chung05].
The degeneracy between the pairs of solutions with planetary and binary mass ratios corresponds to the degeneracy mentioned in $\S$ 2. To be noted is that despite the large difference in caustic shape, the resulting perturbations appear to be very alike. The planet/binary degeneracy introduced in this work was not known before. This is mostly because the caustics induced by a planet and a binary companion have very different shapes and thus it is widely believed that perturbations induced by the two types of companions can be easily distinguished. Considering that two events of a single season suffer from this degeneracy along with the fact that perturbations caused by non-caustic-crossing source trajectories have larger cross sections, it is expected that central perturbations suffering from this is common.
CONCLUSION
==========
We introduced a new type of degeneracy in the planet/binary interpretation of central perturbations in microlensing light curves. The planetary lensing case for this degeneracy occurs when the source trajectory passes the negative perturbation region behind the back end of the arrowhead-shaped central caustic with a source-trajectory angle of $\sim 90^{\circ}$. For a binary case, a similar perturbation occurs when the source trajectory passes through the negative perturbation region between two cusps of an astroid-shaped caustic with a source-trajectory angle of $\sim 45^{\circ}$. For both cases, the morphology of the resulting perturbation is that the peak of the light curve appears to be blunt and flat. From investigation of events detected during the 2011 microlensing observation season, we found 2 events OGLE-2011-BLG-0526 and OGLE-2011-BLG-0950/MOA-2011-BLG-336, which exhibit such perturbations. From detailed modeling of the light curves, we demonstrated the severity of the degeneracy. Considering that 2 events during a single season suffer from the degeneracy, we conclude that central perturbations experiencing the degeneracy should be common.
Work by CH was supported by Creative Research Initiative Program (2009-0081561) of National Research Foundation of Korea. The OGLE project has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no. 246678. The MOA experiment was supported by grants JSPS22403003 and JSPS23340064. TS was supported by the grant JSPS23340044. Y. Muraki acknowledges support from JSPS grants JSPS23540339 and JSPS19340058. The MiNDSTEp monitoring campaign is powered by ARTEMiS (Automated Terrestrial Exoplanet Microlensing Search; Dominik et al. 2008, AN 329, 248). MH acknowledges support by the German Research Foundation (DFG). DR (boursier FRIA), OW (FNRS research fellow) and J. Surdej acknowledge support from the Communauté française de Belgique Actions de recherche concertées – Académie universitaire Wallonie-Europe. KA, DMB, MD, KH, MH, CL, CS, RAS, and YT are thankful to Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF), member of Qatar Foundation, for support by grant NPRP 09-476-1-078. CS received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FPT/2007-2013) under grant agreement 268421. This work is based in part on data collected by MiNDSTEp with the Danish 1.54 m telescope at the ESO La Silla Observatory. The Danish 1.54 m telescope is operated based on a grant from the Danish Natural Science Foundation (FNU). A. Gould and B.S. Gaudi acknowledge support from NSF AST-1103471. B.S. Gaudi, A. Gould, and R.W. Pogge acknowledge support from NASA grant NNG04GL51G. Work by J.C. Yee is supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 2009068160. S. Dong’s research was performed under contract with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) funded by NASA through the Sagan Fellowship Program. Research by TCH was carried out under the KRCF Young Scientist Research Fellowship Program. TCH and CUL acknowledge the support of Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (KASI) grant 2012-1-410-02. Dr. David Warren provided financial support for Mt. Canopus Observatory.
[99]{}
Afonso, C., et al. 2000, , 532, 340
Albrow, M., et al. 1999, , 522, 1022
Alcock, C., et al. 2000, , 541, 734
An, J. H. 2005, , 356, 1409
Batista, V., et al. 2011, , 529, 102
Beaulieu, J.-P., et al. 2006, Nature, 439, 437
Bennett, D. P., et al. 2008, , 684, 663
Bond, I. A., et al. 2004, , 606, L155
Cassan, A., et al. 2012, Nature, 481,167
Chung, S.-J., et al. 2005, , 630, 535
Dominik, M., et al. 1999, , 349, 108
Dong, S., et al. 2009, , 698, 1826
Gaudi, B. S., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 927
Gould A. 1992, , 392, 442
Gould, A., & Loeb, A. 1992, , 396, 104
Gould, A., et al. 2010, , 720, 1073
Griest, K., & Safizadeh, N. 1998, , 500, 37
Janczak, J., et al. 2010, , 711, 731
Han, C., & Hwang K.-H. 2009, , 707, 1264
Mao, S., & Paczynski, B. 1991, , 374, L37
Miyake, N., et al. 2011, , 728, 120
Muraki, Y., et al. 2011, , 741, 22
Shin, I.-G., et al. 2012, , 746, 127
Sumi, T., et al. 2010, , 710, 1641
Sumi, T., et al. 2011, Nature, 473, 349
Udalski, A., et al. 1994, Acta Astron., 44, 165
Udalski, A., et al. 2005, , 622, L109
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A method for measuring an integral of a classical field via local interaction of a single quantum particle in a superposition of $2^N$ states is presented. The method is as efficient as a quantum method with $N$ qubits passing through the field one at a time and it is exponentially better than any known classical method that uses $N$ bits passing through the field one at a time. A related method for searching a string with a quantum particle is proposed.'
author:
- Lev Vaidman and Amir Kalev
title: 'Measurement of an integral of a classical field with a single quantum particle.'
---
For the past two decades, we are witnessing dramatic growth of research in the field of quantum information: analysis of information tasks that can be performed more efficiently using quantum devices, for example, fast computation [@DJ; @Shor] and fast searching [@Gr96; @Gr97]. Since quantum “hardware” used for storing, transmitting, and manipulating information is usually very different from its classical counterpart, there is no unique way to make the comparison between quantum and classical systems. It has become customary to measure quantum and classical information systems by comparing the number of basic data storage units - namely, qubits and bits respectively- needed for a particular task. However, other aspects may prove to be also important. For example, due to difficulties in arranging direct photon-photon interactions, an extensive research of what can be achieved using linear optical devices was done [@KLM]. Thus, the number of qubits stored in the Hilbert space of the quantum system performing the information task, is not always the only (or the best) measure by which we can evaluate the efficiency of a quantum system. Depending on the possibility of practical applications, various quantum schemes might have particular advantages.
Grover’s fast search algorithm [@Gr96; @Gr97] which uses $N$ qubits can be performed with a single particle with $2^N$ states [@Ld]. Meyer [@Mr], suggested that it can be done for other tasks too and in this paper we present such modification for a recently proposed task of measuring an integral of a classical field using quantum devices.
Recently, a quantum method, using a single qubit for measuring the parity of an integral of a classical field, $$\label{eq:int}
I=\int_A^B \phi (x) dx,$$ provided it takes on only positive integral values, has been suggested [@GH]. This method was generalized, by Vaidman and Mitrani (VM) [@VM], to compute the value of the integral itself, using $N$ qubits represented by $N$ spin-$1\over 2$ particles (or any other two-level quantum systems) which are sent one at a time through the field. Furthermore, the VM method is applicable when the integral may take on non-integer values. The precision of this method turns out to be exponentially better than any known classical method which uses $N$ bits sent one at a time.
We will describe how a single (spin-zero) particle, which passes only once through the field, can be used to evaluate the integral of the field with the same precision as the VM method. We let the particle be in $K=2^N$ distinct sites, so it requires exponentially increasing precision [@EJ; @TS].
We outline the algorithm in what follows. The particle is initially prepared to be in a superposition of equal amplitudes and vanishing relative phases, over the $K=2^N$ consecutive separate sites: $$\label{psiin}
| \Psi_{\rm in}\rangle = {1\over {\sqrt K}}\sum_{k=1}^K |k\rangle .$$ Next, we send this “train of amplitudes” through the field with constant velocity, see Fig.1.
\[fig1\] {width="6.5cm"}
We arrange a local field-particle interaction of the form $$\label{Hint}
H_{int} =g(x, t) \phi (x) ,$$ in such a way that the strength of the coupling of the field to the $k$’th part of the particle is proportional to the index number $k$: $$\label{couple}
g (x_k(t), t) =\frac{k}{K\alpha},$$ where $x_k(t)$ is the location of $k$’th part at time $t$ and $\alpha$ is the parameter which we fix depending on the given information about possible values of the integral of the field. After the particle completes its passage through the field, its final state (due to the interaction) is $$\label{psifin}
| \Psi_{\rm fin} (I)\rangle = {1\over {\sqrt K}}\sum_{k=1}^K e^{-i
{{2\pi kI}\over K\alpha}} |k\rangle .$$ For the special case of $I= \alpha m$, where $m =0, 1, ... K-1$, we obtain $K$ mutually orthogonal states. These $K$ states represent a basis of the Hilbert space of the particle. Thus, a measurement in this basis yields the correct value of $m$ with probability 1, exactly like the VM method does with $N=\log_2 K$ particles.
The VM method [@VM] also provides an answer with a good precision for a more general case when $I$ is not necessarily a multiple of $\alpha$. In this case, the measurement always yields one of the discrete values, $\tilde I = \alpha m$, and the probability for the error, $\delta I = \tilde I -I$, is $$\label{eq:probdelta}
p(\delta I)=\prod_{n=1}^N \cos^2{{\delta I \pi}\over {2^n \alpha}}.$$
In our algorithm we also get one of the values $\tilde I = \alpha m$, and the probability for the error is given by the squared norm of the scalar product of the states corresponding to $I$ and $\tilde I$: $$\label{eq:probdeltaVK}
p(\delta
I)= |\langle \Psi (\tilde I)| \Psi (I)\rangle|^2 = \frac{\sin^2{\delta I \pi \over\alpha}}{4^N \sin^2{\delta I \pi
\over{2^N \alpha}}} .$$
Although expressions (\[eq:probdelta\]) and (\[eq:probdeltaVK\]) look different, they are, in fact, identical. This can be checked in a straightforward manner by mathematical induction on $N$. The equality is not a coincidence. In fact, from mathematical point of view, the two methods are isomorphic. We can make the correspondence between the state $|k\rangle$ and a state of $N$ spin-$1\over 2$ particles which “writes” the number $k$ in a binary form with $|{\uparrow}\rangle
\equiv 0$ and $|{\downarrow}\rangle \equiv 1$. We arrange the interaction between the spins and the field such that the spin corresponding to $j$th digit accumulate the phase $-{{2\pi 2^j I}\over
{K\alpha}}$ when the spin is “down” and zero phase when the spin is “up”. In this way the overall phase of $N$ particles in a state corresponding to state $|k\rangle$ will be exactly as in our case: $-{{2\pi kI}\over K\alpha}$. Thus, if we start with $N$ spins originally pointing in the $x$ direction, i.e. in the state ${1\over
\sqrt 2}(|{\uparrow}\rangle +|{\downarrow}\rangle )$, then we obtain the state (\[psifin\]) after the interaction with the only change that $|k\rangle$ represents a corresponding state of $N$ spin-$1\over
2$ particles . The interaction which leads to the phase $-{{2\pi 2^j
I}\over {K\alpha}}$ when the spin $j$ is “down” and no phase if the spin is “up”, is exactly the magnetic field in the $z$ direction of the VM method. Therefore, mathematically, the two methods are equivalent. The implementation, is of course different. It depends on the physical system, what is easier: sending $N$ spins one at a time or sending the train of $2^N$ wave packets.
The function $ p(\delta I)$ is exactly the interference pattern of $K=2^N$ slits, see Fig. 2. It becomes well localized with large $K$, but it is periodic with period $\alpha K$. In fact, what is measured is $I {\rm mod}(\alpha K)$ and the error should be understood as $(\tilde I -I){\rm mod}(\alpha K)$. Following VM, we consider the situation in which $I$ is of the order of $M= {{\alpha K}\over {10}}$, so we can neglect the complications following from the periodicity of the function $ p(\delta I)$.
The uncertainty of the measurement can be characterized as the standard deviation: $$\label{DELTA2}
\Delta I = \sqrt {\langle I^2 \rangle - \langle I \rangle^2} \simeq
\frac{10M}{\sqrt{2} \pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^N}}.$$ It is also useful to compute another measure of uncertainty, namely, the mean absolute deviation of the measured value $$\label{DELTA1}
\Delta ' I = \langle|\delta I|\rangle \simeq \frac{10M}{2\pi^2}\frac{\ln 2^N}{2^N}.$$
The uncertainty of the corresponding classical method, described in [@VM], in which $N$ bits are sent one at a time through the field, is of the order of $1\over \sqrt N$, i.e. it is exponentially larger than the uncertainty in quantum methods. If we remove the constrain of sending bits one after the other, we can construct a much better classical method, but still there is some advantage for the quantum methods. In this case the $N$ bits are sent together and they function as a counter which can go up to $2^N$. If we arrange that the counter “clicks", while moving through the field, with probability $$\label{dp}
dp= \alpha \phi (x) dx,$$ then the resulting standard deviation $\Delta I_{cl} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{10MI}{2^N}} $ is of the same order as the standard deviation in quantum methods (\[DELTA2\]). However, the average of the absolute value of the error $$\label{DELTA1cl}
\Delta ' I_{cl} = \langle|\delta I_{cl}|\rangle \simeq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\Delta I_{cl} =
\sqrt{\frac{20MI}{\pi 2^N}},$$ turns out to be larger than that of the quantum methods (\[DELTA1\]).
It is interesting to note that a classical algorithm can achieve the same precision by sending the bits one by one, when local memory is allowed. We first start with a particle (a “marker") which goes through the field and occasionally leaves marks with the same probability law (\[dp\]) as our $N$-bit counter. Then, we use our bits to count the marks. The counting of the marks can be done in the following way. At the beginning, all bits are initialize to 0. The bits go one after the other along the path. They all behave according to the following rule: when a bit in a state 0 meets a mark, it erases the mark and flips to 1, while when a bit in a state 1 meets a mark, it leaves the mark undisturbed and flips to 0. It is easy to see that the final states of the bits after they all pass through the marked path is the binary representation of the total number of marks created by the marker.
In our method all parts of the wave function of the particle pass through all points of the field. Can we get some information when different parts of the wave of the particle pass only through parts of the field? We cannot find the integral of the field in this way. But there is a specially tailored task of a similar type which can be accomplished with a single quantum particle. The classical solution of this task requires a large number of bits.
\[fig3\] {width="5.5cm"}
Consider $K=2^N$ local classical bits which we want to read. There are $2^K$ possible strings $\{a_k\}$, but in our special task we consider a situation in which it is known that our set of bits can be in one of $N +1$ specific strings. Whatever the strings are, in order to find the string, the number of bits we have to approach is larger than $\log_2 N$ because these bits have to specify the chosen string. Since in this scenario each particle (and in the quantum analog each part of the particle wave) approaches only one bit, classically, we need at least $\log_2 N$ particles. We will show that for a specific set of strings we need just one quantum particle to achieve this goal.
For $K=16$ our set of strings is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{stringspecial}
\nonumber 0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0\\
\nonumber 0~0~0~0~0~0~0~0~1~1~1~1~1~1~1~1\\
0~0~0~0~1~1~1~1~0~0~0~0~1~1~1~1\\
\nonumber 0~0~1~1~0~0~1~1~0~0~1~1~0~0~1~1\\
\nonumber 0~1~0~1~0~1~0~1~0~1~0~1~0~1~0~1\end{aligned}$$
The general rule is clear from the example. In the $n$th string, the set of $K\over 2^{n-1}$ bits 0 is followed by the same number bits 1, which followed again by the same number of bits 0, etc., until the string ends.
In our quantum method, we again use a single quantum particle prepared in a superposition of $K$ states without relative phase (\[psiin\]). Each part of the superposition passes through location of one of the bits, Fig 3. The interaction is such that it acquires phase $\pi$ if the bit is 1 and 0 if the bit is 0. It is easy to see that for different strings from our special set we obtain in this way mutually orthogonal states. Thus, we have shown that a single quantum particle can read reliably $2^N$-bit string provided it is one out of particular $N +1$ strings. Using classical devices, for this task we need more than $\log_2 N$ bits.
It seems that technology today is not at the stage of building a quantum device which works better than its classical counterpart. However, experiments, similar to those which show proof of principle for operating a quantum computer are certainly capable to show the proof of principle of the results presented here.
It is a pleasure to thank the members of the Quantum Group at Tel-Aviv University for helpful discussions. This research was supported in part by grant 62/01 of the Israel Science Foundation.
[11]{}
D. Deutsch, R. Jozsa, Proc. R. Soc. London A, **439**, 553-558 (1992)
P. W. Shor, SIAM Journal on Computing, **26**, 1484 (1997).
L. K. Grover, Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Symposium on the Theory of Computing, ACM Press (New York, 1996), p. 212.
L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett., **79**, 325 (1997).
E. Knill, R. Laflamme and G. J. Milburn. Nature, **409**, 46 (2001).
S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 010301 (1999).
D. A. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 2014 (2000).
E. F. Galv${\rm \tilde a}$o, L. Hardy. Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 087902 (2003).
L. Vaidman, Z. Mitrani, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 217902 (2004).
A. Ekert and R. Jozsa, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A **356** (1998) 1769–1782.
B. M. Terhal, J. A. Smolin, Phys. Rev. A **58** (1998) 1822–1826.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Modern high-performance as well as power-constrained System-on-Chips (SoC) are increasingly using hardware accelerated encryption engines to secure computation, memory access, and communication operations. The electromagnetic (EM) emission from a chip leaks information of the underlying logical operation being performed by the chip. As the EM information leakage can be collected using low-cost instruments and non-invasive measurements, EM based side-channel attacks (EMSCA) have emerged as a major threat to security of encryption engines in a SoC. This paper presents the concept of *Blindsight* where an high-frequency inductive voltage regulator integrated on the same chip with an encryption engine is used to increase resistance against EMSCA. High-frequency ($\sim$100MHz) inductive integrated voltage regulators (IVR) are present in modern microprocessors to improve energy-efficiency. We show that an IVR with a randomized control loop (R-IVR) can reduce EMSCA as the integrated inductance acts as a strong EM emitter and *blinds* an adversary from EM emission of the encryption engine. The measurements are performed on a prototype circuit board with a test-chip containing two architectures of a 128-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) engine powered by a high-frequency (125MHz) R-IVR with wirebond inductor. The EM measurements are performed under two attack scenarios, one, where an adversary gains complete physical access of the target device (EMSCA with Physical Access) and the other, where the adversary is only in proximity of the device (Proximity EMSCA). The resistance to EMSCA is characterized considering a naive adversary as well as a skilled one with intelligent post-processing capabilities. In both attack modes, for a naive adversary, EM emission from a baseline IVR (B-IVR, without control loop randomization) increases EMSCA resistance compared to a standalone AES engine. However, a skilled adversary with intelligent post-processing can observe information leakage in Test Vector Leakage Assessment (TVLA) test. Subsequently, we show that EM emission from the R-IVR *blinds* the attacker and significantly reduces SCA vulnerability of the AES engine. A range of practical side-channel analysis including TVLA, Correlation Electromagnetic Analysis (CEMA), and a template based CEMA shows that R-IVR can reduce information leakage and prevent key extraction even against a skilled adversary.'
author:
-
title: 'Blindsight: Blinding EM Side-Channel Leakage Using Built-In Fully Integrated Inductive Voltage Regulator'
---
Hardware Security, Side Channel Attack, Electromagnetic Attacks, CEMA, TVLA, Template Attack, Integrated Voltage Regulators, FIVR, EMI
Introduction
============
High performance encryption is becoming a standard feature in modern hardware across different applications like protected video streaming [@pantos2017http], data and memory protection [@rott2010intel; @costan2016intel] and financial data transaction. One of the most common crypto algorithm to enhance security of servers, desktops, and mobile platforms [@rott2010intel] is Advanced Encryption Standards (AES). The latest processors and SoCs show a common trend of using dedicated accelerator for AES. A new instruction (AES-NI) has been added as an extension to x86 instruction set and is being widely used across Intel and AMD processors [@rott2010intel]. Similarly ARM cortex processor series also has dedicated instructions for AES and SHA-256. The hardware acceleration of AES engines is also being actively studied for power constrained small IoTs edge devices to support secure communication, leading to design of energy-efficient AES engines [@mathew2015340; @hamalainen2006design; @moradi2011pushing]. As computing continue to become more ubiquitous, ensuring security of the encryption engines in computing and communication devices against side channel attacks (SCA) is becoming increasingly important and challenging. In particular, power dissipation and electromagnetic (EM) emissions from modern SoCs can leak compromising information and has emerged as key threats to security of modern SoCs. Consequently, power and EM side channel attack on AES architectures have received signifcant attention over last decade [@rott2010intel; @longo2015soc; @yamaguchi2010development; @plos2008enhancing; @ratanpal2004chip; @wang2013role]. Although majority of the works focus on inhibiting power attacks, preventing EM attacks is gaining more importance in the era of mobile and ubiquituous computing, due to the simplicity and inexpensive nature of the EM attack. Mounting a power attack requires physical probing of the target device i.e. a direct access to the printed circuit board (PCB) and/or the exposed area of the package which houses the chip. EM side channel signatures on the other hand can be easily captured with in-expensive EM probes [@longo2015soc] (Figure \[fig:1\]) by being in close proximity of the device.
![EM attack on a Smart-phone[]{data-label="fig:1"}](Figures/Sample_device_EM_Attack_v2){width="3.3in"}
Traditional approaches to EM countermeasures involve modifying the algorithm, architecture, or logic design of the AES engines. But the challenge comes from the significant power, performance, or area-overheads associated with these approaches, making adoption of these techniques unattractive to resource-constrained and performance-sensitive commercial products. Operating systems like Android5.0 and Apple IoS already suffer from slow memeory encryption, which suggests that additional performance penalty for side-channel security is unacceptable for commercial products [@gouvea2015implementing]. Another option of adding advanced EM shielding [@yamaguchi2010development; @plos2008enhancing] comes at the expense of significantly increased packaging cost. Moreover recent EM attacks have been demonstrated on finished products with high-end packaging which came with EM shielding [@zajic2014experimental; @do2013electromagnetic]. In essence, eliminating the physical leakage of EM signals is difficult and comes with high power and performance penalty and increased cost. Therefore, this paper pursues an orthogonal approach to thwarting EM side-channel attacks and develop [*innovative techniques using existing components in modern SoCs to modulate information content in the EM signatures*]{} and reduce information leakage.
A voltage regulator module (VRM) converts the input voltage from a voltage source (battery/power supply/harvested energy) to a suitable voltage for the application circuit. Traditionally VRMs are used as seperate integrated circuits (ICs) in the same board as the processor/SoC to generate different voltage levels. However, driven by the needs to (i) reduce noise in the power supply, (ii) enable fast dynamic voltage scaling for reducing power, and (iii) creating multiple voltage domain for efficient workload driven power management, there is a growing trend in integrating a VRM with the processors and SoCs in the same die [@kurd2015haswell; @fluhr201512; @bowhill2016xeon]. Inductive IVRs are switching voltage regulators with an inductance and a capacitance. The recent commercial processors like Intel Haswell and Xeon have demonstrated integration of inductive IVRs, on the processor chip [@kurd2015haswell; @krishnamurthy201720; @krishnamurthy2014500; @bowhill2016xeon]. In this paper, we argue that the EM signatures from a targeted platform are modified by the presence of an inductive IVR. The switching nature of operation and presence of an inductor, typically integrated close to the physical location of the application circuits creates an interference in the measured EM signatures. The interference is dictated by the current pattern through the inductor. **Motivation**:
Kar et. al. in [@kar20178] presented power side-channel attack (PSCA) results for two configurations of an inductive IVR, namely a baseline IVR (B-IVR) representing typical operating mode of any inductive IVR and randomized IVR (R-IVR) where the control loop of the IVR is randomized. In general the techniques for improving PSCA resistance are not guaranteed to be effective for improving EMSCA resistance. However, the current transformations through an IVR, which are exploited for improving PSCA resistance, change the current pattern through the inductor and therefore carry the potential to be effective for improving EMSCA resistance as well.
**Contribution**:
This paper presents the concept of *Blindsight* where a high-frequency IVR is used to increase resistance against EMSCA. We, for the first time, experimentally characterize EM emission of a system-on-chip (SoC) with embedded encryption engine powered by an IVR. We demonstrate that an R-IVR reduces EMSCA as the integrated inductance acts as a strong EM emitter and *blinds* an adversary from EM emission of the encryption engine.
We consider two attack scenarios, namely, (i) EMSCA with physical access, where an adversary gained physical access to the device and performs localized EMSCA on the SoC using a probe with high spatial resolution; and (ii) Proximity EMSCA, where the adversary can only get to a close proximity of the target device and is forced to use a passive EM probe that can measure signature from a larger distance but with lower spatial resolution. We also consider adversaries with different skill-sets: 1) a naive adversary that can *only* perform SCA on the raw EM signal captured by the probes (no post-processing skills) and 2) a skilled adversary who can perform intelligent post-processing on the captured data.
Under the preceding attack model and adversary skills, we characterize EM leakage from a prototype board carrying a fabricated application-specific-integrated-circuit (ASIC) with two 128-bit AES engines, powered by B-IVR and R-IVR. We consider two architecturally different implementations of the AES-128 algorithm. The first design, suitable for a high throughput device such as desktop or server microprocessor is referred to as HP-AES, and the second design, suitable for a power constrained IoT device application is referred to as LP-AES. To quantify the EMSCA resistance, Correlation Electromagnetic Analysis (CEMA) which is a key-extraction attack and Test Vector Leakage Assessment (TVLA) which is a leakage analysis test are used.
The measurements and analysis performed in the paper demonstrate following key observations:
- [If IVR is not used (standalone AES mode), a naive (and skilled) adversary can extract useful information from EM leakage both with physical access, and from close proximity. The measurement shows that using CEMA, the secret keys from HP-AES and LP-AES engines can be extracted from 40,000 and 1,000 traces. As expected, the TVLA shows very strong information leakage. ]{}
- [If the attacker has *physical access of the device and high resolution spatial probe* a skilled adversary can measure EM signatures by placing the probe near specific pins of the SoC package. In particular, we show that placing the probe near the inductor node and the supply node of the IVR shows strong information leakage in the B-IVR mode in a TVLA test. However, no information leakage is measured at the same locations when R-IVR is used.]{}
- [If the attacker can only come in the *proximity of the device and hence, uses low-resolution probe*, a naive adversary can extract secret key in the standalone mode, but fails to extract key with IVR. A skilled adversary with appropriate post-processing, can extract information from the EM signatures in B-IVR mode in TVLA test for both HP-AES and LP-AES. Moreover a successful CEMA was observed on LP-AES with 40,000 traces, although HP-AES failed to show a successful CEMA with 500,000 traces. However, even for a skilled adversary, the R-IVR mode suppresses information leakage and TVLA shows no noticeable leakage with linear and higher-order statistics and CEMA was not successful even with 500,000 traces, for both AES designs. We proposed a new attack model by subtracting a template EM signature from the measured signatures to remove the effect of randomization, but no successful CEMA attack was observed.]{}
In summary, we show that, in addition to the performance efficiency gained by the use of an IVR, various naive side-channel attacks performed by measuring EM signature from close proximity can be thwarted. A skilled adversary can still extract information when a baseline IVR architecture is used. However the R-IVR reduces vulnerability to EMSCA, even for a highly-skilled adversary, by using a minor design modification on the existing IVRs.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:background\] provides background on side-channel attack; Section \[sec:IVR\_SCA\] discusses the preliminary concepts on the role of IVR in power side-channel attack; Section \[protosystem\] describes the design of the prototype system; Section \[sec:em-characterization-forensic\], section \[sec:results\] and section \[sec:proximity\] present the measurement results corresponding to the two attack scenarios described in this paper; Section \[sec:discussion\] discusses additional topics on the proposed method and Section \[conclusion\] concludes the paper.
THREAT MODEL AND PRELIMINARIES {#sec:background}
==============================
Threat Model: EMSCA
-------------------
![Different EM probes used for analysis (a) A active probe with high spatial resolution for EMSCA with physical access(b) Passive probes for proximity EMSCA[]{data-label="fig:Probe_Pics_Combined"}](Figures/Probe_Pics_Combined.jpg){width="3.3in"}
Due to the abundance of the connected devices as well as their expected hostile operating conditions without any supervision, it is becoming increasingly easy to snoop side channel signatures from a device. The most exploited side channels are power i.e. current flowing into the supply and ground pins of the targeted hardware and EM emissions from the targeted system during the encryption process. For collecting power traces, it is necessary for the adversary to make physical contact at the power pin of the target platform and is difficult to perform on a finished product. Picking up EM signatures from a device is non-invasive in nature and therefore fits perfectly for a run-time attack on a device. The past research shows successful key-recovery for both symmetric ciphers (AES) and asymmetric ciphers (RSA, ECC etc.) [@korak2012attacking; @genkin2016ecdh; @genkin2015stealing].
Several tiers of adversaries and attack scenarios have varying access/proximity to the device to be attacked. Depending on the proximity to the devices, an intelligent adversary will also select an appropriate EM probe for the attack. We envision two attack scenarios and choose appropriate probes for each of them.
- [**EMSCA with Physical Access**: In the first scenario, we envision that the device has been captured by the adversary and the adversary has the ability to deconstruct the device and have direct access to the pins and traces. We have used a Langer MFA-R near field probe with a 300$\mu$m resolution and an active low noise amplifier to characterize the EM leakage from different pins of the package as shown in Figure \[fig:Probe\_Pics\_Combined\]a. The probe has a bandwidth of 6GHz which allows accurate measurement of the high frequency EM radiations. As pointed out in [@balasch2015dpa], EM probes like this indirectly measure the power signature from the corresponding pin or PCB trace. Due to high sensitivity to the distance between the probe and the package pin, the probe has to be placed right on top of the pin, as shown in Figure \[fig:Probe\_Pics\_Combined\]a.]{}
- [**Proximity EMSCA**: The second attack scenario considers a case when the adversary does not have access to the actual device, but can come within close proximity of the device to be attacked. For example, the adversary can be standing in line behind the victim, having an actual conversation with the victim, or can place an inconspicuous item containing a probe (as done in [@genkin2015stealing] by hiding a EM probe within a Pita bread). Figure \[fig:Probe\_Pics\_Combined\]b shows two passive EM probes by Beehive Corp. with significantly large loop area than the Langer probe described earlier. The loop diameters are 0.85 in and 0.4 in for the larger and the smaller loop respectively. The probe output powers into a 50 ohm load. These inexpensive probes are easy to acquire and hide. Both the probes are placed on top of the package at different locations for characterizing EM leakage and will be described in further detail in section \[probe-characterization\].]{}
State of the Art: EM Countermeasures
------------------------------------
![Effect of different countermeasures for PSCA on EMSCA[]{data-label="fig:power_EM_CM"}](Figures/Power_EM_CM){width="3.3in"}
Countermeasures are modification in the design of the hardware to reduce side channel vulnerability. Different countermeasures have been proposed by the researchers in past decade to prevent side channel leakage, both for PSCA and EMSCA. Majority of these countermeasures target power attacks and aim at decorrelating the measured power signatures and data at the intermediate steps of the algorithm. This can be achieved by changing the intermediate steps of the encryption algorithm, changing the architecture or using logic styles where the power consumption is unrelated to the switching activity. Each of these techniques change the design of the hardware either in algorithm, architecture or physical implementation level. A parallel category of PSCA countermeasures does not modify the design of the encryption engine, rather uses generic techniques like attenuation, noise addition and transformations for reducing the correlation.
The nature of power and EM side channel are radically different, therefore countermeasures for PSCA might not be effective for EMSCA and vice-versa. In general, any PSCA countermeasure that depends on isolation or attenuation of the power signatures [@tokunaga2010securing; @wang2013role; @yu2015leveraging] and does not modify the design of the encryption engine, may not reduce EM-based side channel leakage as explained in Figure \[fig:power\_EM\_CM\]. This is due to the fact that the leakage is not eliminated at source and an EMSCA adversary has the location of the probes as another degree of freedom. Therefore the adversary can capture signature from a physical location which bypasses the effect of many of these techniques.
For reducing EM leakage, one simple yet elegant solution is to use any form of shield on top of the targeted device as proposed by Plos et. al. in [@plos2008enhancing], however the solutions are ad-hoc and difficult to achieve for a mass scale commercial production. Poucheret et. al. proposed distribution of the leaking electrical paths throughout the physical implementation of the hardware to prevent EMSCA [@poucheret2010spatial]. Doulcier-Verdier et. al. used duplicated-complimented logic style to prevent both PSCA and EMSCA [@doulcier2011side]. A serious bottleneck of these types of countermeasures is the energy-efficiency and design complexity of the proposed techniques. While encryption bit-rate is critical for high-performance systems, low-power devices require lower-energy per encryption. Most of the proposed countermeasures suffer from a performance penalty due to added complexity for side channel protection. Moreover the design and validation effort needed for incorporating these countermeasure techniques further make them unattractive for use in general purpose products. Therefore there is a critical need for finding a unique low cost solution for addressing both PSCA and EMSCA.
Power Delivery and Voltage Regulators
-------------------------------------
![(a) Circuit and system level diagram of inductive voltage regulators (b) Traditional off-chip power delivery architecture vs. integrated voltage regulators []{data-label="fig:IVR_Intro"}](Figures/IVR_Intro_v2){width="3.3in"}
Processors and SoCs require multiple supply voltages, also known as power rails, for optimizing energy efficiency across different operating conditions. Voltage regulators are therefore one of the key components in the power delivery architecture of a processor. Inductive voltage regulators are a popular class of switching voltage regulators and widely used for their superior power efficiency compared to other classes of VRM.
**Working Principle of Inductive Regulators** Figure \[fig:IVR\_Intro\]a shows the circuit diagram of an inductive regulator. The switches M~1~ and M~2~ are continuously driven by two square waves at frequency F~SW~. The duty cycle of the square waves determines the output voltage. The inductor (L) and the capacitor (C~OUT~) create a bandpass filter whose cutoff frequency (F~LC~) is lower than the switching frequency (F~SW~). The switching node V~SW~ resembles a square wave which is filtered out to create a steady DC voltage V~OUT~. The output node drives different digital blocks of a microprocessor or SoC. Every voltage regulator requires a controller which ensures that if the load current demand increases, the regulator can supply the required current without the output voltage dropping. A feedback controller senses the difference between the output voltage and the reference voltage and adjusts the duty cycle to set the output voltage at the desired value.
![Architecture of a security aware inductive IVR [@kar20178]. Loop randomizer circuit and its effect on the inductor current are shown.[]{data-label="fig:ivr_arch_details"}](Figures/IVR_Arch_Detail){width="3.3in"}
**Integrated Inductive Voltage Regulators** \[ivr\] Traditional power delivery architecture consists of multiple voltage regulator ICs, typically present in the motherboard/logic board. Integrated voltage regulators (IVR) are voltage regulators integrated with the digital circuits in the same silicon die. IVRs reduce the volume and complexity of power delivery for multiple supply voltages. Among various popular topologies of IVR, on-chip low dropout regulators (LDO) have been used across multiple generations of processors and SoCs. However LDOs have poor power efficiency compared to switching regulators (inductive buck and switched-capacitor) across a wide range of voltage-frequency (V-F) states. Innovations in integrating tiny passives (inductance and/or capacitance) with digital transistors in the same silicon die or same package [@lambert2014package], enabled usage of inductive IVRs in commercials products [@kurd2015haswell]. The reduced value of the inductance requires the IVRs to switch at very high frequency ($\sim$100 of MHz), much higher than conventional off-chip VRMs ($\leq$1MHz). The switching frequency of IVRs is closer to the operating frequency of digital circuits.
IVR AND EM SIDE CHANNEL ATTACK {#sec:IVR_SCA}
==============================
This section motivates the potential use of inductive IVRs to inhibit EM based side-channel attack. To motivate IVR based EMSCA robustness, the section first summarizes the impact of IVR on PSCA, and a security-aware IVR architecture to reduce power side-channel leakage, as presented in [@kar20178]. Subsequently, the impact of an inductive IVR on EM side channel leakage is elaborated and it is shown that the IVR properties which improves PSCA robustness can also be effective for improving EMSCA robustness.
IVR and Power Side-Channel Attack {#subsec:IVR_PSCA}
---------------------------------
Kar et. al. in [@kar20178] demonstrated that presence of an inductive IVR affects the power side-channel leakage of a platform. The authors made the observation that when an inductive IVR supplies power to an encryption engine, the current signature at the IVR output is isolated from the IVR input i.e. the current drawn from the supply of the regulator (battery for a laptop/handheld device and mains supply for a desktop). However the input current is not completely independent of the load current, rather it is a transformed version of the load current. The improvement in the PSCA resistance is governed by three different transformation of IVR’s load current to the input current.
- [Large Signal Transformation]{}: The continuous switching of switches M~1~ and M~2~ in the power stage creates a switching current pattern at the IVR input.\
- [Small Signal Transformation]{}: The load current signatures are filtered by the frequency dependent transfer function of the PID compensator in the feedback loop.\
- [Misalignment]{}:The IVR switching clock is asynchronous w.r.t the clock driving the encryption engine. The asynchronous nature of these two clocks causes a one to many mapping from load current to input current.
A Side-Channel-Security-Aware IVR {#subsec:secure_IVR}
---------------------------------
\[sec-ivr\] Figure \[fig:ivr\_arch\_details\] shows the overall architecture of a side-channel-security aware IVR architecture, as presented in [@kar20178]. The power stage of the IVR switches at 125MHz switching frequency and package-bondwires are used as inductance. The capacitor of the power stage is embedded within the die. The IVR uses a digital feedback loop as a controller. A digital controller first digitizes the output voltage using a high-speed analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and the control algorithm (proportional-integral-derivative (PID)) is implemented in digital logic. The controller output is fed to a block called digital pulse width modulator (DPWM) which converts the digital input to the duty cycle of the square wave. All these aforementioned blocks are part of any typical IVR architecture and therefore it is referred to as a Baseline IVR (B-IVR) mode.
The design also contains an extra circuit called loop-randomizer (LR), as described in [@kar20178]. LR inserts delay into IVR’s control loop by delaying the power stage clock through a chain of delay-elements. Each delay element can be set in a bypass mode where the input signal bypasses the inverter. A 4-bit maximal length LFSR generates a sequence of 15 pseudo-random outputs which determines how many inverters are bypassed in the entire chain. LR creates a pseudo-random perturbation in the IVR’s output voltage as well as its inductor current, as shown in Figure \[fig:ivr\_arch\_details\]. The mode when LR is enabled is referred to as a randomized-IVR (R-IVR).
![Current loops in an inductive regulator generating EM interference[]{data-label="fig:ivr_em"}](Figures/IVR_EM){width="2.5in"}
IVR and EM Side-Channel Leakage {#subsec:IVR_EMSCA}
-------------------------------
EM radiation can be generated by two sources: Alternating electric field source (high impedance) or alternating magnetic field source (low impedance). An inductive regulator has two main loops where high AC currents flow as shown in figure \[fig:ivr\_em\]. When the high-side switch M~1~ is on, the current flows from supply via M~1~ and L to the C~OUT~ and the load. The current flows back via ground to the input. The AC portion of the current will flow via the input and output capacitors (Figure \[fig:ivr\_em\]). When M~1~ switches off, the inductor current will keep flowing in the same direction, and the low side switch M~2~ is switched on. The current flows via M~2~, L to the C~OUT~ and the load and back via ground to M~2~. This loop is shown in blue. Both these loops carry discontinuous currents, meaning that they have sharp rising and falling edges at the beginning and end of the active time. These sharp edges have fast rise and fall times (high di/dt). Therefore they have a lot of high frequency content.
Keeping EMSCA in context, these properties of an inductive IVR make it unique compared to a LDO or a switched-capacitor regulator. In-fact meeting the electromagnetic compliance, as guide-lined by Federal Communication Commission (FCC), of inductive regulators is a major design challenge. However for EMSCA protection, the same interference can be exploited to the designers’ advantage.
{width="\textwidth"}
Motivation and Contribution {#subsec:problem}
---------------------------
The EM emission from the inductor is not guaranteed to improve the EMSCA resistance, if the probing location can be adjusted to pick up the signatures from the AES engine without any interference from the inductor. This can happen if the inductor is physically distant from the electrical paths of the AES engine, and is true for commercial processors where the voltage regulator IC is on the same board, but physically distant from the processor. However, in any integrated VR, as in recent processors such as Haswell, the small form factor of the inductor ensures a compact placement close to the load circuit. Therefore it is difficult to separate out the effect of the inductor from that of the AES engine in the captured EM signatures. As the interference from inductor is a direct function of the current flowing through it, any properties of the inductor current are critical to analyze the EMSCA resistance of such a system. Moreover, the IVRs operate at frequencies ($\geq$100MHz) much closer to the processor’s clock frequency ( 1GHz), compared to off-chip VRs ( 1KHz). Hence, the EM emissions from inductors in IVR are likely to more strongly interfere with EM emissions from the processors. Therefore, although off-chip VRs have shown to have little effect in reducing information leakage from the processor (in fact, in certain cases, off-chip VRs have shown to be a major source of leakage [@saab2016key]), the same conclusion cannot be drawn for on-chip VRs. This paper for the first time presents an in-depth measurement and characterization of the effect of IVR on EM leakage from SoCs.
Although the architecture presented in [@kar20178] is focused on protection against PSCA, we observe that the inductor current of an IVR is also a function of the IVR input current. As the EM emission from the inductor is also a direct function of the current flowing through it, the architecture presented in [@kar20178] is relevant to EMSCA as well. However the effect on EMSCA resistance of the system is not addressed by the authors in [@kar20178]. In this paper, we aim to perform EMSCA analysis on a system of an inductive IVR and an AES engine for the B-IVR and the R-IVR modes. The experimental characterization is performed on a prototype circuit board composed of an ASIC, fabricated in 130nm, containing two architectures of AES-128 algorithm and the inductive IVR architecture proposed in [@kar20178]. The prototype system represents a microcosm of a high-performance or low-power SoC with hardware acceleration for AES encryption. More importantly, the prototype makes the AES engines more vulnerable as it does not include noise from other components in a chip.
PROTOTYPE SYSTEM {#protosystem}
================
System Design {#sysdesign}
-------------
Figure \[fig:4\] shows the prototype board for evaluation. The designed ASIC is powered by standard USB connections. An off-chip voltage regulator (LM317) is used to convert 5.0V from the USB to 1.2V supply for the ASIC. The off-chip voltage regulator represents a traditional off-chip power delivery architecture. Even if IVR is present in a processor/SoC, an off-chip VRM is still needed to convert the platform input voltage to a tolerable input voltage of the IVR. The plaintexts and key of AES encryptions are written within the ASIC using an Arduino through a standard serial-to-parallel-interface (SPI).
Architecture of the ASIC {#asic-arch}
------------------------
The ASIC has two architectures of the AES-128 algorithm. The die photo of the ASIC is shown in Figure \[fig:4\]. LR is run at 1/8th of the IVR’s sampling frequency. Therefore, the control loop delay changes once every 4th switching cycle of the IVR. LR creates a pseudo-random perturbation in the IVR’s output voltage as well as its inductor current.
The AES-128 algorithm has a 10-round operation. The first architecture, referred to as high-performance AES (HP-AES), executes each AES round (all 16 bytes of the intermediate state) in one cycle (Figure \[fig:4\]c) [@satoh2001compact]. The latency for one encryption is 11 cycles which makes the HP-AES suitable for latency-critical applications like memory encryption. The second AES architecture is referred to as low-power AES (LP-AES) as it is suited more for a light-weight low-power application (Figure \[fig:4\]d). The datapath consists of a single S-BOX, 128 XORs for AddRoundKey, a word mix-column unit and intermediate registers for data storage. The bytes of the intermediate states are processed serially, causing a higher latency per encryption. The silicon area is significantly lower which makes the LP-AES architecture suited more for edge devices like wearables and sensor nodes. However designs similar to LP-AES, where rounds are executed serially, are found to be more vulnerable to correlation based attacks [@mukhopadhyay2014hardware; @singh2015exploring]. The round-keys for both architectures are generated on the fly.
Packaging {#pkg}
---------
Each silicon die is accompanied with a package which forms the connections with the PCB. Packages play a critical role in leakage of EM side channel signature as different components of the package, mostly the parasitic inductance can amplify or mask the desired signatures. The ASIC is packaged in a Leadless Ceramic Package (LCC). The pads in the die are attached with the package with bondwires. Each bondwire is 5.5mm long, 1.3mil thick and offers roughly 5.8nH inductance. As the package is leadless, minimal inductance is offered by the connections between the PCB and the package.
![Pad assignment of the fabricated ASIC and the corresponding LCC package[]{data-label="fig:5"}](Figures/Fig5){width="3.3in"}
In any general purpose hardware platform, the details of the pin mapping of the processor/microcontroller and the PCB traces are publicly released. When such a system is attacked, these information are typically exploited by the adversary to find out the suitable points for probing. For example, authors in [@balasch2015dpa] use the decoupling capacitor close to the microcontroller core to pick up the EM signatures. We assume that the pin mapping and the PCB routing of the prototype system is known to an adversary. Figure \[fig:5\] shows the pads of the ASIC and their corresponding pins in the package. The IVR input, ground and the indcutor pins are towards the top-right corner of the chip. In order to characterize the AES without the effect of the IVR, the power (V~DD,AES~) and ground (V~SS,AES~) pin of the AES are separately connected to the package. These pins won’t be present in a commercial chip: the power pin would effectively be the IVR output and the ground pin would be shorted internally to the IVR ground. The pins which do not carry side channel signatures are marked in black. The parasitic inductance and resistance of a LCC package are significantly higher than the advanced packages like flipchip/C4. Although using this package enabled us to exploit the package bondwires as IVR inductance, the higher inductance of the bondwires connecting AES supply and ground to the package creates EM emission directly from the AES engine, even when the IVR is supplying the AES. Therefore, enhancing EM side channel resistance for this prototype is more challenging compared to a commercial IVR which would use some form of integrate inductance (spiral inductance, silicon interposer, on-die solenoid) in an advanced package.
Measurement Cases {#cases}
-----------------
![Measurement scenarios a) AES is powered by an external voltage-regulator and b) IVR is powering AES engine[]{data-label="fig:6"}](Figures/Fig6){width="3.3in"}
Measurements were carried out at two different scenarios as depicted in Figure \[fig:6\].
- [**Standalone AES**: The AES block and other peripheral digital circuits are powered by the off-chip voltage regulator (LM317). This mimics a traditional power delivery architecture. To prove the point that having a strong EM radiator near the encryption engine will have insignificant effect on the EM leakage, we keep the IVR on i.e. the IVR drives a steady load current. The switches M~1~ and M~2~ switch continuously. Naturally the inductor carries switching current and radiates strong EM signatures. However, as the IVR does not supply the AES engine, the inductor current and the corresponding EM emission have no relation to the AES current.]{}
- [**IVR-AES**: The AES block is powered by the IVR. In this mode, the emission from the IVR inductor is linked with the AES activities. We evaluate the following two modes for IVR-AES: in B-IVR, the LR is disabled and in R-IVR, the LR is enabled which randomizes the control loop.]{}
Measurement Details {#probes}
-------------------
![Probing locations for different attack scenarios (a) EMSCA with Physical access (b) Proximity EMSCA[]{data-label="fig:Probe_locations_compiled"}](Figures/Probe_locations_compiled_v2){width="3.3in"}
[**Placements of probes**]{}: Figure \[fig:Probe\_locations\_compiled\]a shows the placement of the high resolution active probe near the pins of the prototype test-chip. Figure \[fig:Probe\_locations\_compiled\]b shows the potential placement options for the passive probes. The large loop probe spans the entire package and hence, has one placement location (location 1) as shown in figure \[fig:Probe\_locations\_compiled\]b. The small loop probe has a higher bandwidth and provides more resolution in the placement of the probe (location 1 and 2, in Figure \[fig:Probe\_locations\_compiled\]b).
{width="5.8in"}
[**Statistical Tests**]{}: The commonly used SCA resistance quantification approaches focus on an adversary’s ability to extract the unknown key of an encryption engine. Both CEMA and differential elctromagnetic analysis (DEMA) have been used as key extraction attack. Le et al. [@le2006proposition] have shown correlation based attack to be more efficient than a DEMA or DPA approach. A CEMA uses Pearson’s correlation between the measured side channel traces and a power-model to extract the secret key. The power-model is constructed based on the plaintext/ciphertext and guessed values of the key. The SCA resistance is measured by computing the minimum number of traces necessary to disclose the unknown key \[minimum-number-of-traces-to-disclosure (MTD)\]. A higher MTD implies a stronger SCA resistance.
The CEMA-based approaches measure the ability to extract an unknown key by an adversary, and hence, to a certain extent depend on the *adversary’s effort* i.e. the number of measurements, the complexity of the attack models and statistical tests used for the attack. From a designer’s perspective, it is more crucial to understand whether the measured signatures are correlated to the internal data, irrespective of the outcome of a CEMA attack. We use TVLA as suggested by Goodwill et. al. [@gilbert2011testing] as a leakage test where the tester selects the key and set of key-specific plaintexts to understand the data-dependency in the captured signatures. We also used higher order statistical moments in t-test to increase the probability of detection, as suggested by Moradi et al. [@schneider2015leakage].
We use a semi-fixed dataset of 100,000 plaintexts for TVLA. A sliding window of 200ns is used for analysis. For CEMA, 500,000 traces were captured for each different configuration of IVR and AES and a sliding window of 80ns is used. A small sliding window for CEMA ensures a better alignment of the filtered traces. The peak correlation is calculated across all filter bands and all-windows to determine the outcome of the attack.
![TVLA result in R-IVR mode in EMSCA with physical access[]{data-label="fig:forensics_results_LR"}](Figures/Forensic_Results_LR_v3){width="3.3in"}
**Signal Post-processing**: A naive adversary aims to mount the SCA on the raw EM signals captured by the probes. However, any misalignment introduced in the chip can thwart such attack and effectively makes an inductive IVR useful in EMSCA protection. However, any skilled adversary would post-process the data before mounting attacks. We assume the role of a skilled adversary and perform necessary post-processing on the captured traces. As the EM signature from a chip with an inductive IVR is a superposition of different sources of EM emission, it is important to properly filter and align the traces before performing any statistical analysis. Another reason why filtering is critical for EMSCA is to extract the useful signature from a coupled EM emission where the EM leakage from the source is coupled with a strong carrier [@rohatgi2009electromagnetic]. The post-processing step involves filtering and alignment: filtering removes unwanted noise as well as demodulates any modulated signatures and alignment ensures that the same execution step happens across all the captured traces at a given time point. To align the captured traces, we use bandpass filters with bands sliding from 30MHz up to 500MHz in steps of 10MHz. This also replicates the action of a tunable receiver or a demodulator often used in a low-cost EM attack [@rohatgi2009electromagnetic]. The filtered signals are aligned using cross correlation with the offset limit bounded by the filtering frequency.
EMSCA with Physical Access {#sec:em-characterization-forensic}
==========================
The evaluation of the EMSCA with physical access is performed through TVLA on the traces captured for HP-AES encryptions. An EMSCA with physical access removes any constraints of choosing a probe location and therefore can significantly increase the analysis time, as multiple pins and traces in the package can be probed for EMSCA. As TVLA is generally considered to be a better indicator of leakage compared to CEMA for the same number of measurements, analysis is limited to TVLA on HP-AES.
[**Standalone AES:**]{} In standalone mode, the high resolution probe is placed in location 1, near the supply (V~DD,AES~) and ground (V~SS,AES~) line. The supply and the ground current of the AES flow through the bondwires marked in pink and blue respectively. The time-domain signatures picked up by the probe in this condition are shown in the Figure \[fig:forensics\_results\_compiled\]. The rounds of the HP-AES operation can be clearly identified from the captured waveforms. Figure \[fig:forensics\_results\_compiled\] also shows the TVLA results in these conditions against the frequency bands used for filtering. As expected, the t-value crosses the threshold of 4.5 at multiple frequencies, clearly indicating signs of leakage.
{width="5.8in"}
\[fig:12\]
[**B-IVR:**]{} When the AES engine is supplied by the IVR, V~DD,AES~ is disconnected. But two new locations in the ASIC can potentially emit compromising EM radiation: the IVR input (V~IN,IVR~) and inductor node (V~IND~). The signature picked up near the inductor node (V~IND~) is shown for illustration in Figure \[fig:forensics\_results\_compiled\]. The HP-AES operation cannot be visually identified both in time-doamin as well as in spectrogram. However the TVLA results show signs of leakage at both V~IN,IVR~ and V~IND~ nodes.
The signature picked up by the high resolution probe is conductive EM emission which is caused due to the current passing through the corresponding pins. Therefore the behavior of the captured signatures from a pin or a trace would be similar to the PSCA properties of the current flowing through the corresponding nodes. This property can explain the observations above. According to the PSCA results shown in [@kar20178], the B-IVR input shows TVLA leakage in power signature, which is also observed here. Clearly IVRs can impact the conductive EM emissions in the same way as PSCA behavior.
[**R-IVR:**]{} The TVLA results on the inductor node (V~IND~) and the supply node (V~DD,IVR~) do not show any leakage in the R-IVR mode. Figure \[fig:forensics\_results\_LR\] shows the TVLA data on the inductor node (V~IND~). Although V~SS,AES~ won’t be accessible for a commercial chip, we performed a TVLA for the purpose of characterization.
{width="6.0in"}
\[fig:15\]
If a skilled adversary gains physical access to the device, minor design components like sensitive current carrying traces, package pins or supply decoupling capacitors (exploited by authors in [@balasch2015dpa]) can be exploited for EMSCA. Attacks with physical access have mostly been performed on commercial single-board-computers or microcontrollers [@longo2015soc; @balasch2015dpa]. For the prototype under consideration, we identified the package pins which can potentially emit exploitable EM signatures and measurements using a high resolution probe show that the R-IVR can protect against information leakage in EM signatures.
One of the security drawbacks of general-purpose products is that the design of the package and the PCB are often agnostic of EM emissions. For example, the normal practice in IVR design is to internally connect the grounds node of AES (V~SS,AES~) and IVR ((V~SS,IVR~), to ensure AES currents flows to ground via the IVR. However, our prototype had the ground node of the AES (V~SS,AES~) available as an external pin to perform forensics on the chip operation. We have observed that making V~SS,AES~ available as a pin is a weak link for Physical Access EMSCA. The signature picked near V~SS,AES~ node is similar for both standalone and B-IVR modes and shows leakage in both modes. Even with R-IVR mode, V~SS,AES~ does show leakage in the TVLA test (Figure \[fig:forensics\_results\_LR\]). This is expected as R-IVR adds minimal noise at the supply node of the AES. Therefore, the AES current flowing through V~SS,AES~ remains unchanged. Therefore, our measurement reaffirms that internally connecting the grounds node of the AES engine with that of the IVR, which is a standard practice for commercial products, is necessary to secure the benefits of the R-IVR under Physical Access attack. However, in the next section, we will show that external availability of V~SS,AES~ node does not play a major role for Proximity EMSCA.
Proximity EMSCA on B-IVR {#sec:results}
========================
The proximity EMSCA assumes that the attacker can be in close proximity of the target device, which is the most realistic attack scenario. As HP-AES is more robust to a CEMA, we used TVLA and CEMA for experiments on HP-AES, whereas only CEMA was used for experiments on LP-AES.
Characterization of Passive Probes {#probe-characterization}
----------------------------------
In standalone mode, the individual rounds of one HP-AES encryption can be captured with both these probes. The signatures picked up by the probes in a B-IVR configuration are shown in Figure \[fig:12\]. Interestingly, for both locations of the small loop probe, no visible signature of the AES rounds can be identified in the spectrogram and both locations pick up components at package resonance. As the probe is moved from location 1 to location 2, components at the IVR clock frequency and its harmonics increase due to proximity to the inductance. For the large loop probe, the AES operation is visible in the spectrogram. The probe bandwidth of the large loop probe attenuates the IVR clock and its harmonics and significantly increases SNR of the measurement.
High Performance AES (HP-AES)
-----------------------------
### TVLA Results {#tvla}
We used a semifixed dataset for TVLA and results using upto 3rd order statistics is computed. A t-value more than 4.5 for an input data-set containing more than 10,000 traces signifies 99.9999% confidence.
[**Standalone HP-AES:**]{} We start with the AES engine supplied by the off-chip VRM. Signatures are captured for both the passive probes placed in location 1 which is the middle of the chip. Signatures captured by each of the probes show t-value more than 4.5, clearly showing that the EM signature contains leakage (Figure \[fig:15\]). The minimum number of traces needed to cross a t-value of 4.5 was 2,000 for both the probes. This experiment clearly shows that the unprotected AES has significant EM information leakage. The component at the IVR frequency is easily filtered out by the post-processing step. Therefore *having a strong EM radiator near the encryption engine isn’t effective to protect against EMSCA*.
[**B-IVR and HP-AES**]{} We didn’t observe any positive TVLA on the raw EM traces without performing any post-processing. After post-processing, the t-values are plotted against the center frequency of the band-pass filters. Although the AES operation cannot be visually distinguished from signatures at location 1 using the small loop probe, TVLA shows leakage at frequencies higher than 200MHz. This is due to the fact that although the low frequency signatures are stronger, they can easily be modulated, whereas the weaker high frequency signals are unmodulated. However, the same probe placed at location 2 i.e closer to the inductance shows weak leakage at higher frequency. The possible reason of this behavior is stronger signature obfuscation by the inductor due to proximity of the probe to the bondwires. Another interesting observation is that the 2nd order TVLA yielded higher t-value than the first order. As the EM signatures are transformed by the nonlinearity of the IVR, higher order statistics can be more effective.
{width="3.3in"}
\[fig:17\]
For the large loop probe, leakage is observed at the filter band centered at the AES clock frequency as well as the IVR clock frequency and its harmonics. Although the gain of the large loop probe drops significantly after 100MHz as shown in Figure \[fig:15\], the larger loop area helps to pick up signatures at higher frequency successfully, leading to TVLA leakage.
We also characterized the minimum number of traces to cross the threshold of 4.5 for each probe at the frequency band and TVLA order which showed highest leakage. The smaller loop needs only 2,500 traces to cross the 4.5 threshold using a 2nd order TVLA. This is marginally better than the standalone AES and suggests that the obfuscation by the IVR has little effect. One possible reason can also be the placement of the probe away from the inductance. The larger loop requires 20,000 samples to cross the 4.5 threshold. These results are consistent with the observation of authors in [@kar20178] which found that the B-IVR mode shows leakage in power signatures.
### CEMA Results {#CEMA}
The power-model for CEMA is chosen to be the Hamming distance between the intermediate state at the end of the 9th and the 10th round of the HP-AES. Figure \[fig:17\] shows the results of CEMA on the HP-AES supplied by the off-chip VRM. A successful CEMA is observed after using 40,000 traces. The corresponding MTD plot is also shown. In B-IVR mode, no successful attack was observed with 500,000 traces. This result matches with the observations in [@kar20178] where no successful CPA was observed with 100,000 traces at the IVR input.
Low Power AES (LP-AES)
----------------------
### Vulnerability
We used the Hamming weight of the substitution-box (S-BOX) output in the first round as power-model for attacking LP-AES. SBOX operations on the bytes are executed serially in LP-AES as the engine has only one SBOX hardware. As CEMA targets one byte at a time, the power consumption of rest of the 15 S-BOX operations doesn’t appear in the captured signatures unlike HP-AES and therefore the power-model correlates better with the switching activities/EM emission leading to higher vulnerability.
### CEMA
{width="3.3in"}
\[fig:LPAES\_CEMA\]
- [LP-AES in the standalone configuration is extremely vulnerable to a CEMA as only 1,000 traces are enough to recover a key-byte (Figure \[fig:LPAES\_CEMA\]). This shows that all the sensor nodes, wearables and other edge devices that use a serialized lightweight AES implementation [@conti2017iot], are vulnerable to an EMSCA using cheap EM probes.]{}
- [If the B-IVR supplies the AES, the resistance to a CEMA increases by 30x as 30,000 traces were required for successful recovery of a key-byte. A successful CEMA also shows that the system EM signature which is a complex superposition of the EM leakage from the LP-AES and the EM emission from the inductor, is vulnerable against a traditional Hamming-weight based power-model, without the need of a complex power-model or statistical tests.]{}
Proximity EMSCA on R-IVR {#sec:proximity}
========================
The emission from a B-IVR supplying both the AES engines is vulnerable, as demonstrated through TVLA and/or CEMA in the earlier section. Next we enable the R-IVR mode and reevaluate the EMSCA results with both the AES designs. We only used the small loop probe for the following analysis as the captured signatures showed stronger data-dependency compared to the large loop probe.
TVLA
----
![Captured signatures in the R-IVR mode in (a) time and (b) spectrogram. (c) TVLA across different frequency bands with 100,000 traces[]{data-label="fig:16"}](Figures/Small_Loop_LR_v2){width="3.3in"}
Figure \[fig:16\]a and \[fig:16\]b shows the time domain waveform of the captured signature with small loop probe at location 1 and the corresponding spectrogram when the randomization is enabled in the IVR control loop. As the random delay inserted into the control loop is controlled by a maximal length LFSR, the time domain waveform shows a periodicity dictated by the length of the LFSR. This indirectly creates a frequency spreading or frequency dithering effect with an added degree of randomness. No leakage was observed in the TVLA tests with 100,000 traces (Figure \[fig:16\]c).
CEMA
----
![CEMA results on the AES designs with R-IVR (a) MTD plot for HP-AES (c) MTD plot for LP-AES[]{data-label="fig:R_IVR_CEMA"}](Figures/R_IVR_CPA_v2){width="3.3in"}
{width="6in"}
\[fig:template\_attack\]
CEMA was performed both on HP-AES and LP-AES in the R-IVR mode. No successful attack was observed with 500,000 traces across all bands and all windows (Figure \[fig:R\_IVR\_CEMA\]) for both AES designs. HP-AES has a 16X improvement and LP-AES has a 500X improvement in MTD from their respective standalone configurations.
CPA using Templates
-------------------
The randomness in the inductor current is manifested in the captured EM signature of the system as shown in Figure \[fig:16\]. The maximum length 4-bit LFSR which inserts delays proportional to the LFSR output into the IVR control loop, repeats itself after 15 combinations, causing the EM patterns to repeat at a low frequency of $\sim$2MHz. For each measured trace, the LFSR output can be at any one of the 15 possible values and the magnitude of the trace at that point is dependent on that value. Therefore CEMA and TVLA will not be successful unless the effect of the randomization is canceled from the recorded traces.
We introduce a different attack, referred to as template based CPA, particularly when the LR mode is enabled. The steps of the template based CPA are described in Figure \[fig:template\_attack\]. A template of length 0.6$\mu$s is chosen from a randomly selected trace and patterns of the same length matching with the initial template are found for every trace. All the matched patterns are averaged to generate an average template. We note that the average template contains the EM signature, in absence of any AES operation added with an averaged (over a large number of plaintexts, the leakage at every point will be averaged) EM leakage from the AES operations. Next a window is selected for CEMA which is smaller in length than the template and for each trace, the corresponding portion of the template that matches with the window is subtracted. This generates a set of traces without the steady state variations due to randomization. CEMA is performed on the differential signals, both for the HP-AES and the LP-AES and no successful CEMA was observed with 500,000 traces.
DISCUSSIONS {#sec:discussion}
===========
Robustness Against Attack
-------------------------
One of the hypothesis for the proposed technique to work is that the EM emission from the AES and the inductor interfere, which is possible when the inductance is integrated closer to the AES engine. With the recent trends in integrated inductor design for power delivery [@krishnamurthy201720; @sturcken2015magnetic], this seems to be the case. One possible attack mode can be if the adversary access control over the IVR switching frequency. Changing the IVR switching frequency changes the frequency spreading in the R-IVR mode. However typically the switching frequencies of the IVRs cannot be accessed through the firmwares, therefore achieving this requires a destructive and invasive attack. Changing the total load current supplied by the IVR also does not change the switching frequency. Another possible caveat is that EM shielding is added to inductive IVRs to ensure FCC compliance. An EM shielding should attenuate the EM signatures, both from the AES as well as the IVR, and therefore should help in prevention against EM attacks. However tampering the EM shielding might compromise the integrity of the proposed scheme.
Public Key Ciphers
------------------
Public key ciphers like ECDH/RSA are widely used for authentication across many devices and have been demonstrated to be vulnerable to EM attacks [@genkin2016ecdh; @genkin2015stealing]. Attacking a public key cipher mainly relies on identifying distinct arithmetic operations like addition/multiplication which is different than SCA on AES where the side channel signatures change over each clock cycle. Therefore attacks on the public key ciphers are typically carried out at much lower frequency bands and can be performed using inexpensive EM probes. The IVR, without and with the randomization scheme, modifies the EM signatures at frequencies $\geq$1MHz, which as demonstrated above is effective for an AES. However as the frequency of interest lies in the KHz range for public key ciphers, the randomization, in its current form, might not be effective. However, one possible solution is to use a low frequency on-board VRM with a LFSR based control loop randomization, operating at a lower frequency ($\sim$KHz). This will modify the frequency components in the measured EM traces near the frequency of interest and possibly be effective for public key ciphers.
Conclusion
==========
Protecting EM leakage from modern hardware devices without power and performance penalty and increased packaging cost is a challenging task. Blindside demonstrates that an inductive IVR with a minor design modification can reduce information leakage through EM. The measurement results from the prototype system show that a high-frequency IVR modulates the EM emission from the chip due to presence of an integrated inductance. As an IVR operates at frequencies close to that of a digital processor ($\geq$100MHz), unlike an off-chip VRM module that operate at much lower frequency ($\sim$100KHz), the EM emission from IVR interferes with the EM emission from the AES engines. The system EM signatures, measured using low-cost passive EM probes demonstrate $\geq$13x and 30x improvement in MTD for a high-performance low-latency AES and a low-power low-area compact AES design. If the control loop of the IVR is randomized, $\geq$13x and $\geq$500x improvement in MTD is achieved. As power delivery with integrated inductance is becoming a key component in improving energy efficiency of digital processors, the results show promise in using a common IVR architecture ( [@kar20178]) for reducing both power and EM leakage with minimal power, performance, and area overhead.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
R. Pantos and W. May, “Http live streaming,” 2017.
J. Rott, “Intel advanced encryption standard instructions (aes-ni),” *Technical Report, Technical Report, Intel*, 2010.
V. Costan and S. Devadas, “Intel sgx explained.” *IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive*, vol. 2016, p. 86, 2016.
S. Mathew, S. Satpathy, V. Suresh, M. Anders, H. Kaul, A. Agarwal, S. Hsu, G. Chen, and R. Krishnamurthy, “340 mv–1.1 v, 289 gbps/w, 2090-gate nanoaes hardware accelerator with area-optimized encrypt/decrypt gf (2 4) 2 polynomials in 22 nm tri-gate cmos,” *IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1048–1058, 2015.
P. Hamalainen, T. Alho, M. Hannikainen, and T. D. Hamalainen, “Design and implementation of low-area and low-power aes encryption hardware core,” in *Digital System Design: Architectures, Methods and Tools, 2006. DSD 2006. 9th EUROMICRO Conference on*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2006, pp. 577–583.
A. Moradi, A. Poschmann, S. Ling, C. Paar, and H. Wang, “Pushing the limits: a very compact and a threshold implementation of aes.” in *Eurocrypt*, vol. 6632.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2011, pp. 69–88.
J. Longo, E. De Mulder, D. Page, and M. Tunstall, “Soc it to em: electromagnetic side-channel attacks on a complex system-on-chip,” in *International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2015, pp. 620–640.
M. Yamaguchi, H. Toriduka, S. Kobayashi, T. Sugawara, N. Hommaa, A. Satoh, and T. Aoki, “Development of an on-chip micro shielded-loop probe to evaluate performance of magnetic film to protect a cryptographic lsi from electromagnetic analysis,” in *Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC), 2010 IEEE International Symposium on*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2010, pp. 103–108.
T. Plos, M. Hutter, and C. Herbst, “Enhancing side-channel analysis with low-cost shielding techniques,” in *Proceedings of Austrochip*, 2008, pp. 90–95.
G. B. Ratanpal, R. D. Williams, and T. N. Blalock, “An on-chip signal suppression countermeasure to power analysis attacks,” *IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing*, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 179–189, 2004.
X. Wang, W. Yueh, D. B. Roy, S. Narasimhan, Y. Zheng, S. Mukhopadhyay, D. Mukhopadhyay, and S. Bhunia, “Role of power grid in side channel attack and power-grid-aware secure design,” in *Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2013 50th ACM/EDAC/IEEE*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2013, pp. 1–9.
C. P. L. Gouva and J. L. Hernandez, “Implementing gcm on armv8.” in *CT-RSA*, 2015, pp. 167–180.
A. Zajic and M. Prvulovic, “Experimental demonstration of electromagnetic information leakage from modern processor-memory systems,” *IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility*, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 885–893, 2014.
A. Do, S. T. Ko, A. T. Htet, T. Eisenbarth, and B. Sunar, “Electromagnetic side-channel analysis on intel atom processor,” *Worcester Polytechnic Institute*, 2013.
N. Kurd, M. Chowdhury, E. Burton, T. P. Thomas, C. Mozak, B. Boswell, P. Mosalikanti, M. Neidengard, A. Deval, A. Khanna *et al.*, “Haswell: A family of ia 22 nm processors,” *IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2015.
E. J. Fluhr, S. Baumgartner, D. Boerstler, J. F. Bulzacchelli, T. Diemoz, D. Dreps, G. English, J. Friedrich, A. Gattiker, T. Gloekler *et al.*, “The 12-core power8™ processor with 7.6 tb/s io bandwidth, integrated voltage regulation, and resonant clocking,” *IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 10–23, 2015.
B. Bowhill, B. Stackhouse, N. Nassif, Z. Yang, A. Raghavan, O. Mendoza, C. Morganti, C. Houghton, D. Krueger, O. Franza *et al.*, “The xeon processor e5-2600 v3: A 22 nm 18-core product family,” *IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 92–104, 2016.
H. K. Krishnamurthy, V. Vaidya, S. Weng, K. Ravichandran, P. Kumar, S. Kim, R. Jain, G. Matthew, J. Tschanz, and V. De, “20.1 a digitally controlled fully integrated voltage regulator with on-die solenoid inductor with planar magnetic core in 14nm tri-gate cmos,” in *Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), 2017 IEEE International*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2017, pp. 336–337.
H. K. Krishnamurthy, V. A. Vaidya, P. Kumar, G. E. Matthew, S. Weng, B. Thiruvengadam, W. Proefrock, K. Ravichandran, and V. De, “A 500 mhz, 68% efficient, fully on-die digitally controlled buck voltage regulator on 22nm tri-gate cmos,” in *VLSI Circuits Digest of Technical Papers, 2014 Symposium on*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2014, pp. 1–2.
M. Kar, A. Singh, S. Mathew, A. Rajan, V. De, and S. Mukhopadhyay, “8.1 improved power-side-channel-attack resistance of an aes-128 core via a security-aware integrated buck voltage regulator,” in *Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), 2017 IEEE International*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2017, pp. 142–143.
T. Korak, T. Plos, and M. Hutter, “Attacking an aes-enabled nfc tag: Implications from design to a real-world scenario,” *Constructive Side-Channel Analysis and Secure Design*, pp. 17–32, 2012.
D. Genkin, L. Pachmanov, I. Pipman, and E. Tromer, “Ecdh key-extraction via low-bandwidth electromagnetic attacks on pcs,” in *Cryptographers’ Track at the RSA Conference*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2016, pp. 219–235.
——, “Stealing keys from pcs using a radio: Cheap electromagnetic attacks on windowed exponentiation,” in *International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2015, pp. 207–228.
J. Balasch, B. Gierlichs, O. Reparaz, and I. Verbauwhede, “Dpa, bitslicing and masking at 1 ghz,” in *International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2015, pp. 599–619.
C. Tokunaga and D. Blaauw, “Securing encryption systems with a switched capacitor current equalizer,” *IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 2010.
W. Yu, O. A. Uzun, and S. K[ö]{}se, “Leveraging on-chip voltage regulators as a countermeasure against side-channel attacks,” in *Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2015 52nd ACM/EDAC/IEEE*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2015, pp. 1–6.
F. Poucheret, L. Barthe, P. Benoit, L. Torres, P. Maurine, and M. Robert, “Spatial em jamming: A countermeasure against em analysis?” in *VLSI System on Chip Conference (VLSI-SoC), 2010 18th IEEE/IFIP*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2010, pp. 105–110.
M. Doulcier-Verdier, J.-M. Dutertre, J. Fournier, J.-B. Rigaud, B. Robisson, and A. Tria, “A side-channel and fault-attack resistant aes circuit working on duplicated complemented values,” in *Solid-State Circuits Conference Digest of Technical Papers (ISSCC), 2011 IEEE International*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2011, pp. 274–276.
W. J. Lambert, M. J. Hill, K. Radhakrishnan, L. Wojewoda, and A. E. Augustine, “Package embedded inductors for integrated voltage regulators,” in *Electronic Components and Technology Conference (ECTC), 2014 IEEE 64th*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2014, pp. 528–534.
S. Saab, A. Leiserson, and M. Tunstall, “Key extraction from the primary side of a switched-mode power supply,” in *Hardware-Oriented Security and Trust (AsianHOST), IEEE Asian*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2016, pp. 1–7.
A. Satoh, S. Morioka, K. Takano, and S. Munetoh, “A compact rijndael hardware architecture with s-box optimization,” in *Asiacrypt*, vol. 2248. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2001, pp. 239–254.
D. Mukhopadhyay and R. S. Chakraborty, *Hardware security: Design, threats, and safeguards*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCRC Press, 2014.
A. Singh, M. Kar, J. H. Ko, and S. Mukhopadhyay, “Exploring power attack protection of resource constrained encryption engines using integrated low-drop-out regulators,” in *Low Power Electronics and Design (ISLPED), 2015 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2015, pp. 134–139.
T.-H. Le, J. Cl[é]{}di[è]{}re, C. Canovas, B. Robisson, C. Servi[è]{}re, and J.-L. Lacoume, “A proposition for correlation power analysis enhancement,” in *CHES*, vol. 4249.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2006, pp. 174–186.
B. J. Gilbert Goodwill, J. Jaffe, P. Rohatgi *et al.*, “A testing methodology for side-channel resistance validation,” in *NIST non-invasive attack testing workshop*, 2011.
T. Schneider and A. Moradi, “Leakage assessment methodology,” in *International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer, 2015, pp. 495–513.
P. Rohatgi, “Electromagnetic attacks and countermeasures,” in *Cryptographic Engineering*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2009, pp. 407–430.
F. Conti, R. Schilling, P. D. Schiavone, A. Pullini, D. Rossi, F. K. G[ü]{}rkaynak, M. Muehlberghuber, M. Gautschi, I. Loi, G. Haugou *et al.*, “An iot endpoint system-on-chip for secure and energy-efficient near-sensor analytics,” *IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers*, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 2481–2494, 2017.
N. Sturcken, R. Davies, H. Wu, M. Lekas, K. Shepard, K. Cheng, C. Chen, Y. Su, C. Tsai, K. Wu *et al.*, “Magnetic thin-film inductors for monolithic integration with cmos,” in *Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), 2015 IEEE International*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2015, pp. 11–4.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'With the rapid spread of various mobile terminals in our society, the importance of secure positioning is growing for wireless networks in adversarial settings. Recently, several authors have proposed a secure positioning mechanism of mobile terminals which is based on the geometric property of wireless node placement, and on the postulate of modern physics that a propagation speed of information never exceeds the velocity of light. In particular, they utilize the measurements of the round-trip time of radio signal propagation and bidirectional communication for variants of the challenge-and-response. In this paper, we propose a novel means to construct the above mechanism by use of [*unidirectional*]{} communication instead of bidirectional communication. Our proposal is based on the assumption that a mobile terminal incorporates a high-precision inner clock in a tamper-resistant protected area. In positioning, the mobile terminal uses its inner clock and the time and location information broadcasted by radio from trusted stations. Our proposal has a major advantage in protecting the location privacy of mobile terminal users, because the mobile terminal need not provide any information to the trusted stations through positioning procedures. Besides, our proposal is free from the positioning error due to claimant’s processing-time fluctuations in the challenge-and-response, and is well-suited for mobile terminals in the open air, or on the move at high speed, in terms of practical usage. We analyze the security, the functionality, and the feasibility of our proposal in comparison to previous proposals.'
author:
- |
Mikio Fujii\
[Toshiba Solutions Corporation,]{}\
[3-22 Katamachi, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo, 183-8512, JAPAN]{}\
[[email protected]]{}
title: '**Secure Positioning of Mobile Terminals with Simplex Radio Communication**'
---
Introduction
============
In the past decade, we have witnessed the successive emergence of various mobile terminals including mobile-phones, PDAs, handheld gaming devices, non-contact IC cards, RFID tags, and GPS receivers. They have pervaded and dramatically changed every aspect of our daily life in such a short time. As the mobile terminals became widespread, manufacturers made great efforts to meet urgent requirements of the market needs, and have made outstanding progress in key hardware technologies such as miniaturization of embedded components, lifetime extension of batteries, and sensitivity improvement of receivers.
Today, the most popular wireless positioning system is perhaps the [*civilian*]{} GPS service, which is originally designed to provide location information from trusted satellites to exposed receivers in nonadversarial settings. Because all positioning procedures are presupposed to be legitimate by honest entities, the civilian GPS service has intrinsic vulnerabilities even to the most common attacks known as the impersonation attack, the modification attack, or the replay attack. In contrast, the [*military*]{} GPS service is secure against the impersonation attack and the modification attack by the external adversaries, thanks to encryption of GPS signals. But the service is only available to the United States military with their secret keys, and moreover, even the military GPS service is not secure enough to defend against the replay attack when it comes to location authentication.
A present RFID system also has security vulnerabilities on identification and location authentication especially to the replay attack, though expected to be a powerful tool for the product and commodity management. It is desirable for RFID tags to be equipped with a reliable security function for location authentication in the light of application demands to ensure the traceability of RFID tags in logistics and transportation systems. It is no exaggeration to say that all current services utilizing location information of wireless nodes, including those above, do not have autonomous mechanisms to exclude illegitimate location information without direct surveillance of the nodes by trusted parties.
Recently, several authors have proposed an innovative mechanism for wireless secure positioning where all illegitimate location information can be excluded automatically [@Waters; @and; @Felten] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux]. Their mechanism is based on two fundamental facts: The first is the geometric relation of distances of a point contained within a triangle to triangle’s vertices (for 2D planar positioning), or the geometric relation of distances of a point contained within a tetrahedron to tetrahedron’s vertices (for 3D spatial positioning). The second is the postulate of modern physics that a propagation speed of information never exceeds the velocity of light. In particular, the authors utilize the measurements of the round-trip time of radio signal propagation and bidirectional communication for variants of the challenge-and-response.
The proposal in [@Waters; @and; @Felten], however, has a vulnerability to the replay attack in the man-in-the-middle scenario, and needs a minor modification to prevent the immediate rebinding of the used session in the challenge-and-response to the false round-trip latency. Meanwhile, the proposal in [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux] realizes wireless secure positioning by incorporating the [*distance bounding protocol*]{} introduced in [@Brands; @and; @Chaum] into a proposed verification technique called [*Verifiable Multilateration*]{}.
In this paper, we propose a novel means to construct the above mechanism by means of unidirectional communication instead of bidirectional communication used in the previous proposals. We assume that a mobile terminal incorporates a verification module as a verifier and a high-precision inner clock in a tamper-resistant protected area, and that the module and the inner clock are protected even from a mobile terminal user. In our proposal, the mobile terminal uses its inner clock and the time and location information broadcasted by radio from trusted stations for positioning.
A similar authentication mechanism for unidirectional communication is found in [@Hu; @Perrig; @and; @Johnson] as [*Temporal Leashes*]{} where both sender and receiver use their tightly synchronized clocks to estimate the traveling distance of radio signals. But the proposal is originally designed to detect the specific attack called the [*wormhole attack*]{} by checking that the traveling distance of the received packet is below the predetermined upper limit. On the other hand, our protocol does not need any predetermined limit through procedures, but need to include precise location information of the senders into radio signals for the receiver to calculate receiver’s own location. Thus, Temporal Leashes [@Hu; @Perrig; @and; @Johnson] has significant differences in its purpose and usage from our protocol.
Our proposal has a major advantage in protecting the location privacy of mobile terminal users, because the mobile terminal need not provide any information to the surrounding stations through positioning procedures, thanks to unidirectional communication. Besides, our proposal is free from the positioning error due to claimant’s processing-time fluctuations in the challenge-and-response. Our proposal does not need complex key management, and is well-suited for mobile terminals in the open air, or on the move at high speed, in terms of practical usage.
Our proposal depends largely on the advanced hardware technologies such as a high-precision small size clock and a tamper-resistant module. But after examining the present level of clock manufacturing technologies, our hardware requirements are considered feasible and will be materialized in a relatively short period of time, though they are still challenging at this moment.
The organization of this paper is the following. In Section 2, we propose our protocol for wireless secure positioning. In Section 3, we analyze the security of our proposal in comparison to the previous proposals. In Section 4, we discuss functional advantages of our protocol. In Section 5, we discuss the feasibility of our proposal. In Section 6, we review related works. We conclude this paper in Section 7.
Protocol Description
====================
We propose our protocol for secure positioning on the two dimensional plane as Fig. \[fig:proposal\]. A digital signature for authentication in Fig. \[fig:proposal\] can be replaced with a message authentication code (MAC), but an additional measure is necessary for secure secret-key distribution between a verification module and stations.
1. A trusted station $\mathsf{S_i}\ (i=1, 2, 3, \ldots)$ computes a digital signature $\mbox{sign}_{s_i}(t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i})$ with $\mathsf{S_i}$’s private key for the future broadcasting time $t_{s_i}$ and $\mathsf{S_i}$’s location $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i}$ at the time $t_{s_i}$.
2. $\mathsf{S_i}$ broadcasts $t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i}$, and $\mbox{sign}_{s_i}(t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i})$ by radio at the time $t_{s_i}$.
3. A tamper-resistant verification module $\mathsf{M}$ in a mobile terminal receives broadcasts $t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i}, \mbox{sign}_{s_i}(t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i})\ (i=1, 2, 3, \ldots)$ all at once, and at the same time, obtains the time of receipt $t_m$ from the tamper-resistant inner clock. If the number of received broadcasts is less than three, $\mathsf{M}$ aborts the protocol.
4. $\mathsf{M}$ checks that $t_{s_i} \leq t_m$ for all $i$ of the received broadcasts. If the result is false, $\mathsf{M}$ aborts the protocol.
5. $\mathsf{M}$ verifies $\mbox{sign}_{s_i}(t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i})$ with $\mathsf{S_i}$’s authentic public key. If the result is true, $\mathsf{M}$ accepts $t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i}$. Otherwise, $\mathsf{M}$ rejects them. If the number of accepted broadcasts is less than three, $\mathsf{M}$ aborts the protocol.
6. With $t_m$ and all accepted $t_{s_i}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i}$, $\mathsf{M}$ computes $\mathsf{M}$’s location $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_m$ by applying an appropriate optimization method to triangulation, and also estimates $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_m$’s error range.
7. $\mathsf{M}$ checks that $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_m$’s error range is within the preset limit. If the result is false, $\mathsf{M}$ rejects $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_m$.
8. $\mathsf{M}$ verifies that there exists a set of three accepted $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_{s_i}$ which forms a triangle containing $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_m$. If the result is true, $\mathsf{M}$ accepts $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_m$. Otherwise, $\mathsf{M}$ rejects it.
We can easily modify the 2D planar positioning protocol in Fig. \[fig:proposal\] for secure 3D positioning in a similar fashion to [@Waters; @and; @Felten] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux]. In the modified 3D positioning protocol, we need at least four, not three, valid time and location information broadcasted by radio from trusted stations, where the validity of each broadcasted information is verified with the time of receipt, an appended digital signature, and station’s authentic public key. In the final domain verification step, the module verifies that receiver’s location computed by triangulation is contained within a tetrahedron, instead of a triangle, spatially formed by four trusted stations.
Security Analysis
=================
Distance Bounding
-----------------
![Distance bounding with bidirectional communication [@Brands; @and; @Chaum]. $m_i$ is claimant’s nonce and $\alpha_i$ is verifier’s nonce. The verifier estimates the upper bound of a distance to the claimant with the round-trip time of rapid bit exchanges. After the rapid bit exchanges, the claimant signs a concatenation of $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ for all $i$ with his private key, and sends it to the verifier.[]{data-label="fig:duplex_db"}](Duplex_DB.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Distance bounding with unidirectional communication. The station signs the sending time $t_s$ and station’s location $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_s$ with his private key, and broadcasts them. The mobile terminal estimates the upper bound of a distance to the station with $t_s$ and the time of receipt $t_m$. The mobile terminal then computes its location with three sets of the distance upper bound and $\mbox{\boldmath$x$}_s$.[]{data-label="fig:simplex_db"}](Simplex_DB.eps){width="\linewidth"}
We will discuss the security of our protocol in terms of the distance bounding in comparison to the previous proposals in [@Waters; @and; @Felten] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux].
Distance bounding protocols are first introduced in [@Brands; @and; @Chaum], which technically guarantees the distance upper-bound of a device to a verifier by the measurement of the round-trip time of the radio signal propagation. The protocols [@Brands; @and; @Chaum] are based on the fact that by the forced delay of the radio propagation, an adversary in the man-in-the-middle attack can make a device look further away from a verifier than it truly exists, but cannot make it look closer in principle because no information can propagate faster than light.
Other than the simple forced delay attack, we will consider two major attacks for the security of the distance bounding below. In Fig. \[fig:duplex\_db\] and \[fig:simplex\_db\], we see the distance bounding protocol with duplex radio communication [@Brands; @and; @Chaum] and the one with simplex radio communication in our protocol. Note that a verifier indicates a trusted station in the original protocol [@Brands; @and; @Chaum] and the previous proposal [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], whereas in our proposal a verifier indicates a tamper-resistant module with an inner clock incorporated into a mobile terminal.
### Impersonation Attack
In this subsection, we analyze the security of distance bounding protocols under the impersonation attack. We define the impersonation attack as a situation where an adversary impersonates another by falsifying authentication information to fool a certain legitimate entity. More specifically, we consider a situation where the adversary falsifies necessary raw data to compute mobile terminal’s time and location, and tries to make the verifier believe the false time and location information as true. The adversary may be a malicious third party, or a malicious user of the mobile terminal.
In the case of [@Brands; @and; @Chaum] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], if the adversary falsifies mobile terminal’s location by the fake challenge-and-response in the man-in-the-middle attack, the verifier can detect the attack by verifying the committed random number and the submitted digital signature in the last step. The detection succeeds with overwhelming probability as long as the adopted signature scheme is secure and claimant’s committed random number is kept secret from the adversary until the challenge-and-response between the adversary and the verifier is completed.
In case of our proposal, if the adversary makes up the arbitrary time and location information, the verifier can detect the attack by verifying the appended digital signature. The detection succeeds with overwhelming probability as long as the adopted signature scheme is secure.
### Replay Attack
In this subsection, we analyze the security of distance bounding protocols under the replay attack. We define the replay attack as a situation where an adversary repeats the past valid information to deceive a certain legitimate entity. More specifically, we consider a situation where an adversary eavesdrops on the valid communication between a trusted station and a mobile terminal, and fraudulently reuses the past communication to convince the verifier of the validity of the false time and location information. The adversary may be a malicious third party, or a malicious user of the mobile terminal.
In [@Brands; @and; @Chaum] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], if the adversary fraudulently reuses the past valid exchange between a claimant and a verifier, the verifier can detect the attack by verifying the submitted digital signature in the last step. The success probability of the detection is overwhelmingly high as long as verifier’s random number is renewed in each challenge-and-response.
Even if the adversary fraudulently reuses the past valid communication, our proposal still upper bounds the distance of the mobile terminal to the station. Because the time of receipt issued by the tamper-proof inner clock is necessarily later than the past valid time of receipt, the adversary can only lengthen the estimated distance of the mobile terminal to the station, but cannot shorten it.
The proposal in [@Waters; @and; @Felten] has a vulnerability to the replay attack in the man-in-the-middle scenario. In the attack, an adversary adjacent to Location Manager eavesdrops on the message from Device to Location Manager containing nonces and encrypted Device’s ID, and also eavesdrops on the exchanged nonces between Device and Location Manager. The adversary then blocks the valid message from Location Manager to Device, and immediately resends to Location Manager the first used message from Device to Location Manager. Since this time the adversary knows the valid nonces he will exchange to Location Manager in advance, he can fool Location Manager with the false round-trip latency shorter than the valid one, and he can also fool Device with the signed message from Location Manager containing the false round-trip latency. To prevent this attack, Location Manager must check that the encrypted (and randomized) Device’s ID in the first message from Device to Location Manager is different from all previously used ones.
Positioning with Distance Bounding
----------------------------------
By using the distance bounding in the previous subsection, we construct a secure positioning mechanism in line with the previous proposals of [@Waters; @and; @Felten] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux].
After computing mobile terminal’s location by triangulation with distances estimated by the distance bounding, we can verify the validity of the computed location by checking whether the location is inside a triangle formed by trusted stations, or not. As a general geometric property, it holds true that on the plane no point can move to any other point inside a given triangle without shortening any distance of the point to triangle’s vertices. Since the distance bounding protocol upper bounds the distances of the mobile terminal to the trusted stations, the above geometrical property reliably prevents the malicious adversary from modifying the true location information inside the triangle. The same geometric property holds true in the relation between a point and a tetrahedron, instead of a triangle, in 3D space.
In addition to the area test, we check that the error range of the computed location is below the allowable level. With all these filtering tests, we extract only valid positioning results.
But there is a powerful attack to the proposed positioning scheme with the help of plural wireless terminals. We will discuss the details below.
### Collusion Attack
We define the collusion attack as a situation where plural adversaries share their individual information, or make use of their individual advantages in a cooperative manner, in order to deceive a legitimate entity. In particular, we consider a situation similar to the one discussed in [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux] where the adversary colludes with plural wireless terminals placed adjacent to the surrounding trusted stations.
In case of the distance bounding by the challenge-and-response, each colluded wireless node intercepts the radio signal from the nearest station as a verifier, keeps it for an appropriate length of time, and returns it to the station to make the verifier believe adversary’s false distance to the station as true. As discussed in [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], the previous proposal is secure as long as the verifier can distinguish adversary’s colluded wireless nodes from the adversary himself, which means that the secret keys for message authentication codes (MACs) (or the private keys for digital signatures), and the random nonces for the challenge-and-response must be securely protected from the adversary.
![Replay attack using a stolen nonce on the distance bounding with bidirectional communication [@Singelee]. The adversary makes up the false round-trip time with the stolen nonce. The adversary successfully deceives the verifier without claimant’s private key for digital signatures.[]{data-label="fig:terrorist_attack"}](Terrorist_Attack.eps){width="\linewidth"}
A variant of the replay attack [@Singelee] is shown in Fig. \[fig:terrorist\_attack\]. As pointed out in [@Singelee], if the adversary ever obtains the valid nonces beforehand, adversary’s wireless node adjacent to the station uses the stolen nonce for the challenge-and-response with the station (verifier) to make the verifier measure the false round-trip time, reuses verifier’s nonce of the previous challenge-and-response for the next challenge-and-response with the mobile terminal (claimant), and results in successful distance falsification by relaying the valid digital signature from the claimant to the verifier. By this means, the colluded wireless nodes can adjust their estimated distances to the nearest station at will in order to look consistent with adversary’s false location even inside the verification triangle.
To prevent this type of colluded man-in-the-middle attack, a mobile terminal must securely protect a random number generator for nonces as well as the secret keys (or the private keys) for authentication in the tamper-resistant area.
In case of our proposed protocol, even if adversary’s wireless nodes intercept the radio signal on the way to the verification module (verifier) of the mobile terminal, all they can do is to lengthen the estimated distances from the stations but not shorten them, which results in either the computed location of the mobile terminal outside the verification triangle, or the computed location of the mobile terminal inside the verification triangle with the prohibitively enlarged error range. Our proposal is therefore secure against this type of attack as long as the mobile terminal protects its inner clock in the tamper-resistant area.
Functional Advantages
=====================
Location Privacy
----------------
In our proposal, a mobile terminal need not provide any information to verify calculated locations because only unidirectional communication is necessary for the verification. This gives mobile terminal users a considerable advantage in protecting their location privacy from the external adversary or the trusted stations.
In contrast, a protocol mainly discussed in [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux] uses bidirectional communication with trusted stations for authentication, where stations learn how far the mobile terminal is located in each verification procedure and a central authority checks the validity of those information. This implies that the mobile terminal users are monitored by the surrounding stations and the central authority through positioning procedures, and the protocol has intrinsic difficulty in protecting the location privacy of the mobile terminal users.
In [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], another protocol designed to protect the location privacy is also proposed, where the mobile terminal (or, a tamper-resistant module embedded in the mobile terminal) as a verifier computes and verifies its location with distance bounding to the stations. But it is technically possible for the surrounding stations to extract considerably accurate location information of the mobile terminal from physical properties of the received radio signals, e.g., propagation directions, strengths, or temporal variations, through their bidirectional communication.
Positioning Accuracy
--------------------
In the previous protocols [@Waters; @and; @Felten] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], positioning is based on the measurements of the round-trip latency of the radio signal from the stations to the mobile terminal. The measured time necessarily includes the processing time to prepare the valid response by the mobile terminal as a claimant, and the uncertainty of the processing time causes considerable positioning error.
Our protocol with one-way communication is free from the positioning error caused by the unpredictable processing-time fluctuations mentioned above, because the measured propagation time does not include any intermediate processing time.
Additionally, in the previous protocols using the challenge-and-response, it is difficult for stations to measure their distances to the mobile terminal on the move. Because the receipt time of stations’ challenges tends to be dispersed when the mobile terminal is moving, the location of mobile terminal at the time of distance estimation is easily blurred, which considerably lowers the positioning accuracy. Moreover, if received plural challenges from stations must be processed sequentially to prepare valid responses by the mobile terminal, it is difficult to predict the total processing time of the mobile terminal whose fluctuations also cause positioning errors.
In our protocol, after the mobile terminal successfully receives plural broadcasts from stations and the precise time of receipt from the inner clock all at once, the mobile terminal does not have to hurry for positioning accuracy in the subsequent procedures. Today, there are various mobile terminals including GPS receivers which can receive plural broadcasts simultaneously.
Coverage Area
-------------
As for radio communication, the size of the coverage area depends largely on the intensity of the transmitted radio wave. In bidirectional radio communication, the size of the coverage area is severely limited by the poor output power of mobile terminal’s battery. Since it is technically difficult to increase the output power of small size batteries, the size of the coverage area for bidirectional radio communication cannot be enlarged easily. Hence, if we hope to cover a large area or outdoors for secure positioning, we need considerable number of trusted stations.
In contrast, our proposal does not have the above-mentioned upper limit of the communication distance, because we only use unidirectional communication from stations to a mobile terminal. If stations have affluent power supplies to send a strong radio wave, the size of the coverage area becomes much larger, and the number of necessary trusted stations becomes much less than the that of previous proposals using bidirectional communication.
Key Management
--------------
As for the mainly discussed proposal in [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], the setting needs a central authority and a secure backyard network to link between the authority and the stations, where the authority gathers distance information from the stations to compute and verify the mobile user’s location. This means the setting needs an additional secure key distribution mechanism to maintain the backyard network, and rather complex key management for it, as shown in [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux]. On the contrary, our proposal does not need either a central authority or a secure backyard network for verification of computed locations, because in our setting a verification module in the mobile terminal computes and verifies mobile terminal’s position by itself. Thus, our proposal also has an advantage in simple key management.
Feasibility Analysis
====================
In our proposal, we assume that a verification module and a small size inner clock with high-precision are embedded in the tamper-resistant area of a mobile terminal, and that they are rigorously protected from outside entities including a mobile terminal user. We suppose that a mobile terminal is lent by an authority to a user. An inner clock in the mobile terminal is kept isolated from the authority by the time of expiration when the mobile terminal is returned to the authority. The authority checks that the mobile terminal has no irregularities and updates its inner clock.
In the above usage model, the required precision of the inner clock is roughly approximated with the relation $$c \times (\delta t \times T) \sim \delta l \label{eq:precision}\ ,$$ where $c$ is the velocity of light, $\delta t$ is the precision of the inner clock, i.e., the spontaneous time error of the inner clock, $T$ is the period of validity of the inner clock, and $\delta l$ is the accumulated positioning error due to $\delta t$. Given that $T=30$ day with the constant $c=3 \times 10^{8}$ m/s, if we want the accumulated positioning error $\delta l$ in the order of $10^{0}$ m, the required precision of the inner clock $\delta t$ should be in the order of $10^{-10}$ s/day.
In fact, several clock manufacturers have already developed small size oven-controlled crystal oscillators (OCXOs) which narrowly meet the above precision requirement with low power consumption [@Oscillo] [@Vectron] [@VF] [@C-MAC]. Their typical long term stability is $5 \times 10^{-10}$ s/day, and the accumulated positioning error is about $5$ m according to eq.(\[eq:precision\]). Those miniaturized OCXOs are small enough to be incorporated into various types of mobile terminals, and are now available on the market. But the OCXOs are rather sensitive to an abnormal environment and external noises, such as mechanical fluctuations and the high/low temperature, which might be a restriction on some special usages of mobile terminals.
The chip-scale atomic clock developed by NIST is another promising candidate for the inner clock [@Knappe1] [@Kitching] [@Knappe2]. The size of the main unit itself is small enough to be integrated with RFID tags, and even the present size of the total system including surrounding electrical control devices is small enough to be embedded in most mobile terminals [@Kitching]. Although the first reported clock precision (of order $10^{-8}$ s/day) [@Knappe1] fell short of our requirement above, last year NIST achieved $5 \times 10^{-11}$ s/day for the long term stability [@Knappe2], i.e., about $0.5$ m for the accumulated positioning error by eq.(\[eq:precision\]), which sufficiently meets our requirement. In addition to the above advantage, the chip-scale atomic clock operates with low power consumption, and is originally designed for low-cost mass production.
Contrary to cryptographic algorithms and techniques, most tamper-resistant hardware techniques have been kept secret among developers exclusively, and there are only limited number of technical literatures available to the public [@Anderson; @and; @Kuhn]. One well-known measure for tamper-proofing is to set up a trap to certainly detect unauthorized operations or intrusions against the protected area. The detection of the attack immediately triggers to delete the secret data or break the related hardware functions. The mechanism may utilize electrical treatments, irreversible chemical reactions, or mechanical destruction. Another well-known measure for tamper-proofing is to produce the protected area with single-chip integration to cut off the direct contact from outside.
In our proposal, breaking the inner clock itself cannot be a sufficient countermeasure, because the attacker can freely replace the broken one with his own high-precision clock. We must either forcibly halt the function of the verification module or delete secret identification information as a valid verifier embedded in the protected area. If we choose the chip-scale atomic clock as an inner clock, single-chip integration might be an effective countermeasure.
Related Work
============
The secure positioning technique with RF mainly discussed in this paper was proposed in [@Waters; @and; @Felten] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux]. The distance bounding protocols using bidirectional communication to upper bound claimant’s distance was first introduced in [@Brands; @and; @Chaum], and the proposal in [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux] is based on the protocols [@Brands; @and; @Chaum]. For easier implementation, a secure positioning technique with a distance bounding protocol using ultrasound and radio communication was proposed in [@Sastry], but it has a security vulnerability to the replay attack due to its use of ultrasound. In [@Kuhn], a distance bounding protocol for RFID is proposed. The protocol uses duplex radio communication, and is designed to lessen the processing load of RFID as far as possible.
The protocol called Temporal Leashes is proposed in [@Hu; @Perrig; @and; @Johnson] for detection of the specific attack called the wormhole attack. The protocol detects the attack by checking the packet transmission time measured by tightly synchronized clocks of a sender and a receiver.
On the other hand, there are location verification protocols which substantially make use of the physical properties of broadcasted radio waves [@Vora] [@Singelee]. In [@Vora], their proposal depends on the intensity and the directivity of broadcasted radio waves for location verification. In [@Singelee], their proposal with duplex radio communication assumes spatial isotropic propagation of radio waves by use of mobile terminal’s omni-directional antenna, and uses its particular geometric relation for location verification. But both proposals have a security vulnerability to malicious modification of the assumed physical properties of radio waves. There are many possible ways, especially for a mobile terminal user, to carry out the physical modification of radio waves, e.g., by fraudulently using a directional antenna for the mobile terminal, or by surrounding the mobile terminal with carefully chosen mediums or materials.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have proposed a novel secure positioning by use of radio broadcasts as unidirectional communication. Our proposal is secure as long as a tamper-resistant module with an inner clock is securely protected. Our proposal has advantages in protecting the location privacy of mobile terminal users, improving positioning accuracy, reducing the number of trusted stations for a large coverage area, and simplifying key management. On the other hand, our proposal depends largely on hardware technologies for a tamper-resistant module and a small size inner clock with high-precision. But we believe those requirements are not serious restriction on our proposal, when considering the consecutive advent of various small size clocks with high-precision.
In the previous proposals [@Waters; @and; @Felten] [@Capkun; @and; @Hubaux], a random number generator for nonces as well as secret keys for encryption and authentication must be protected even from a mobile terminal user by a tamper-resistant hardware embedded in the mobile terminal. In our proposal, correspondingly, a high-precision inner clock must be protected even from a mobile terminal user by a tamper-resistant hardware embedded in the mobile terminal.
In the near future, our proposal might be useful for an autonomous RFID tag integrated with a micro processor, a small size battery, and a small size high-precision inner clock, which might play a key role to guarantee the traceability in wireless networks.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author is profoundly grateful to Koji Yura and Ayumu Shimizu for illuminating and constructive discussions on the subject of this paper. The author is also grateful to Koji Okada and Fumihiko Sano for countless instructive helps in extensive background knowledge.
[99]{}
B.R. Waters and E.W. Felten, “Secure, private proofs of location,” Princeton Univ., Tech. Rep., \[Online\]. Available: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/research/techreps/TR-667-03, Jan. 2003.
S. Čapkun and J.-P. Hubaux, “Secure positioning in wireless networks,” [*IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.*]{}, vol. 24, no. 2, Feb. 2006, pp. 221–232.
S. Brands and D. Chaum, “Distance-bounding protocols,” in [*Proc. Advances in Cryptology — EUROCRYPT’93, Lecture Notes in Computer Science,*]{} vol. 765, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994, pp. 344–359.
Y.-C. Hu, A. Perrig, and D.B. Johnson, “Wormhole attacks in wireless networks,” [*IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.*]{}, vol. 24, no. 2, Feb. 2006, pp. 370–380.
D. Singelee and B. Preneel, “Location verification using secure distance bounding protocols,” in [*Proc. MASS05*]{}, Nov. 2005, pp. 834–840.
Specification sheet for OCXO 8711/8712, Oscilloquartz S.A. \[Online\]. Available: http://www.oscilloquartz.com/file/pdf/8712.pdf
Specification sheet for OCXO C4700, Vectron International. \[Online\]. Available: http://www.vectron.com/products/ocxo/c4700.pdf
Specification sheet for VFTDR Series Double Oven Ultra Precision OCXO, Valpey Fisher Corp. \[Online\]. Available: http://www.mfelectronics.com/PDFs/VFTDXspec.pdf
Specification sheet for CFPO-US SERIES: Ultra Stable OCXOS, C-MAC MicroTechnology. \[Online\]. Available: http://www.cmac.com/pdf/cfpo-us.pdf
S. Knappe, L. Liew, V. Shah, P. Schwindt, J. Moreland, L. Hollberg, and J. Kitching, “A micromachined atomic clock,” [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{}, vol. 85, Aug. 2004, pp. 1460–1462.
J. Kitching, S. Knappe, L. Liew, J. Moreland, P.D.D. Schwindt, V. Shah, V. Gerginov, and L. Hollberg, “Microfabricated atomic frequency references,” [*Metrologia*]{}, [**42**]{}, 2005, S100–S104.
S. Knappe, V. Gerginov, P.D.D. Schwindt, V. Shah, H.G. Robinson, L. Hollberg, and J. Kitching, “Atomic vapor cells for chip-scale atomic clocks with improved long-term frequency stability,” [*Optics Letters*]{}, vol. 30, no. 18, Sep. 2005, pp. 2351–2353.
R. Anderson and M. Kuhn, “Tamper resistance — A cautionary note,” in [*Proc. 2nd USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce*]{}, 1996, pp. 1–11.
N. Sastry, U. Shankar, and D. Wagner, “Secure verification of location claims,” in [*Proc. WiSe*]{}, Sep. 2003, pp. 1–10.
G.P. Hancke and M.G. Kuhn, “An RFID distance bounding protocol,” in [*Proc. SECURECOMM’05*]{}, Sep. 2005, pp. 67–73.
A. Vora and M. Nesterenko, “Secure location verification using radio broadcast,” in [*Proc. OPODIS 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, vol. 3544, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005, pp. 369.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give a necessary and sufficient condition, in terms of a certain reflection principle, for every unconditionally closed subset of a group $G$ to be algebraic. As a corollary, we prove that this is always the case when $G$ is a direct product of an Abelian group with a direct product (sometimes also called a direct sum) of a family of countable groups. This is the widest class of groups known to date where the answer to the 63 years old problem of Markov turns out to be positive. We also prove that whether every unconditionally closed subset of $G$ is algebraic or not is completely determined by countable subgroups of $G$.'
author:
- 'Dikran Dikranjan[^1]'
- 'Dmitri Shakhmatov[^2]'
date: 'March 11, 2007'
title: Reflection principle characterizing groups in which unconditionally closed sets are algebraic
---
According to Markov [@M], a subset $S$ of a group $G$ is called:
- [*elementary algebraic*]{} if there exist an integer $n>0$, $a_1,\ldots, a_n\in G$ and $\varepsilon_1,\ldots,\varepsilon_n\in\{-1,1\}$ such that $S=\{x\in G: x^{\varepsilon_1}a_1x^{\varepsilon_2}a_2\ldots
a_{n-1}x^{\varepsilon_n}=a_n\}$,
- [*algebraic*]{} if $S$ is an intersection of finite unions of elementary algebraic subsets of $G$,
- [*unconditionally closed*]{} if $S$ is closed in [*every*]{} Hausdorff group topology of $G$.
Since the family of all finite unions of elementary algebraic subsets of $G$ is closed under finite unions and contains all finite sets, it is a base of closed sets of some $T_1$ topology ${\mathfrak Z}_G$ on $G$, called the [*Zariski topology of $G$*]{}. (This topology is also known under the name [*verbal topology*]{}, see [@Bryant].) The family of all unconditionally closed subsets of $G$ coincides with the family of closed subsets of a $T_1$ topology ${\mathfrak M}_G$ on $G$, namely the infimum (taken in the lattice of all topologies on $G$) of all Hausdorff group topologies on $G$. We call ${\mathfrak M}_G$ the [*Markov topology*]{} of $G$. Note that $(G,{\mathfrak Z}_G)$ and $(G,{\mathfrak M}_G)$ are quasi-topological groups, i.e., the inversion and shifts are continuous.
\[Markov:stronger:than:Zariski\] ${\mathfrak Z}_G\subseteq {\mathfrak M}_G$ for every group $G$.
An elementary algebraic subset of $G$ must be closed in every Hausdorff group topology on $G$.
In 1944 Markov [@M] asked if the equality ${\mathfrak Z}_G = {\mathfrak M}_G$ holds for every group $G$. He himself obtained a positive answer in case $G$ is countable:
\[Markov:theorem\] [(Markov’s theorem [@M])]{} ${\mathfrak Z}_G = {\mathfrak M}_G$ for every countable group $G$.
Moreover, in the same manuscript [@M] Markov attributes to Perel’man the fact that ${\mathfrak Z}_G = {\mathfrak M}_G$ for every Abelian group $G$. To the best of our knowledge the proof of this fact has never appeared in print until [@DS]. (We offer an alternative self-contained proof of this result in Corollary \[Abelian:corollary\].) A consistent example of a group $G$ with ${\mathfrak Z}_G\not={\mathfrak M}_G$ was announced quite recently in [@S1].
Zariski and Markov embeddings {#Relations:between:embeddability}
=============================
If $H$ be a subgroup of a group $G$, then ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H=\{U\cap H: U\in {\mathfrak{Z}}_G\}$ denotes the subspace topology on $H$ generated by ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$, and ${\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H=\{U\cap H: U\in {\mathfrak{M}}_G\}$ denotes the subspace topology on $H$ generated by ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$. Note that one always have ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{Z}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$ and ${\mathfrak{M}}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$. This motivates the following definition:
We say that a subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ is:
- [*Zariski embedded in $G$*]{} provided that ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H = {\mathfrak{Z}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$, i.e., the subspace topology induced on $H$ by the Zariski topology of $G$ coincides with the Zariski topology of $H$,
- [*Markov embedded in $G$*]{} provided that ${\mathfrak{M}}_H = {\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$, i.e., the Markov topology of $H$ coincides with the subspace topology induced on $H$ by the Markov topology of $G$.
We shall see in the sequel that every subgroup $H$ of an Abelian group $G$ is both Zariski embedded and Markov embedded in $G$. For every infinite Abelian group $H$ there exists a (necessarily non-Abelian) group $G$ containing $H$ as a subgroup such that $H$ is not Markov embedded in $G$ (see Remark \[absolutely-Markov:implies:absolutely-Hausdorff?\](ii)). An example of a subgroup $H$ of a (necessarily non-Abelian) group $G$ that is neither Zariski embedded nor Markov embedded in $G$ can be found in Remark \[Example:nonZar/Mar\_embedded\].
Distinguishing Zariski and Markov embeddings is surprisingly difficult. Indeed, our next lemma indicates that the difference, if any, is closely related to Markov’s problem.
\[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\] Let $H$ be a subgroup of a group $G$.
- if ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H={\mathfrak{M}}_H$ and $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$, then $H$ is also Zariski embedded in $G$.
- if ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G={\mathfrak{M}}_G$ and $H$ is Zariski embedded in $G$, then $H$ is also Markov embedded in $G$.
\(a) From Fact \[Markov:stronger:than:Zariski\], we have ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$. Since $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$, we have ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{Z}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H={\mathfrak{M}}_H$. Since ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H ={\mathfrak{M}}_H$, we get ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H= {\mathfrak{Z}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$. This means that $H$ is Zariski embedded in $G$.
\(b) From the assumptions of (b) we get ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H= {\mathfrak{Z}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H= {\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$. Since $ {\mathfrak{Z}}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{M}}_H$, this proves ${\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{M}}_H$. Since the converse inclusion ${\mathfrak{M}}_H\subseteq {\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$ always holds, we obtain ${\mathfrak{M}}_H = {\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$. This means that $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$.
\[Remark:ZvsM\] [ A careful analysis of the above proof reveals that ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H={\mathfrak{M}}_H$ holds under the assumption of item (b) of Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\]. ]{}
\[Markov:embedding:coincides:with:Zariski:embedding:for;countable:groups\] Let $H$ be a countable subgroup of a group $G$.
- If $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$, then $H$ is also Zariski embedded in $G$.
- If, in addition, also $G$ is countable, then $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$ if and only if $H$ is Zariski embedded in $G$.
Immediately follows from Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\] and Fact \[Markov:theorem\].
\[LAST:corollary\] \[Markov:embedding:coincides:with:Zariski:embedding:for\_countable:groups\] Let $H$ be a Markov embedded subgroup of a group $G$ with ${\mathfrak{M}}_G={\mathfrak{Z}}_G$. Then $H$ is Zariski embedded in $G$ if and only if ${\mathfrak{M}}_H={\mathfrak{Z}}_H$.
Apply Remark \[Remark:ZvsM\] and Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\].
[Hausdorff embedding]{}s
========================
[@DS1] A subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ is called:
- [*[Hausdorff embedded]{} in $G$*]{} provided that every Hausdorff group topology $\mathcal{T}$ on $H$ is a restriction of some Hausdorff group topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ on $G$ (and in this case we say that $\mathcal{T}^*$ [*extends $\mathcal{T}$*]{}),
- [*super-normal (in $G$)*]{} provided that for every $x \in G$ there exists $y \in H$ such that $x^{-1}hx=y^{-1}hy$ for all $h \in H$.
Obviously, super-normal subgroups are normal.
\[(b)\] A normal subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ is super-normal if and only if $G= c_G(H) H$, where $c_G(H)$ is the centralizer of $H$ in $G$.
Assume $H$ is super-normal and pick an element $x\in G$. Then there exists $y\in H$ such that $y^{-1}hy=x^{-1}hx$ for all $h \in H$. Then $xy^{-1}\in c_G(H)$, so $x\in c_G(H) H$.
If $G=c_G(H) H$, then for $x\in G$ there exists $y\in H$ such that $x\in c_G(H) y$. This means that $xy^{-1}\in c_G(H)$, and hence $xy^{-1}h=h xy^{-1}$ for all $h \in H$. This yields $y^{-1}hy=x^{-1}hx$ for every $h \in H$.
The lemma gives the following immediate corollary.
\[Cor(b)\] Every direct summand, as well as every central subgroup, is super-normal. In particular, every subgroup of an Abelian group is super-normal.
The next theorem characterizing [Hausdorff embedded]{} normal subgroups is taken from [[@DS1]]{}. We give its proof here for the reader’s convenience.
\[characterization:of:normal:topologically.embedded.subgroups\] Let $N$ be a normal subgroup of the group $G$. Then $N$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} in $G$ iff the automorphisms of $N$ induced by conjugation by elements of $G$ are continuous for any group topology on $N$.
The necessity is obvious since the conjugations are continuous in any topological group. Assume now that all automorphisms of $N$ induced by the conjugation by elements of $G$ are $\mathcal{T}$-continuous for any Hausdorff group topology $\mathcal{T}$ on $N$. Fix a Hausdorff group topology $\mathcal{T}$ on $N$. Take the filter of all neighbourhoods of 1 in $(N,\mathcal{T})$ as a base of neighbourhoods of 1 in a group topology $\sigma$ of $G$. This works since the only axiom to check is to find, for every $x\in G$ and every $\sigma$-neighbourhood $U$ of 1, a $\sigma$-neighbourhood $V$ of 1 such that $V^x:=x^{-1}Vx\subseteq U$. Since we can choose $U,V$ contained in $N$, this immediately follows from our assumption of $\mathcal{T}$-continuity of the restrictions to $N$ of the conjugations in $G$.
\[cyclic:subgroup\] Every normal cyclic subgroup is Hausdorff embedded.
Assume $H$ is a normal cyclic subgroup of a group $G$. Then every automorphism of $H$ is continuous in any group topology of $H$. Therefore, Theorem \[characterization:of:normal:topologically.embedded.subgroups\] applies.
\[super-notmal:implies:topemb\] If a subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ is super-normal in $G$, then $H$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} in $G$.
As $H$ is super-normal, each conjugation by an element of $G$ coincides with the conjugation by some element of $H$, so each such conjugation is continuous in any group topology on $H$. Now Theorem \[characterization:of:normal:topologically.embedded.subgroups\] applies.
The implication in the above corollary is not reversible: a normal [Hausdorff embedded]{} subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ need not be super-normal in $G$ [@DS1].
The following lemma is obvious.
\[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\]\[super-normal:theorem\] Let $H$ be a subgroup of a group $G$. If $H$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} in $G$, then $H$ is also Markov embedded in $G$.
In [@DS1], a normal subgroup of a countable group $G$ is constructed such that $H$ is Zariski embedded in $G$ but not [Hausdorff embedded]{} in $G$. By Corollary \[Markov:embedding:coincides:with:Zariski:embedding:for;countable:groups\](b), $H$ is also Markov embedded in $G$. This shows that the implication of Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\] is not reversible, even for a normal subgroup $H$.
\[former:item:(e)\] [If $h:G\to G_1$ is a group isomorphism and the subgroup $H$ of $G$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} (Markov embedded, Zariski embedded) in $G$, then the subgroup $f(H)$ of $G_1$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} (respectively, Markov embedded, Zariski embedded) in $G_1$. ]{}
Our next result uncovers a curious fact: If a countable subgroup $H$ of a group $G$ fails to be [Hausdorff embedded]{}, then this failure can always be witnessed by some [*metric*]{} group topology on $H$.
\[metric:groups\] Let $H$ be a countable subgroup of a group $G$. If every metric group topology on $H$ can be extended to a (not necessarily metric) group topology on $G$, then $H$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} in $G$.
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a Hausdorff group topology on $H$. Then $\mathcal{T}$ has a countable network, and the main result of [@Shakh] implies that $\mathcal{T}$ is the supremum of some family $\{\mathcal{T}_i:i\in I\}$ of group topologies on $H$ with a countable base. Then each $\mathcal{T}_i$ is metric, and so by the assumption of our lemma, there exists a Hausdorff group topology $\mathcal{T}^*_i$ on $G$ extending $\mathcal{T}_i$. Now the supremum of the family $\{\mathcal{T}^*_i:i\in I\}$ is the Hausdorff group topology on $G$ that obviously induces $\mathcal{T}$ on $H$. Hence, $H$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{}.
Let ${{\mathcal M}}$ (${{\mathcal Z}},{{\mathcal H}}$) denote the class of group embeddings $H\hookrightarrow G$ such that $H$ is Markov (resp., Zariski, Hausdorff) embedded in $G$. Then one can easily verify that ${{\mathcal M}}$, ${{\mathcal Z}}$ and ${{\mathcal H}}$ are stable under composition and left cancellation. More precisely:
\[general:properties:of:MZ:embeddings\] If $H_1 \leq H_2\leq G$ are groups and $i_1:H_1\hookrightarrow H_2$, $i_2:H_2\hookrightarrow G$ and $i_2\circ i_1: H_1\hookrightarrow G$ are the respective inclusions, then:
- $i_1, i_2 \in {{\mathcal M}}$ ($i_1, i_2 \in {{\mathcal Z}}, {{\mathcal H}}$) implies $i_2\circ i_1\in {{\mathcal M}}$ (respectively, $i_2\circ i_1\in {{\mathcal Z}}$, $i_2\circ i_1\in {{\mathcal H}}$);
- if $i_2\circ i_1 \in {{\mathcal M}}$ ($i_2\circ i_1 \in {{\mathcal Z}}, {{\mathcal H}}$) , then also $i_1\in {{\mathcal M}}$ (respectively, $i_1\in {{\mathcal Z}}$, $i_1\in {{\mathcal H}}$).
\[(\*)\] Let $H$ be a subgroup of the direct product $G=G_1\times G_2$. If the subgroup $G_1\cap H$ of $G_1$ is Markov embedded in $G_1$, then $G_1\cap H$ is Markov embedded in $H$ as well.
Indeed, as a direct summand of $G$, $G_1$ is super-normal in $G$. By Corollary \[super-notmal:implies:topemb\] and Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\], $G_1$ is Markov embedded in $G$, so Lemma \[general:properties:of:MZ:embeddings\](a) allows us to conclude that $G_1\cap H$ is Markov embedded in $G$. Applying now Lemma \[general:properties:of:MZ:embeddings\](b) we conclude that $G_1\cap H$ is Markov embedded in $H$.
By Lemma \[general:properties:of:MZ:embeddings\], the classes ${{\mathcal M}}$ and ${{\mathcal H}}$ (of Markov embeddings and [Hausdorff embedding]{}s) are closed under composition and left cancellation. Now we are going to show that these classes are not closed under pullback. More precisely, if $G_1 \hookrightarrow G$ is a [Hausdorff embedding]{} and $H$ is a subgroup of $G$, then we shall see that the induced embedding $G_1\cap H \hookrightarrow H$ need not be even a Markov embedding. We take $G$ of the special form $G=G_1 \times G_2$, so that $G_1 \hookrightarrow G$, being the inclusion of a direct summand, is certainly a [Hausdorff embedding]{}, hence a Markov embedding (Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\]). Then for an appropriate subgroup $H$ of $G=G_1 \times G_2$ we show that $G_1\cap H\hookrightarrow H$ is not a even a Markov embedding. By Lemma \[(\*)\], this will show that also $G_1\cap H\hookrightarrow G_1$ fails to be a Markov embedding.
\[lemma:of:product:of:two\] Let $N$ be a countable Abelian group that admits a decomposition $N=N_1
\times N_2$ into a direct product of two infinite groups $N_1$ and $N_2$. Then there exist a countable group $G'$, a subgroup $H$ of the direct product $G=G_1\times G_2$, where $G_1=G_2=G'$, and a metric group topology $\mathcal{T^*}$ on $G^*=H\cap G_1$ having the following properties:
1. $G^*$ is isomorphic to $N$ and $[H:G^*]=2$,
2. $G^*$ is neither Markov nor Zariski embedded in $H$,
3. $\mathcal{T^*}$ cannot be extended to any Hausdorff group topology on $H$.
By [@DS1 Lemma 3.9], there exists an involution $f$ such that $N$ is not Zariski embedded in the countable semidirect product $G'=N\rtimes\langle f\rangle$. (Here $\langle f\rangle$ denotes the two-element cyclic group generated by the involution $f$.) Since $G'$ is countable, $N$ is not Markov embedded in $G'$ by Corollary \[Markov:embedding:coincides:with:Zariski:embedding:for;countable:groups\]. Define $G_1=G_2=G'$, and let $H$ be the subgroup of $G=G_1\times G_2$ generated by the element $(f,f)\in G$ and the subgroup $N\times \{1_{G_2}\}$ of $G$. Note that the projection $p_1:G=G_1\times G_2\to G_1$ onto the first coordinate sends $H$ isomorphically onto $G_1=G'$ and $p_1(G^*)=N$. This proves (i).
Since $N$ is neither Markov nor Zariski embedded in $G'$ and $p_1$ sends $H$ isomorphically onto $G'$ with $p_1(G^*)=N$, it follows from Remark \[former:item:(e)\] that $G^*$ is neither Markov nor Zariski embedded in $H$. This proves (ii).
To prove (iii), note that $G^*$ is not [Hausdorff embedded]{} in $H$ by item (ii) and Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\]. Since $G^*$ is countable, by Theorem \[metric:groups\] there must exist a metric group topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ on $G^*$ that cannot be extended to any Hausdorff group topology on $H$.
Reflection principle for the Zariski closure operator {#Refl}
=====================================================
If $X$ is a set, then $[X]^{<\omega}$ and $[X]^{\le\omega}$ denote the set of all finite subsets of $X$ and all (at most) countable subsets of $X$, respectively. $\mathbb{N}$ denotes the set of all natural numbers. We need some machinery from set theory useful for carrying out closing off arguments.
Let $\mathcal{C}\subseteq [X]^{\le\omega}$.
- $\mathcal{C}$ is [*closed in $[X]^{\le\omega}$*]{} if, whenever $\{C_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\subseteq \mathcal{C}$ and $C_0\subseteq C_1\subseteq \dots\subseteq C_n\subseteq C_{n+1}\subseteq\dots$, then $\bigcup\{C_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\in \mathcal{C}$,
- $\mathcal{C}$ is [*unbounded in $[X]^{\le\omega}$*]{} provided that for every $Y\in [X]^{\le\omega}$ there exists $C\in\mathcal{C}$ with $Y\subseteq C$,
- $\mathcal{C}$ is a [*club in $[X]^{\le\omega}$*]{} (a common abbreviation for “closed and unbounded”) if $\mathcal{C}$ is both closed and unbounded in $[X]^{\le\omega}$.
For a group $G$ we define $\mathcal{S}(G)=\{H\in[G]^{\le\omega}: H$ is a subgroup of $G\}$. This is a typical example of a club:
\[subgroup:lemma\] If $G$ is a group, then $\mathcal{S}(G)$ is a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$.
As witnessed by (the proof of) the previous lemma, clubs appear naturally in various closing off arguments, and a general scheme that greatly simplifies carrying out such arguments is given below.
Given a set $X$ and a function $\varphi:[X]^{<\omega}\to[X]^{<\omega}$, we say that a subset $Y$ of $X$ is [*$\varphi$-invariant*]{} provided that $\varphi([Y]^{<\omega})\subseteq [Y]^{<\omega}$.
\[closure:lemma\] Given a set $X$ and a function $\varphi:[X]^{<\omega}\to[X]^{<\omega}$, the family $\mathcal{I}(\varphi)=\{Y\in[X]^{\le\omega}: Y$ is $\varphi$-invariant$\}$ is a club in $[X]^{\le\omega}$.
One can easily check that $\mathcal{I}(\varphi)$ is closed in $[X]^{\le\omega}$. Let us show that $\mathcal{I}(\varphi)$ is also unbounded in $[X]^{\le\omega}$. Fix arbitrarily $Y\in [X]^{\le\omega}$. By induction on $n\in\mathbb{N}$ define a sequence $\{Y_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\subseteq [X]^{\le\omega}$ by $Y_0=Y$ and $Y_{n+1}=\bigcup\{\varphi(Z):Z\in[Y_n]^{<\omega}\}\cup Y_n$. Finally, note that $E=\bigcup\{Y_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is $\varphi$-invariant and $Y\subseteq E$.
The following well-known lemma reveals one of the main reasons why clubs are so useful. We briefly outline the proof for the reader’s convenience.
\[intersection:of:clubs\] If $\{\mathcal{C}_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is a sequence of clubs in $[X]^{\le\omega}$, then $\mathcal{C}=\bigcap\{\mathcal{C}_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ is also a club in $[X]^{\le\omega}$.
Clearly, $\mathcal{C}$ is closed in $[X]^{\le\omega}$. Let us show that $\mathcal{C}$ is also unbounded in $[X]^{\le\omega}$. Fix arbitrarily $Y\in [X]^{\le\omega}$. Since each $\mathcal{C}_n$ is unbounded in $[X]^{\le\omega}$, there exists a function $f_n:[X]^{\le\omega}\to \mathcal{C}_n$ such that $Z\subseteq f_n(Z)$ for all $Z\in [X]^{\le\omega}$. Fix an enumeration $\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}=\{(k_n,m_n):n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ of $\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}$. By induction on $n\in\mathbb{N}$ define a sequence $\{Y_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\subseteq [X]^{\le\omega}$ by $Y_0=Y$ and $Y_{n+1}=Y_n\cup f_{k_n}(Y_n)$. Then $C=\bigcup\{Y_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}\in\mathcal{C}$ and $Y\subseteq C$.
Let $G$ be a group. Given $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $a\in G^{n+1}$ and $\varepsilon\in \{-1,1\}^{n+1}$ we define $$E_n({a,\varepsilon}; G)=\{x\in G: x^{\varepsilon(0)}a(0)x^{\varepsilon(1)}a(1)\dots
a(n-1)x^{\varepsilon(n)}=a(n)
\}$$ and $S_n(a,\varepsilon)=\{a(0), a(1),\dots,a(n)\}$. Define $$\mathcal{F}_G=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\{n\}\times G^{n+1}\times \{-1,1\}^{n+1},$$ and for $F\in[\mathcal{F}_G]^{<\omega}\setminus\{\emptyset\}$ let $S(F)=\bigcup \{S_n(a,\varepsilon): (n,a,\varepsilon)\in F\}$. Define also $S(\emptyset)=\emptyset$.
For $F\in [\mathcal{F}_G]^{<\omega}$ define $U_G(F)=G\setminus \bigcup_{(n,a,\varepsilon)\in F} E_n(a,\varepsilon;G)$. Clearly, the family $\{U_G(F):F\in [\mathcal{F}_G]^{<\omega}\}$ forms a base of the Zariski topology ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$ on $G$, and the closure $${\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A=\{z\in G\ :\ \forall\ F\in [\mathcal{F}_G]^{<\omega}\
(z\in U_G(F)\to A\cap U_G(F)\not=\emptyset)\}$$ of a set $A\subseteq G$ in this topology is called the [*[Zariski closure]{} of $A$ in $G$*]{}.
The main result of this section is the following general reflection principle for the Zariski closure.
\[reflection:lemma\] Let $G$ be a group and $A$ a subset of $G$. Then the family $$\mathcal{Z}_A=\{H\in \mathcal{S}(G):{\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H}(H\cap A)= H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A\}$$ contains a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$.
For every $F\in [\mathcal{F}_G]^{<\omega}$, if $A\cap U_G(F)\not=\emptyset$, pick some $$\label{equation.2}
x_{F}\in A\cap U_G(F),$$ and define $x_{F}=e$ otherwise. (Here $e$ denotes the identity element of $G$.)
For $z\in {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A$ define $F_{z}=\emptyset$. For $z\in G\setminus {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A$, choose $F_{z}\in [\mathcal{F}_G]^{<\omega}$ satisfying $$\label{equation.1}
A\cap U_G(F_{z})=\emptyset \mbox{ and }
z\in U_G(F_{z}).$$
Define functions $\varphi_{k}: [G]^{<\omega}\to [G]^{<\omega}$ (for every $k\in\mathbb{N}$) and $\psi:[G]^{<\omega}\to [G]^{<\omega}$ by $$\varphi_{k}(X)=\left\{x_{F}\ \left|\ \ F\subseteq \bigcup_{n\le k} \{n\}\times X^{n+1}\times \{-1,1\}^{n+1}\right\}\right.$$ and $\psi(X)=\bigcup \{S(F_{z}) :{z\in X}\}$ for $X\in [G]^{<\omega}$.
According to Lemmas \[subgroup:lemma\], \[closure:lemma\] and \[intersection:of:clubs\], the family $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{S}(G)\cap\mathcal{I}(\psi)\cap
\bigcap_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\mathcal{I}(\varphi_{k})$ is a club in $[G]^{<\omega}$. It remains only to show that $\mathcal{H}\subseteq \mathcal{Z}_A$.
Fix $H\in \mathcal{H}$. We have to check that ${\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H}(H\cap A)= H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A$. To start with, note that $$\label{equation.5}
U_H(F)=H\cap U_G(F)\mbox{ for every } F\in[\mathcal{F}_H]^{<\omega}.$$
First, let us show that ${\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H} (H\cap A)\subseteq H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A$. Pick arbitrarily $z\in H\setminus {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A\subseteq G\setminus {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A$. By our choice of $F_{z}$, (\[equation.1\]) holds. Note that $S(F_{z})\subseteq \psi(\{z\})\in[H]^{<\omega}$ because $z\in H$ and $H\in\mathcal{I}(\psi)$. Therefore, $S(F_{z})\in [H]^{<\omega}$, which in turn yields $F_{z}\in [\mathcal{F}_H]^{<\omega}$. From (\[equation.5\]), (\[equation.1\]) and $z\in H$ we get $z\in H\cap U_G(F_{z})=U_H(F_{z})$ and $
(H\cap A)\cap U_H(F_{z}) =
(H\cap A)\cap H\cap U_G(F_{z})\subseteq A\cap U_G(F_{z})=\emptyset.
$ This yields $z\not\in{\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H}(H\cap A)$.
Second, let us prove the inverse inclusion $H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A\subseteq {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H} (H\cap A)$. Pick arbitrarily $z\in H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A$. Assume that $F\in[\mathcal{F}_H]^{<\omega}$ and $z\in U_H(F)$. We are going to show that $(H\cap A)\cap U_H(F)\not=\emptyset$. From $z\in H$ and (\[equation.5\]) it now follows that $z\in U_G(F)$. From $F\in[\mathcal{F}_H]^{<\omega}\subseteq [\mathcal{F}_G]^{<\omega}$ and $z\in{\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A$ we must also have $A\cap U_G(F)\not=\emptyset$, and thus (\[equation.2\]) holds by our choice of $x_{F}$.
Let $k=\max\{n\in\mathbb{N}:(n,a,\varepsilon)\in F\}$. Then $x_{F}\in \varphi_{k}(S(F))$. From $F\in[\mathcal{F}_H]^{<\omega}$, it follows that $S(F)\in [H]^{<\omega}$. Since $H\in\mathcal{I}(\varphi_{k})$, $H$ is $\varphi_{k}$-invariant, and thus $\varphi_{k}(S(F))\in [H]^{<\omega}$. We conclude that $x_{F}\in H$. Combining this with (\[equation.2\]) and (\[equation.5\]), we get $$x_{F}\in H\cap (A\cap U_G(F))=(H\cap A)\cap (H\cap U_G(F))
=(H\cap A)\cap U_H(F)\not=\emptyset.$$
From Theorem \[reflection:lemma\] and Lemma \[intersection:of:clubs\], we obtain the following
\[reflection:corollary\] Let $G$ be a group and $\mathcal{A}$ a countable family of subsets of $G$. Then the family $\{H\in \mathcal{S}(G):{\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H}(H\cap A)= H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A\mbox{ for all }A\in\mathcal{A}\}$ contains a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$.
Let $G$ be a group and $\mathcal{A}$ a countable family of ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$-closed subsets of $G$. Then the family $\{H\in \mathcal{S}(G):H\cap A\mbox{ is ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H$-closed for every }A\in\mathcal{A}\}$ contains a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$.
Assume that $G$ is a group, $\mathcal{A}$ a countable family of ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$-closed subsets of $G$ and $X$ is a countable subset of $G$. Then there exists a countable subgroup $H$ of $G$ containing $X$ such that $H\cap A$ is ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H$-closed for each $A\in\mathcal{A}$.
[ For a reader familiar with the notion of elementary submodels we note in passing that an alternative proof of Theorem \[reflection:lemma\] could be furnished using model-theoretic methods. Indeed, the family $\mathcal{C}$ consisting of all intersections $M\cap G$, where $M$ is a countable elementary submodel of (sufficiently large fragment) of the universe containing $(G,\cdot,{}^{-1})$ and $A$, forms a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$ satisfying $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathcal{Z}_A$. ]{}
Characterization of groups for which Markov and Zariski topologies coincide {#applications:section}
===========================================================================
It turns out that the version of reflection for ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$ similar to the one for ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$ obtained in Theorem \[reflection:lemma\] [*characterizes*]{} groups $G$ for which Markov and Zariski topologies coincide.
\[solving:Markov\] For a group $G$ the following conditions are equivalent:
- ${\mathfrak{M}}_G={\mathfrak{Z}}_G$;
- For every set $A\subseteq G$, the family $$\mathcal{M}_A=\{H\in \mathcal{S}(G):{\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{M}}_H}(H\cap A)= H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{M}}_G}A\}$$ contains a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$;
- For every ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$-closed set $A\subseteq G$, the family $\mathcal{E}_A=\{H\in\mathcal{S}(G):H\cap A\mbox{ is ${\mathfrak{M}}_H$-closed}\}$ contains a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$.
(i)$\to$(ii). Let $A$ be a subset of $G$. Applying Theorem \[reflection:lemma\], we conclude that the family $\mathcal{Z}_A$ (as given by Theorem \[reflection:lemma\]) contains some club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$. Therefore, it suffices to show that $\mathcal{Z}_A\subseteq\mathcal{M}_A$. Let $H\in \mathcal{Z}_A$. From (i) and the definition of $\mathcal{Z}_A$, we get ${\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H}(H\cap A)= H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A=H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{M}}_G} A$. Since $H$ is countable, from Fact \[Markov:theorem\] it follows that ${\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{M}}_H}(H\cap A)={\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H}(H\cap A)=H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{M}}_G} A$, which yields $H\in \mathcal{M}_A$.
(ii)$\to$(iii) is trivial.
(iii)$\to$(i). We have to show that every ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$-closed set is ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$-closed. Suppose that some ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$-closed set $A$ is not ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$-closed. Then there exists $g\in {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A\setminus A$. Let $\mathcal{Z}_A$ be the family from the conclusion of Theorem \[reflection:lemma\]. By (ii), Theorem \[reflection:lemma\] and Lemma \[intersection:of:clubs\], $\mathcal{E}_A\cap \mathcal{Z}_A$ contains some club $\mathcal{C}$. Since $\mathcal{C}$ is unbounded, there exists $H\in\mathcal{C}$ with $g\in H$. From $H\in \mathcal{E}_A$, it follows that $H\cap A$ is ${\mathfrak{M}}_H$-closed. Since $H$ is a countable group, $H\cap A$ must also be ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H$-closed by Fact \[Markov:theorem\]. Since $H\in \mathcal{Z}_A$, we have $g\in H\cap {\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_G}A={\mathrm{Cl}}_{{\mathfrak{Z}}_H}(H\cap A)= H\cap A$, in contradiction with $g\not\in A$.
The equality ${\mathfrak{M}}_G={\mathfrak{Z}}_G$ is completely determined by countable subgroups of $G$.
As an application of Theorem \[solving:Markov\], we get a new class of groups $G$ for which ${\mathfrak Z}_G={\mathfrak M}_G$:
\[approximation:theorem\] Let $G$ be a group such that the family $\mathcal{N}_G=\{N\in \mathcal{S}(G): N$ is Markov embedded in $G\}$ contains some club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$. Then Markov and Zariski topologies on $G$ coincide.
Indeed, given ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$-closed set $A\subseteq G$, we have $\mathcal{N}_G\subseteq \mathcal{M}_A$, and the conclusion follows from the implication (iii)$\to$(i) of Theorem \[solving:Markov\].
[[@DS]]{} \[Abelian:corollary\] Markov and Zariski topologies coincide for Abelian groups.
Let $H$ be a subgroup of an Abelian group $G$. By Corollary \[Cor(b)\], $H$ is super-normal in $G$. Hence, by Corollary \[super-notmal:implies:topemb\] and Lemma \[super-normal:theorem\], $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$. We have proved that $\mathcal{S}(G)\subseteq \mathcal{N}_G$. Now the conclusion of our corollary follows from Lemma \[subgroup:lemma\] and Corollary \[approximation:theorem\].
Markov [@M] has attributed (the equivalent form of) Corollary \[Abelian:corollary\] to Perel’man. To the best of our knowledge the proof has never appeared in print until [@DS]. (In the particular case when $G$ is almost torsion-free[^3] the equality ${\mathfrak
Z}_G={\mathfrak M}_G$ was earlier proved in [@TY].) In fact, [@DS] also offers a much stronger version of this result.
Our next result is a counterpart of Corollary \[Markov:embedding:coincides:with:Zariski:embedding:for;countable:groups\](a).
\[Mar:Embedded>Zariski:Embedded:corollary\] Let $H$ be an Abelian subgroup of a group $G$. If $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$, then $H$ is also Zariski embedded in $G$.
${\mathfrak{Z}}_H={\mathfrak{M}}_H$ by Corollary \[Abelian:corollary\]. Now Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\] (a) applies.
Let $\{G_i:i\in I\}$ be a family of groups. We denote by $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$ the set of all functions $g: I\to \bigcup_{i\in I} G_i$ such that $g(i)\in G_i$ for all $i\in I$ and the set $\{i\in I: g(i)\not= 1_i\}$ is finite. (Here $1_i$ denotes the identity element of $G_i$.) For $g,h\in \bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$ define functions $gh: I\to \bigcup_{i\in I} G_i$ and $g^{-1}:I\to \bigcup_{i\in I} G_i$ by $gh(i)=g(i)h(i)$ and $g^{-1}(i)=(g(i))^{-1}$ for all $i\in I$. It is easy to check that with these two operations $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$ becomes a group which we will call the [*direct sum*]{} of the family $\{G_i:i\in I\}$. While this notation and terminology is common in commutative group theory, non-commutative group theorists often call $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$ the [*direct product*]{} of the family $\{G_i:i\in I\}$ and use product notation $\prod_{i\in I} G_i$ instead of $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$. Since the former notation could easily lead to confusion with [*Cartesian products*]{}, especially among topologists, we decided to use the “commutative looking” notation $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$ instead of $\prod_{i\in I} G_i$ common in non-commutative group theory. However, for a [*finite*]{} family of groups $G_1,G_2,\dots, G_n$ we will use the product notation $G_1\times G_2\times \dots \times G_n$ instead of $G_1\oplus G_2\oplus \dots \oplus G_n$.
Our next lemma exhibits a particular situation when the assumption of Corollary \[approximation:theorem\] holds:
\[countable:summands\] Let $G=N\times \left(\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i\right)$, where $N$ is an Abelian group and each group $G_i$ is countable. Then the family $$\mathcal{C}=\left\{N'\times\left(\bigoplus_{j\in J} G_j\right): J\in[I]^{\le\omega} \mbox{ and }N'\in\mathcal{S}(N)\right\}$$ is a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$ such that $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathcal{N}_G$.
$\mathcal{C}$ is trivially a club in $[G]^{\le\omega}$. Let us see that $N'\times\left(\bigoplus_{j\in J} G_j\right)$ is Markov embedded into $G$ for every $J\in [I]^{\le\omega}$ and each countable subgroup $N'$ of $N$. As a direct summand, the subgroup $\bigoplus_{j\in J} G_j$ of $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$ is super-normal in $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$. The subgroup $N'$ of the Abelian group $N$ is trivially super-normal in $N$. This implies that $N'\times\left(\bigoplus_{j\in J} G_j\right)$ is super-normal in $N\times \left(\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i\right)=G$. From Corollary \[super-notmal:implies:topemb\] and Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\], we now conclude that $N'\times\left(\bigoplus_{j\in J} G_j\right)$ is Markov embedded in $G$.
\[direct:sum:corollary\] If $G=N\times\left(\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i\right)$, where $N$ is an Abelian group and each group $G_i$ is countable, then Markov and Zariski topologies on $G$ coincide.
Apply Corollary \[approximation:theorem\] and Lemma \[countable:summands\].
\[direct:sum:corollary2\] If $G=\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$, where each group $G_i$ is countable, then Markov and Zariski topologies on $G$ coincide.
In our last lemma we offer a formal extension of the last corollary to certain subgroups of direct sums of countable groups.
\[co:summands\] Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G= \bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$, where each group $G_i$ is countable. For every $J\in [I]^{\le\omega}$ define $G_J= \bigoplus_{i\in J} G_i$ and $H_J=H\cap G_J$. If the family $\mathcal{J}=\{J\in [I]^{\le\omega}: H_J\in \mathcal{N}_{G_J}\}$ contains a club in $[I]^{\le\omega}$, then Markov and Zariski topologies on $H$ coincide.
Fix $J\in\mathcal{J}$. Note that $G=G_J\times G_{I\setminus J}$ and $H_J=G_J\cap H$ is Markov embedded in $G_J$ by the definition of $\mathcal{J}$. Applying Lemma \[(\*)\] we conclude that $H_J$ is Markov embedded in $H$ as well. Thus $H_J\in\mathcal{N}_H$.
Let $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathcal{J}$ be a club in $[I]^{\le\omega}$. Consider the map $\theta:[I]^{\le\omega}\to [H]^{\le\omega}$ defined by $\theta(J)=H_J$ for every $J\in[I]^{\le\omega}$. Note that $\theta$ is monotone, i.e., $J,J'\in [I]^{\le\omega}$ and $J\subseteq J'$ implies $H_J=\theta(J)\subseteq
\theta(J')=H_{J'}$. From this one can easily conclude that $\{\theta(J):J\in\mathcal{C}\}=\{H_J:J\in\mathcal{C}\}$ is a club in $[H]^{\le\omega}$. The conclusion of our lemma now follows from Corollary \[approximation:theorem\].
Connections with non-topologizable groups
=========================================
\[Def:topologizable\] [Recall that a group $G$ is said to be [*non-topologizable*]{} if the only Hausdorff group topology of $G$ is the discrete one. A group $G$ is [*topologizable*]{} if it admits a non-discrete Hausdorff group topology. ]{}
\[non-topologizable:lemma\]
- $G$ is non-topologizable if and only if ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$ is discrete.
- If ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$ is discrete, then $G$ is non-topologizable.
Item (i) is obvious. Item (ii) follows from Fact \[Markov:stronger:than:Zariski\] and item (i).
The following lemma is easy to check.
\[discrete:Zariski\] The Zariski topology ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$ of a group $G$ is discrete if and only if there exist elementary algebraic sets $E_1, \ldots ,E_n$ such that $E_1\cup \ldots \cup E_n=G\setminus \{e_G\}$.
The problem to construct a (countable) non-topologizable group was raised by Markov and resolved consistently in [@Shelah] (see more details in Remark \[Shelah’s\_example\] (iii)). In [@O] Ol$'$shanskij used Lemma \[non-topologizable:lemma\](ii) and \[discrete:Zariski\] to produce the first ZFC solution of Markov’s problem on the existence of non-topologizable countable groups (Ol$'$shanskij used an appropriate quotient of the (countable) Adian group $A(n,m)$).
Now we give a sufficient condition (due to Shelah) that ensures that an uncountable group is non-topologizable.
\[discrete:Markov\] [(Shelah)]{} An uncountable group $G$ is non-topologizable whenever the following two conditions hold:
- there exists $m\in {{\mathbb N}}$ such that $A^m=G$ for every subset $A$ of $G$ with $|A|=|G|$;
- for every subgroup $H$ of $G$ with $|H|<|G|$ there exist $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and $x_1, \ldots, x_n\in G$ such that the intersection $\bigcap_{i=1}^n x_i^{-1}Hx_i$ is finite.
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a Hausdorff group topology on $G$. There exists a $\mathcal{T}$-neighbourhood $V$ of $e_G$ with $V\ne G$. Choose a $\mathcal{T}$-neighbourhood $W$ of $e_G$ with $W^m\subseteq V$. Now $V\ne G$ and (a) yield $|W|<|G|$. Let $H=\langle W \rangle$. Then $|H|=|W|\cdot\omega<|G|$. By (b) the intersection $O=\bigcap_{i=1}^n x_i^{-1}Hx_i$ is finite for some $n\in {{\mathbb N}}$ and elements $x_1, \ldots, x_n\in G$. Since each $x_i^{-1}Hx_i$ is a $\mathcal{T}$-neighbourhood of $e_G$, this proves that $e_G\in O\in\mathcal{T}$. Since $\mathcal{T}$ is Hausdorff, it follows that $\{e_G\}$ is $\mathcal{T}$-open, and therefore $\mathcal{T}$ is discrete.
\[Shelah’s\_example\]
- Note that in item (b) the number $n$ may depend of $H$, while in item (a) the number $m$ is [*the same*]{} for all $A\in [G]^{|G|}$. (Indeed, one can easily see that in the circle group $G={{\mathbb T}}$, written additively, every neighbourhood $A$ of 0 in the usual topology satisfies $mA=G$ for some $m$ [*depending on*]{} $A$.)
- Even the weaker form of (a) (with $m$ depending on $A\in [G]^{|G|}$), yields that every proper subgroup of $G$ has size $<|G|$ (in the case $|G|=\omega_1$, the groups with this property are known as [*Kurosh groups*]{}, the first consistent example of a Kurosh group was given in [@Shelah]).
- The above criterion was used by [Shelah]{} [@Shelah] to produce the first consistent example of a non-topologizable group (he worked under the assumption of CH and produced a group $G$ of size $\omega_1$ satisfying (a) with $m=10000$ and (b) with $n=2$).
\[Examples1\]
- If $G$ is non-topologizable, then the Markov embedded subgroups of $G$ are non-topologizable as well. In particular, no infinite Abelian subgroup of $G$ is Markov embedded in $G$. More specifically, in a torsion-free non-topologizable group $G$ all cyclic subgroups are not Markov embedded.
- Every non-topologizable group $H$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} (and thus Markov embedded) in any ambient group $G$.
\(a) ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$ is discrete by Lemma \[non-topologizable:lemma\](i). If $H$ is a Markov embedded subgroup of $G$, then ${\mathfrak{M}}_H={\mathfrak{M}}_G{\upharpoonright}_H$ must be discrete as well. Applying Lemma \[non-topologizable:lemma\](i) once again, we conclude that $H$ is non-topologizable.
\(b) Let $H$ be a non-topologizable subgroup of a group $G$. If $\mathcal{T}$ is a Hausdorff group topology on $H$, then $\mathcal{T}$ must be discrete, and so we can trivially extend $\mathcal{T}$ by taking the discrete topology on $G$.
\[absolute:markov\] For a group $H$ the following conditions are equivalent:
- $H$ is Markov embedded in every group $G$ that contains it as a subgroup,
- $H$ is non-topologizable.
(i)$\to$(ii). According to [@T], $H$ admits an embedding into some non-topologizable group $G$. Since ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$ is discrete, from (i) we conclude that ${\mathfrak{M}}_H$ must also be discrete. Hence $H$ is non-topologizable.
(ii)$\to$(i) follows from Lemma \[Examples1\](b) and Theorem \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\].
\[absolutely-Markov:implies:absolutely-Hausdorff?\]
- Lemma \[absolute:markov\] should be compared to Theorem \[Main:theorem\]. According to Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\] for countable groups $H$ Theorem \[Main:theorem\] along with Corollary \[Mar:Embedded>Zariski:Embedded:corollary\] provides many examples of countable Abelian groups that are Markov embedded in every subgroup where they are embedded as a [*normal*]{} subgroup.
- According to Lemma \[absolute:markov\] no infinite Abelian group $H$ can be Markov embedded in every group containing $H$ as a subgroup (as infinite Abelian groups are topologizable).
According to [@KT] there exists a countable torsion-free non-topologizable group $G$. Hence for this group no cyclic subgroup $C$ is Markov embedded into $G$ by Lemma \[Examples1\]. The next proposition yields that none of them is a [*normal*]{} subgroup of $G$.
\[cyclic:subgroups\] If a group $G$ has an infinite cyclic subgroup as a normal subgroup, then $G$ is topologizable.
Assume $H$ is an infinite normal cyclic subgroup of $G$. Then $H$ is Hausdorff embedded in $G$ by Corollary \[cyclic:subgroup\]. So $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$ as well (Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\]). Since ${\mathfrak{M}}_H$ is non-discrete, it follows that ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$ is non-discrete as well. Hence $G$ is topologizable.
\[topologization:criterion:using:Zariski:topology\] Let $G$ be a countable group for which the Zariski topology ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$ is not discrete. Then $G$ is topologizable.
Since ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G={\mathfrak{M}}_G$ by Fact \[Markov:theorem\], from our assumption it follows that ${\mathfrak{M}}_G$ is not discrete. Now apply Lemma \[non-topologizable:lemma\](i).
\[topologizable:corollary\] Let $G$ be an infinite countable group such that ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G$ is compact. Then $G$ is topologizable.
An infinite compact space cannot be discrete, and the result follows from Lemma \[topologization:criterion:using:Zariski:topology\].
\[(a\*)fails\]
- According to Remark \[Remark:ZvsM\], item (b) of Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\] has the following stronger (but non-symmetric) form: (b$^*$) [*If ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G={\mathfrak{M}}_G$ and $H$ is Zariski embedded in $G$, then $H$ is also Markov embedded in $G$ and ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H={\mathfrak{M}}_H$.*]{}
- According to [@S1] there exists a countable non-topologizable subgroup $H$ of a non-topologizable group $G$ with ${\mathfrak{M}}_G \ne {\mathfrak{Z}}_G$. Then ${\mathfrak{M}}_H$ is the discrete topology of $H$, thus $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$ by item (b) of Example \[Examples1\]. Since $H$ is countable, ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H={\mathfrak{M}}_H$ (Fact \[Markov:theorem\]), and so the topology ${\mathfrak{Z}}_H$ is discrete. Therefore, $H$ is also Zariski embedded in $G$ by item (a) of Lemma \[Markov:embedding:coincides:with:Zariski:embedding:for;countable:groups\]. We see that $H$ is both Markov and Zariski embedded in $G$, and yet ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G\ne {\mathfrak{M}}_G$. Therefore, the stronger form (a$^*$) of item (a) of Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\] obtained by adding the condition ${\mathfrak{Z}}_G = {\mathfrak{M}}_G$ to the conclusion of (a) may fail.
- Item (i) and Remark \[Remark:ZvsM\] explain why we preferred to announce Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\] in its present form that gives a pleasing symmetry between items (a) and (b) of this lemma.
Absolutely [Hausdorff embedding]{}s and a gap in [@S2] {#error:section}
======================================================
Recall that an Abelian group $G$ is called [*indecomposable*]{} if for every direct product decomposition $G=G'\times G''$ either $G'=\{0\}$ or $G''=\{0\}$.
[@DS1] A group $G$ is called:
- [*absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{}*]{} provided that $G$ is [Hausdorff embedded]{} in every group $H$ containing $G$ as a normal subgroup.
- [*absolutely Zariski embedded*]{} provided that $G$ is Zariski embedded in every group $H$ containing $G$ as a normal subgroup.
By Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\] and Corollary \[Mar:Embedded>Zariski:Embedded:corollary\] every absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{} Abelian group is also absolutely Zariski embedded. Even if the latter property may seem weaker, one can show that it imposes a very strong restraint on the structure of an Abelian group.
\[Main:theorem\] [@DS1] Every absolutely Zariski embedded (in particular, every absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{}) Abelian group is indecomposable.
\[Example:nonZar/Mar\_embedded\] [ Let $H$ be a decomposable Abelian group. By Theorem \[Main:theorem\], there exists a group $G$ containing $H$ as a (normal) subgroup such that $H$ is not Zariski embedded in $G$. By Corollary \[Mar:Embedded>Zariski:Embedded:corollary\], $H$ is not Markov embedded in $G$ either. ]{}
The next characterization obtained in [@DS1] shows, among other things, that divisible Abelian groups are never absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{}:
\[2main:theorem\][@DS1] An Abelian group $G$ is absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{} if and only if the identity map $id_G$ of $G$ and minus the identity map $-id_G$ of $G$ are the only automorphisms of $G$.
In [@S2] the author takes a subgroup $H$ of a direct product $G=\prod_{\alpha\in I} G_\alpha$ of countable groups $G_\alpha$, then finds a countable set $I^*\subseteq I$ and considers the countable normal subgroup $G^*=H\cap \prod_{\alpha\in I} G^*_\alpha$ of $H$, where $G^*_\alpha=G_\alpha$ for $\alpha\in I^*$ and $G^*_\alpha=\{1_\alpha\}$ for $\alpha\in I\setminus I^*$. (Here $1_\alpha$ denotes the identity element of $G_\alpha$.) Then a metric group topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ on $G^*$ is constructed, and the author says: “[*Since $G^*$ is a normal subgroup of $H$, the neighbourhoods of the identity in the topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ form a neighbourhood base of the identity of some group topology $\mathcal{T}$ on $H$.*]{}” The author than employs this topology $\mathcal{T}$ on $H$ to finish the proof of the main result of [@S2]: ${\mathfrak{M}}_H={\mathfrak{Z}}_H$ for such an $H$. (Apparently, the product $\prod_{\alpha\in I} G_\alpha$ in the author’s terminology is what we call a direct sum $\bigoplus_{\alpha\in I} G_\alpha$.)
The italicized statement above is an [*essential gap*]{} in the proof of the main result of [@S2], and so the result itself should be considered an unsolved open problem (see our Question \[subgroups:of:products:question\]). Indeed, for this proof to work one has to extend a Hausdorff group topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ on $G^*$ to some Hausdorff group topology $\mathcal{T}$ on a bigger group $H$ containing $G^*$ as a normal subgroup. Since [*a priori*]{} there is no control whatsoever either over the topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ on $G^*$ or the ambient group $H$ this appears impossible unless the group $G^*$ in question is [Hausdorff embedded]{} in [*every*]{} group $H$ containing $G^*$ as a normal subgroup. That is, $G^*$ apparently must be absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{}. Indeed, our next lemma clearly demonstrates the inherent non-triviality of this extension problem.
\[metric:witness\] Let $G^*$ be a countable group that is not absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{}. Then there exists a group $H^*$ containing $G^*$ as a normal subgroup of countable index and a metric group topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ on $G^*$ that cannot be extended to any Hausdorff group topology on $H^*$.
Indeed, by our assumption and a result from [@DS1] there exists a group $H^*$ containing $G^*$ as a normal subgroup of countable index such that $G^*$ is not [Hausdorff embedded]{} in $H^*$. By Theorem \[metric:groups\], there must exist a metric group topology $\mathcal{T}^*$ on $G^*$ that cannot be extended to any Hausdorff group topology on $H^*$.
From this lemma we ought to conclude that the proof of the main result of [@S2] could possibly work only in the case when $G^*$ is absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{}. The class of (countable) absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{} groups is extremely narrow. Indeed, according to Theorems \[2main:theorem\] and \[Main:theorem\], an Abelian absolutely [Hausdorff embedded]{} group $G^*$ must be indecomposable and every automorphism of $G^*$ must be either the identity map of $G^*$ or minus the identity map of $G^*$.
A persistent reader might still feel that there are yet additional circumstances in the setting of [@S2] that are not accounted for in Lemma \[metric:witness\]. Indeed, the group $G^*$ in question appears to be “nicely embedded” in the direct product. However, Lemma \[lemma:of:product:of:two\] demonstrates that this is a mere illusion. From this lemma one has to conclude the following: Given a subgroup $H$ of the square $G'\times G'$ of a countable group $G'$, one cannot reasonably expect to be able to extend a metric group topology from the (normal) subgroup $G^*=H\cap(G'\times\{1_{G'}\})$ of $H$ to any Hausdorff group topology on $H$ unless $G^*$ does not admit a decomposition $G^*=G_1\times G_2$ such that both groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ are infinite. Moreover, if $G^*$ has such a decomposition, then $G^*$ may even fail to be both Markov embedded in $H$ and Zariski embedded in $H$.
Final remarks and open questions
================================
Let $\mathcal{MZ}$ be the class of groups $G$ for which Markov and Zariski topologies coincide: ${\mathfrak{M}}_G={\mathfrak{Z}}_G$.
It might be tempting to generalize Corollary \[direct:sum:corollary2\] even further:
\[subgroups:of:products:question\] Let $G$ be a subgroup of a direct sum of countable groups. Does $G$ belong to $\mathcal{MZ}$?
An attempt of providing a positive answer to this question has been recently made in [@S2] but the proof contains essential errors that were pointed out in Section \[error:section\].
Since every Abelian group is a subgroup of a direct sum of countable groups, a positive answer to Question \[subgroups:of:products:question\] would yield that Corollaries \[direct:sum:corollary\] and \[direct:sum:corollary2\] are equivalent. A rather limited partial positive answer to Question \[subgroups:of:products:question\] can be found in Lemma \[co:summands\].
\[Ques4\]
- Is $\mathcal{MZ}$ closed under finite direct sums?
- Is $\mathcal{MZ}$ closed under arbitrary direct sums?
\[Ques5\] Let $H$ be an Abelian subgroup of $G$.
- If index of $H$ in $G$ is finite, does $G$ belong to $\mathcal{MZ}$?
- If index of $H$ in $G$ is countable, does $G$ belong to $\mathcal{MZ}$?
What is the answer to both items (i) and (ii) if one additionally assumes that $H$ is a normal subgroup of $G$?
As witnessed by Lemma \[Markov:vs:Zariski:embedding\], the following question is ultimately related to the Markov’s problem:
Let $H$ be a (normal) subgroup of a group $G$.
- If $H$ is Markov embedded in $G$, must $H$ also be Zariski embedded in $G$?
- If $H$ is Zariski embedded in $G$, must it also be Markov embedded in $G$?
Our next two questions should be compared with Lemma \[absolute:markov\].
Describe the class of groups $G$ such that $G$ is Markov embedded in every group that contains $G$ as a normal subgroup.
Note that an Abelian group $G$ with the above property must be absolutely Zariski embedded by Corollary \[Mar:Embedded>Zariski:Embedded:corollary\], hence $G$ must be indecomposable by Theorem \[Main:theorem\].
Let $H$ be a group that is Zariski embedded in every group $G$ containing $H$ as a subgroup. Must $H$ be non-topologizable?
Let $\{G_i:i\in I\}$ be a family of groups, and for every $i\in I$, let $H_i$ be a [Hausdorff embedded]{} subgroup of $G_i$. Then the Cartesian product $\prod_{i\in I} H_i$ is a [Hausdorff embedded]{} subgroup of the Cartesian product $\prod_{i\in I} G_i$. Similarly, the direct sum $\bigoplus_{i\in I} H_i$ is a [Hausdorff embedded]{} subgroup of the direct sum $\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i$. In other words, the class $\mathcal{H}$ of [Hausdorff embedding]{}s is closed under both Cartesian products and direct sums. We do not know whether the remaining two classes $\mathcal{M}$ of Markov embeddings and ${{\mathcal Z}}$ of Zariski embeddings are closed under taking Cartesian products and direct sums. In fact, even in the weakest possible form, this is an open question:
\[Question:productivity\] Assume $H_1$ is Markov (Zariski) embedded in $G_1$. Is it true that for every group $G_2$ the subgroup $H_1\times G_2$ of $G=G_1\times G_2$ is Markov (Zariski) embedded in $G$?
[If Question \[Question:productivity\] has a positive answer in the particular case when $H_1$ is a Zariski embedded subgroup of an Abelian group $G_1$, then the more general Corollary \[direct:sum:corollary\] would follow from the less general Corollary \[direct:sum:corollary2\]. Indeed, let $D$ be any divisible Abelian group containing $N$ (for example, the divisible hull of $N$). Then $D$ is a direct sum of countable groups [@Fuchs]. Therefore, for the group $\widetilde{G}= D\times\left(\bigoplus_{i\in I} G_i\right)$ one has ${\mathfrak{M}}_{\widetilde{G}}={\mathfrak{Z}}_{\widetilde{G}}$ by Corollary \[direct:sum:corollary2\]. Since $D$ is Abelian, $N$ is super-normal in $D$ (Corollary \[Cor(b)\]), and thus $N$ is Markov embedded in $D$ by Corollary \[super-notmal:implies:topemb\] and Lemma \[topological:embedding:implies:markov:embedding\]. By Corollary \[Mar:Embedded>Zariski:Embedded:corollary\], $N$ is also Zariski embedded in $D$. According to the presumed positive answer of Question \[Question:productivity\] in this case, $G$ now becomes Zariski embedded in $\widetilde{G}$. Since ${\mathfrak{M}}_{\widetilde{G}}={\mathfrak{Z}}_{\widetilde{G}}$, Remark \[Remark:ZvsM\] would finally yield ${\mathfrak{M}}_G={\mathfrak{Z}}_G$. ]{}
[9999]{}
R. Bryant, [*The verbal topology of a group*]{}, J. Algebra [**48**]{} (1977), no. 2, 340–346.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov, [*On the Markov-Zariski topology of an Abelian group*]{}, Preprint 2003.
D. Dikranjan and D. Shakhmatov, [*Extension of group topologies and Zariski embeddings*]{}, Preprint 2007.
L. Fuchs, *Infinite abelian groups*, vol. I and II, Academic Press New York and London (1973).
A. A. Klyachko and A. V. Trofimov, [*The number of non-solutions of an equation in a group*]{}, J. Group Theory [**8**]{} (2005), no. 6, 747–754.
A.A. Markov, [*On unconditionally closed sets,*]{} In: Topology and Topological Algebra, Translations Series 1, vol. 8, pages 273–304. American Math. Society, 1962. Russian original in: Comptes Rendus Dokl. AN SSSR (N.S.) [**44**]{} (1944), 180–181.
Ol$'$shankij, [*A note on countable non-topologizable groups*]{}, Vestnik Mosk. Gos. Univ. Mat. Mekh., 3:103, 1980.
D. Shakhmatov, [*On one-to-one continuous mappings of universal topological algebras which preserve continuity of operations and decrease the weight*]{}, Vestnik Moskov. Univ. Ser I Matem. Mekh. 2 (1984), 42–45 (in Russian); English transl., Moscow Univ. Math. Bulletin 39 (2) (1984), 57–60.
S. Shelah, [*On a problem of Kurosh, Jonsson groups, and applications*]{}, In [*Word Problems II*]{}, Ed. by S. I. Adian, W. W. Boone, and G. Higman, 373–394. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.
O. Sipacheva, [*Consistent Solution of Markov’s Problem*]{}, Preprint available at ArXiv:math.GR/0608885.
O. Sipacheva, [*A class of groups in which all unconditionally closed sets are algebraic*]{}, Preprint available at ArXiv:math.GR/0610430v1.
M.G. Tkachenko and I. Yaschenko, [*Independent group topologies on Abelian groups,*]{} Topology Appl. [**122**]{} (2002), 425–451.
A. V. Trofimov, [*A theorem on embedding into a nontopologizable group*]{}, Vestnik Moskov. Univ. Ser. I Mat. Mekh. (2005), no. 3, 60–62 (in Russian); English transl. in: Moscow Univ. Math. Bull. [**60**]{} (2005), no. 3, 42–44.
[^1]: Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Unive rsità di Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy; [*e-mail*]{}: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Division of Mathematics, Physics and Earth Sciences, Ehime University, Matsuyama 790-8577, Japan; [*e-mail*]{}: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: An Abelian group $G$ is [ *almost torsion-free*]{} if $G[n]=\{g\in G: ng=0\}$ is finite for every $n>1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a quantum algorithm for combinatorial optimization using the cost structure of the search states. Its behavior is illustrated for overconstrained satisfiability and asymmetric traveling salesman problems. Simulations with randomly generated problem instances show each step of the algorithm shifts amplitude preferentially towards lower cost states, thereby concentrating amplitudes into low-cost states, on average. These results are compared with conventional heuristics for these problems.'
author:
- |
**Tad Hogg[^1]\
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center\
3333 Coyote Hill Road\
Palo Alto, CA 94304\
[email protected] **Dmitriy Portnov\
Computer Science and Engineering Dept.\
Univ. of Washington\
Seattle, WA 98105\
[email protected]****
title: '**Quantum Optimization**'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum computers [@deutsch85; @divincenzo95] operate on superpositions of all classical search states, allowing them to evaluate properties of all states in about the same time a classical machine requires for a single evaluation. This property is known as quantum parallelism. Superpositions are described by a state vector, consisting of complex numbers, called amplitudes, associated with the classical states.
Most quantum search algorithms focus on decision problems, which have an efficiently computable test of whether a given state is a solution. Without using any information about the problems beyond this test, quantum computers give a quadratic improvement in search speed by using amplitude amplification [@grover96; @boyer96]. Using more information gives further improvement in some cases [@grover97b; @hogg98; @hogg00; @spector99], but it remains to be seen how much improvement is possible for large, difficult search problems.
Some combinatorial searches have so many desired properties for a solution that none of the search states satisfy all of them, i.e., there is no solution. In such cases, one often instead asks for a state with as many desirable properties as possible [@freuder92]. More generally, each state has an associated cost and the goal is to find a minimum-cost state. Such optimization searches can be treated as a series of decision problems with different assumed values for the minimum cost. However many classical heuristics for optimization problems find low-cost states directly, although these are not guaranteed to be the actual minimum. This raises the question of whether quantum algorithms can show similar behavior since amplitude amplification does not directly apply to optimization problems where the minimum cost is not known a priori.
As a direct approach to optimizaton problems, this paper examines algorithms mixing amplitudes among different states so as to gradually shift the bulk of the amplitude toward states with relatively low costs, a technique previously applied to a decision problem [@hogg00]. Like many classical methods, the resulting quantum algorithms are heuristic (i.e., not guaranteed to find the minimum-cost state) and incomplete (i.e., even if such a state is found, the algorithm provides no definite indication that it is indeed a minimum). In common with most studies of heuristic methods, we evaluate their typical behavior on classes of problems rather than determining worst-case bounds (which are often far more pessimistic than typical behaviors). Specifically, the next section presents the quantum algorithm in the context of a general optimization problem, and contrasts it with amplitude amplification. The following two sections then examine instances of the algorithm suitable for overconstrained satisfiability problems (SAT) and asymmetric traveling salesman problems (ATSP).
Optimization Algorithm
======================
The quantum optimization algorithm presented here operates on superpositions of all search states, and attempts to find a state with relatively low cost. The cost associated with each search state is used to adjust the phase of the state’s amplitude, and a mixing operation combines amplitudes from different states.
More specifically, the overall algorithm consists of a number of independent trials, each of which returns a single state after the final measurement. The number of trials can be fixed in advance if some (hopefully low-cost) state is required within a preset time bound, or can continue until some other criterion is satisfied, e.g., a sufficiently low cost state is found or a long series of trials gives no further improvement. In this respect, this algorithm is similar to incomplete classical heuristics which tend to give low-cost states but do not guarantee to find the absolute minimum. Moreover, even when the minimum is found, the algorithm offers no guarantee that this is indeed the minimum cost so that further trials will not give a lower cost.
A Single Trial
--------------
A single trial of the algorithm on a quantum computer with ${ n }$ bits to represent the search state consists of the following efficiently implementable [@boyer96; @hogg98b] steps:
1. initialize the amplitude equally among the states, giving $\psi_s^{(0)} =
2 ^ {-{ n }/2}$ for each of the $2^{ n }$ states $s$.
2. for steps 1 through $j$, adjust amplitude phases based on the costs associated with the states and then mix them. These operations correspond to matrix multiplication of the state vector, with the final state vector given by: $$\label{map}
\psi^{(j)} = U^{(j)} P^{(j)} \ldots U^{(1)} P^{(1)} \psi^{(0)},$$ where, for step $h$, $U^{(h)}$ is the mixing matrix and $P^{(h)}$ is the phase matrix, as described below.
3. measure the final superposition, giving state $s$ with probability $p(s) = | \psi^{(j)}_s |^2$. Thus the probability to obtain a minimum cost state with a single trial is ${ {P_{\rm min}} }= \sum_s p(s)$ where the sum is over those $s$ with the minimum cost.
The mixing matrix is $U^{(h)} = W T^{(h)} W$, where, for states $r$ and $s$, $W_{rs} = 2^{-{ n }/2}(-1)^{|r \wedge s|}$ is the Walsh transform and $|r \wedge s|$ is the number of 1-bits the states have in common. The matrix $T^{(h)}$ is diagonal with elements depending on $|s|$, the number of 1-bits state $s$ contains: $T^{(h)}_{ss} =
t^{(h)}_{|s|}$ with $$\label{tmatrix}
t^{(h)}_b = e^{i\pi \tau_h b}$$ where $\tau_h$ is a constant depending on the class of problems and the number of steps, but not the particular problem instance being solved. From these definitions, the elements $U^{(h)}_{r s}$ depend only on the Hamming distance between the states, $d(r,s)$, i.e., the number of bits with different values in the two states. That is, we can write $U^{(h)}_{r s} = u^{(h)}_{d(r,s)}$, with $u^{(h)}_d = ( -i
\tan(\pi \tau_h/2) )^d$, up to an overall phase and normalization constant [@hogg00].
The phase adjustment matrix, $P^{(h)}$, is a unitary diagonal matrix depending on the problem instance we’re solving, with values determined by the cost associated with each state: $P^{(h)}_{rr} =
p^{(h)}_{c(r)}$ and $$\label{phasematrix}
p^{(h)}_c = e^{ i \pi \rho_h c }$$ where $\rho_h$ is a constant and $c(r)$ is the cost associated with search state $r$.
This algorithm has the same overall structure as amplitude amplification [@grover96]. In fact, it reduces to amplitude amplification if we define the “cost” of a search state to be 0 for a solution and 1 otherwise and make the choices $t^{(h)}_0 = -1$, $t^{(h)}_b = 1$ for $b>0$, $p^{(h)}_0 = -1$ and $p^{(h)}_1 = 1$ for all steps $h$. Note that for optimization problems where the minimum cost is not known a priori, none of the states will be solutions and amplitude amplification gives no enhancement in the minimum-cost states. On the other hand, the multiple trials of this optimization algorithm could be combined with amplitude amplification to achieve a further quadratic improvement if the minimum cost were known or through a series of repetitions using different assumed values for the minimum [@brassard98].
Applying the Algorithm
----------------------
Completing the specification of the algorithm requires the number of steps $j$ and values for the phase parameters $\tau_h$ and $\rho_h$ for $h=1,\ldots,j$. We consider two approaches for identifying parameters giving good performance. The first uses a sample from the class of problems to be solved, and numerically adjusts the parameters to give the largest probability of finding a minimum cost state when averaged over the sample. This approach, commonly used to tune classical heuristics, allows precisely tuning the parameters but is limited to small problem sizes whose behavior can be simulated using classical machines. Applying this approach to larger problems will require the development of quantum hardware.
The second approach evaluates the asymptotic average behavior of the algorithm, as a function of the phase parameters, and selects values giving good average performance for large problems. When the number of steps $j$ is held fixed as ${ n }$ increases, this can be done exactly [@hogg98e]. However, good performance requires the number of steps to increase with the size of the problem, which complicates this exact analysis. Instead, we can use an approximate evaluation of the asymptotic behavior [@hogg00]. In this approximation, the amplitudes at each step are assumed to depend only on the costs associated with the states. Let $\phi^{(h)}_c$ be the average amplitude of states with cost $c$ after step $h$. With the above definitions of the mixing and phase matrices, the change in average amplitudes from one step to the next is approximately $$\phi^{(h)}_{c'} = \sum_{d c} u^{(h)}_d p^{(h)}_c \phi^{(h-1)}_c \nu(c',d,c)$$ where $\nu(c',d,c)$ is the average number of states with cost $c$ at distance $d$ from a state with cost $c'$. This quantity can be expressed as ${{ n }\choose d} P(c|d,c')$ where $P(c|d,c')$ is the conditional probability a state has cost $c$ when at distance $d$ from a state with cost $c'$. When a class of problems has a simple expression for the asymptotic form of this conditional probability, this approximate equation gives the behavior of the average amplitudes. It can then be used to select phase parameters and the number of steps to give a large enhancement in amplitudes for low-cost states.
An optimization heuristc can be evaluated in a number of ways. For example, ${ { {\left\langle C \right\rangle} } }=j/{ {P_{\rm min}} }$ is the expected number of steps (including repetitions due to multiple trials) required to produce a minimum-cost state. Alternatively, one could ask how close the algorithm gets to the optimum as a function of the number of trials. This latter measure allows trade-offs between methods that give reasonably good results very quickly, but then give little subsequent improvement, and those that improve only slowly but eventually give lower cost states. Finally, one could characterize a single trial by its likelihood of returning the minimum cost, ${ {P_{\rm min}} }$, or the expected cost of returned states, $\sum_c c \sum_{s | c(s)=c} p(s)$. In our case we focus on ${ { {\left\langle C \right\rangle} } }$ as a performance measure. However, since the algorithms concentrate amplitude toward low-cost states, comparisons based on the other measures give the same general conclusions.
Satisfiability
==============
Satisfiability is a combinatorial search problem consisting of a propositional formula in ${ { n }}$ Boolean variables and the requirement to find an assignment (true or false) to each variable so that the formula is true. For $k$-satisfiability ($k$-SAT), the formula is a conjunction of $m$ clauses each of which is a logical OR of $k$ (possibly negated) variables. In this form, every clause must be true in order that the full formula is true. A state (i.e., an assigned value to each variable) is said to conflict with any clause it doesn’t satisfy. For $k\ge 3$, $k$-SAT is NP-complete [@garey79]. An example 2-SAT problem with 3 variables and 2 clauses is ($v_1$ OR (NOT $v_2$)) AND ($v_2$ OR $v_3$), which has 4 solutions, e.g., $v_1={\rm
false}$, $v_2={\rm false}$ and $v_3={\rm true}$.
$k$-SAT problems with many clauses typically have no solutions. Such cases give an optimization problem [@freuder92], namely to find assignments with the minimum number of conflicts, i.e., the fewest unsatisfied clauses. To examine typical behavior of the algorithm, we use the well-studied class of random $k$-SAT, in which the $m$ clauses are selected uniformly at random. Specifically, for each clause, a set of $k$ variables is selected randomly from among the ${ { n }}\choose k$ possibilities. Then each of the selected variables is negated with probability $1/2$ to produce the clause. Thus each of the $m$ clauses is selected, with replacement, uniformly from among the ${{ { n }}\choose k} 2^k$ possible clauses. The difficulty of solving such randomly generated problems varies greatly from one instance to the next. This class has a high concentration of hard instances when $\mu
\equiv m/{ { n }}$ is near a phase transition in search difficulty [@cheeseman91; @kirkpatrick94; @hogg96d]. For random 3-SAT this transition is near $\mu=4.25$. For our study of optimization, we generate these random problems but keep in the sample only those with no solutions, as evaluated with a classical exhaustive search. The minimum cost can vary among the instances in a sample.
Algorithm
---------
Since SAT involves Boolean variables, the states in a problem with ${ { n }}$ variables can be directly represented with ${ { n }}$ bits in a quantum computer. With such a representation, the Hamming distance between two bit-sequences corresponds to the number of variables assigned different values in the two corresponding search states. This correspondence allows a simple combinatoric expression for the conditional probability $P(c|d,c')$ that an assignment has $c$ conflicts when at distance $d$ from another assignment with $c'$ conflicts. This expression can in turn be used to select algorithm parameters that lead to significant shift of amplitude toward states with few conflicts, on average [@hogg00].
Specifically, this approximation suggests using $j={ { n }}$ and a linear variation in the phase parameters, i.e., $\rho_h = \frac{1}{j} (R_0 +
R_1 (1 - \frac{h-1}{j}))$ and $\tau_h = \frac{1}{j} (T_0 + T_1 (1 -
\frac{h-1}{j}))$. Thus, for instance, the first step uses $\rho_1=(R_0+R_1)/j$. As $j$ increases, the $\rho$ and $\tau$ values become small so the corresponding $P$ and $U$ matrices become close to identity matrices, i.e., each step only introduces small changes in the amplitudes.
The appropriate values of the four parameters, $R_0$, $R_1$, $T_0$ and $T_1$, depend on the class of SAT problems, in particular the values of $k$ and $\mu$ for random $k$-SAT. These values can be evaluated numerically in the context of decision problems, i.e., attempting to maximize the probability in solution states, assuming any exist [@hogg00]. This process gives parameter values suitable for problems with solutions. In this paper, we apply the same values for optimization problems.
Behavior
--------
An example of the shift in amplitude is illustrated in [Fig. \[SAT example\]]{}. The distribution for step 0 simply reflects the number of states with each number of conflicts in the problem. Thus in this example most assignments have about 10 conflicts. Although this problem has no solutions, it shows the same shift in amplitude toward low-cost states as seen for soluble problems [@hogg00]. In particular, after the last step, the measurement is likely to produce a minimum-conflict state. Furthermore, even if such a state is not produced, the result is still very likely to have a relatively low number of conflicts. Significantly, the algorithm operates even without prior knowledge on the minimum number of conflicts. In fact, the approximate theory used to numerically select the phase parameters is based on maximizing the solution probability among soluble random 3-SAT with $\mu=4$ in this case. The figure shows such parameters also work well for insoluble problems. Thus the correlation between number of conflicts and Hamming distance used by the theory is roughly the same for soluble and insoluble instances for most of the states. Nevertheless, an open question is whether somewhat different phase parameters may give better performance for optimization problems.
Classical heuristics also often manage to find low-conflict states. One such heuristic is GSAT [@selman92]. The GSAT algorithm starts from a random assignment and, for each step, examines the number of conflicts in the assignment’s neighbors (i.e., assignments obtained by changing the value for a single variable) and moves to a neighbor with the fewest conflicts. If a solution isn’t found after a prespecified number of steps ($2 { { n }}$ for the comparison reported here), e.g., because the current assignment is a local minimum, the search is tried again from a new random assignment. As with the quantum algorithm, GSAT is incomplete, i.e., does not guarantee its result is indeed a minimum-conflict assignment.
We use multiple trials to estimate the probability GSAT returns a minimum conflict state. Specifically, the expected cost estimate is ${ { {\left\langle C \right\rangle} } }= { {S_{\rm total}} }/ { {T_{\rm min}} }$ where ${ {S_{\rm total}} }$ is the total number of steps in all 1000 trials we used for each problem and ${ {T_{\rm min}} }$ is the number of trials for which a minimum-conflict state was found.
A comparison of the search costs, as measured by the expected number of steps, for GSAT and the quantum heuristic is shown in [Fig. \[SAT scaling\]]{}. Interestingly, the costs of the quantum algorithm are comparable or below those of GSAT. Actual search times for these methods will depend on detailed implementations of the steps. Although the number of elementary computational steps, involving evaluating the number of conflicts in an assignment (and, in the case of GSAT, its neighbors) are similar for both techniques, differences in the extent to which operations can be optimized and the relative clock rates of classical and quantum machines remain to be seen.
Since the trials of GSAT and this quantum heuristic are independent, decision problems allow a further quadratic speedup for either of these techniques by combining them with amplitude amplification [@brassard98]. Thus an interesting direction for future work is the extent to which such techniques, extended to use the number of conflicts in the search states, could give further improvement for optimization problems as well.
Traveling Salesman Problem
==========================
The asymmetric traveling salesman problem (ATSP) has ${ N }$ cities with the distance from city $x$ to $y$ not necessarily equal to the distance from $y$ to $x$, as would be approriate, for instance, in planning routes along many one-way roads. The goal is a minimum-distance tour that visits every city exactly once and returns to the starting point. Many real-world planning and scheduling problems can be modeled as TSP’s [@lawler85; @miller91]. An ${ N }$-city problem has $({ N }-1)!$ distinct tours starting and ending in a given city, and the time required to solve ATSP grows exponentially with ${ N }$ [@garey79].
We consider the average behavior for a class of TSPs studied in the context of phase transitions in search behavior [@cheeseman91; @zhang95; @gent97]. Specifically, we looked at problems with intercity distances picked independently from a normal distribution with average $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$, and then rounded to the nearest integer. Thus the probability a particular tour has length ${ L }$ is a discretized normal distribution with average ${ N }\mu$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{{ N }}\,
\sigma$. The value of $\mu$ just sets the distance scale: we take it equal to 100.
Algorithm
---------
Quantum computers with ${ n }$ bits are most naturally used with superpositions of $2^{ n }$ classical states. Unlike the SAT problem, ATSP has no direct mapping between the $({ N }-1)!$ search states and the $2^{ n }$ states representable by superpositions of ${ n }$ quantum bits. Thus an important aspect of designing a quantum algorithm for this problem is selecting a suitable representation for the tours with binary elements.
One possibility, used in neural network approaches to TSP [@hopfield85], represents each tour by a permutation matrix, i.e., an ${ N }\times { N }$ matrix of binary values. Specifically, entry $i,j$ is one when city $i$ is at position $j$ in the tour. Thus a tour gives exactly one entry in each row and column that is equal to one, and the rest are zero. Since the choice of the first city is arbitrary, we can take city 1 to be the first in each tour, leaving a reduced $({ N }-1) \times ({ N }-1)$ matrix describing the permutation of cities 2 through ${ N }$. Such a matrix can be represented with ${ n }= ({ N }-1)^2$ binary values. While this representation has a fairly simple correspondence with the tours, considering superpositions of all $2^{ n }$ possible values introduces many states that do not correspond to tours (i.e., cases in which the corresponding matrix has two or more 1’s in a single row or column and thus is not a permutation). Moreover, from a practical viewpoint, the quadratic growth in the number of bits with ${ N }$ severely limits the problem sizes feasible for classical simulation. Thus, while this representation may be useful for theoretical analyses and may provide good performance, it is of limited use for empirically evaluating quantum heuristics on classical machines.
Another representation, requiring fewer bits, simply enumerates the tours starting from a given city in lexicographical order and associates each with a bit string representing its index in this list. For example, a 4-city problem with cities $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ has 6 distinct tours that start and end at city $A$: $ABCDA$, $ABDCA$, $ACBDA$, $ACDBA$, $ADBCA$, and $ADCBA$. Three bits are needed to represent these 6 tours, ranging from 000 to 101. The three bits give 8 possible values, so we also get 2 states without corresponding tours: 110 and 111.
Importantly for its use in a quantum algorith, the permutation corresponding to a given index can be computed efficiently as a particular example of techniques for ranking a variety of combinatorial structures [@nijenhuis78]. Specifically, consider index $i$, ranging from 0 to $({ N }-1)!-1$, as specifying a permutation of cities 2 through ${ N }$ (with the understanding that the overall tour starts and ends with city 1). The value ${ {\left\lfloor i/({ N }-2)! \right\rfloor} }+2$, ranging from 2 to ${ N }$, gives the first city in the permutation, and $i \bmod ({ N }-2)!$ is the index of the permutation for the remaining cities. Repeating this procedure once for each city gives the full permutation in $O({ N })$ operations.
This representation uses a number of states that is the closest power of two larger than or equal to the number of tours, i.e., $2^{ n }\ge ({ N }-1)!$, so ${ n }= { {\left\lceil \log_2
({ N }-1)! \right\rceil} } \sim { N }\log_2 ({ N }/e)$. This introduces some extra states, not corresponding to tours, but far fewer than using the permutation matrix representation. The algorithm must operate so as to avoid giving much amplitude to these extra states.
For this problem, the phase adjustments depend on $c$, the scaled tour length: $c(r) = { L }(r)/({ N }\mu)$ (where ${ N }\mu$ is the average tour length in this class of problems and ${ L }(r)$ is the length of tour $r$, i.e., the sum of costs between successive cities in its path). Smaller values of $c$ correspond to shorter tours. This definition makes the behavior of this algorithm similar to that of the SAT algorithms described earlier, where $c$ represented the number of conflicts in an assignment. Since we want the extra states (the ones added to make the total number of states a power of two) to have small amplitudes, they should be assigned a large value of $c$. We chose $c=2$ for these extra states, so they are treated as additional tours with especially long lengths.
With this representation of the tours, the Hamming distance between two bit-strings has no simple relation to the difference of the corresponding tours. This precludes a simple expression for the conditional probability $P(c|d,c')$ used in the approximate theoretical approach to identifying good phase parameters. Instead, we examined the performance for a random sample of problems, allowing for different values of these parameters at each step of the algorithm. We found only a small effect on performance from allowing $\tau_h$ to vary from one step to the next, so we take it to be a fixed value $\tau$ for the results reported below. However, using a different $\rho_h$ value for each step significantly improved performance. In particular, we took the values to vary linearly, as with the SAT algorithm, i.e., we took $\rho_h = { {\rho_{\rm init}} }+ { {\rho_{\rm rate}} }h$ for $h$ from 1 to $j$ where ${ {\rho_{\rm init}} }$ and ${ {\rho_{\rm rate}} }$ were new parameters depending only on the class of problems, defined by $\mu$ and $\sigma$, and total number of steps.
In summary, for given choices of $\mu$, $\sigma$ and total number of steps $j$, we selected parameters $\tau$, ${ {\rho_{\rm init}} }$ and ${ {\rho_{\rm rate}} }$ giving the best average performance based on evaluation with a sample of problems. The best choices we found for these parameters are listed and discussed in the next section.
Behavior
--------
[Fig. \[sample prob\]]{} illustrates the algorithm’s behavior for a random 6-city problem. The height of each bin is the sum of the probabilities $p(s)$ of all the tours $s$ whose lengths fall in the bin’s range. The initial step shows the initial distribution of tour lengths. We see the algorithm shifts amplitude from the longer tours towards shorter ones. For the problem instance shown in the figure, the probability of finding the optimal tour peaks at 0.45 after 16 steps. After 20 steps, the bins with large probabilities correspond to short tours. Thus when the algorithm does not find the optimal tour, it will most likely still produce a tour close to optimal. A similar shift toward shorter tours occurs for other problems including those with more cities.
To evaluate the average behavior for random 6- and 7-city problems we generated 100 problems with $\mu=100$ and $\sigma$ equal to 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40, and then applied the algorithm for 20 steps. The results show the cost of solving the problems doesn’t depend on the $\sigma$ parameter of the distribution. In other words, all problems of a given size are equally complex; there are no hard and easy cases for this algorithm. This behavior differs from most classical heuristics that work particularly well on under- and overconstrained problems [@gent97]. This difference indicates our algorithm is not taking full advantage of the problem structure, most likely due to the simple form of the mixing matrix and the representation of tours. It suggests an opportunity for improved performance by developing mixing matrices using problem structure, or using state representations where Hamming distance is a meaningful measure of tour similarity.
Quantitatively, after 20 steps a solution to 6-city problems is found with probability of roughly 30%. This decreases to about 11% for 7-city problems. Thus, while the size of the search space increases seven-fold, the cost goes up just by a factor of 3. With additional steps, the solution probability increases. For example, after 30 steps (with different optimal choices for the parameters $\tau$, ${ {\rho_{\rm init}} }$ and ${ {\rho_{\rm rate}} }$), a solution to an average 7-city problem with $\sigma = 40\%$ is found with a probability of about 16%. Identifying the best number of steps, on average, remains an open question. In particular, based on the behavior of the algorithm for SAT, taking the number of steps proportional to ${ N }$ may give better performance with suitable choices for the phase parameters.
[|l|cccccc|]{} deviation & 5% & 10% & 15% & 20% & 30% & 40%\
\
${ {\rho_{\rm init}} }$ & .32 & .28 & .36 & .32 & .32 & .32\
${ {\rho_{\rm rate}} }$ & .84 & .44 & .32 & .24 & .16 & .12\
$\tau$ & .12 & .12 & .12 & .12 & .12 & .12\
\
${ {\rho_{\rm init}} }$ & .36 & .32 & .36 & .36 & .36 & .32\
${ {\rho_{\rm rate}} }$ & .84 & .44 & .36 & .24 & .16 & .12\
$\tau$ & .12 & .12 & .12 & .12 & .12 & .12\
[Table \[cities\]]{} summarizes the the phase parameters used in 6 and 7-city simulations, i.e., values of ${ {\rho_{\rm init}} }$, ${ {\rho_{\rm rate}} }$ and $\tau$ that maximize the probability of finding the optimal tour in 20 steps. The optimal $\rho^{(h)} = { {\rho_{\rm init}} }+ { {\rho_{\rm rate}} }h$ values are almost independent of the problem size, but are largely (and very consistently) dependent on $\sigma$: doubling $\sigma$ roughly halves the value of $\rho$. This is to be expected because doubling $\sigma$ also doubles the range of scaled tour lengths, $c-1$ (where 1 is the average value of $c$ for the class of problems). Thus halving $\rho$-values keeps the phase matrix entries $p_{c(r)}$ about the same, up to an irrelevant overall phase. Since the mixing matrix does not use the problem structure, it is not surprising that the optimal value of the mixing matrix constant $\tau$ is independent of ${ N }$ and $\sigma$ for a given number of steps.
[Fig. \[scaling\]]{} shows the scaling behavior for a fixed choice of $\sigma$. For ${ N }>7$, the simulations are too slow to allow finding optimal parameter values. Instead, noting the parameters for the 6 and 7 city problems, given in [Table \[cities\]]{}, were the same for $\sigma=40\%$, we continued using these parameters for the larger ${ N }$. The solution probability after 20 steps decreases as $e^{-1.2 { N }}$. These larger cases continue to show the shift of probability toward short tours. The resulting costs grow more slowly than the expected number of trials for random selection to find the optimal tour, $({ N }-1)!/2$. This random selection contrasts with exhaustive enumeration, with cost $({ N }-1)!$, which not only finds the optimum but also guarantees the result is indeed optimal.
As another comparison, [Fig. \[scaling\]]{} also shows an estimate of the median cost for a good classical method, depth-first branch-and-bound (DFBnB) [@zhang00]. This technique relies on the assignment problem (AP), in which each city is linked to another so that the total cost of these links is minimized. The resulting links need not form a complete tour, in which case the search proceeds by considering subproblems in which some of the links in the AP solution are not allowed. The initial AP can be solved in time of order ${ N }^3$ while subsequent instances appearing in the subproblems require only ${ N }^2$ operations. Ignoring overall constants and the, usually relatively minor, cost to find an initial upper bound on tour lengths by adjusting the result of the initial AP [@karp79], we take the search cost associated with this method to be $C_{\rm classical}
\approx { N }^3 + b { N }^2$ where $b$ is the number of subproblems evaluated during the search. To compare with the quantum search cost measured in terms of steps, note that each step involves computing the cost of tours in superposition, which requires $O({ N })$ operations. Thus we divide $C_{\rm classical}$ by ${ N }$ to obtain the cost estimates used for comparison in [Fig. \[scaling\]]{}. While the estimate does not include multiplicative constants, it does show the classical heuristic grows much more slowly than the quantum method introduced here. One caveat is that for large problems $b$ grows exponentially but for the small problems accessible to the quantum simulations, i.e., ${ N }$ up to about 10, about a third of the instances are solved without any search since the initial assignment problem returns a complete tour. Many other cases are solved by expanding just a few subproblems. Thus many of these small problems are dominated by the cost of the initial AP and the figure does not show the eventual exponential growth in cost. We should also note this classical algorithm, unlike the quantum algorithm and GSAT, is complete and guarantees its result is indeed the minimum.
In spite of these limitations, this comparison does suggest the quantum technique is not particularly effective in exploiting problem structure, especially when compared with the satisfiability search described above. An interesting open question is whether this indicates quantum heuristics are inherently less effective for ATSP than for SAT. Other possible reasons for the relatively large costs with the quantum algorithm include the choice of problem representation, which does not explicitly use the relations among tours with many common edges, and nonoptimal values of phase adjustment parameters and number of steps for the larger problem sizes considered here.
Conclusion
==========
A quantum algorithm shifting amplitude toward low-cost states is effective for combinatorial optimization problems, and does not require prior knowledge of the minimum cost for particular instances. This work illustrates how quantum techniques developed for decision problems can also apply to optimization, but only if they make use of the cost structure of the states. The experiments for satisfiability indicate appropriate phase parameters can allow the algorithm to have performance at least comparable to classical heuristics. The exponential increase in cost for classical simulation precludes evaluating these observations with larger problems.
For the asymmetric traveling salesman problem, our algorithm works fairly well for small instances, and specifically is much better than random selection. Its performance is independent of the standard deviation of the intercity distances. By allowing contributions from different search states to interfere, the algorithm avoids the large resource costs of using quantum parallelism without mixing the amplitudes [@cerny93]. One direction for future work is examining other ways of encoding the problem. Currently all the tours are enumerated in lexicographical order, and the mixing matrix doesn’t take advantage of the problem structure. Other enumerations may allow the mixing matrix to incorporate some problem structure. In analogy with the mixing of assignments in SAT, we could favor mixing amplitudes amongst similar tours, since tours that have a large number of edges in common are likely to have similar lengths. Ideally, such a representation could provide simple analytic evaluation of the conditional probability and thereby suggest better phase parameters for larger problems.
For some classical search methods applied to decision problems, the method can be incorporated in a quantum algorithm to give a further improvement [@brassard98; @cerf98]. Hence an interesting open question is whether such techniques can generalize to optimization problems and thereby improve, for instance, on GSAT and the branch-and-bound examples of classical heuristics discussed here.
Unlike decision problems where results are easily verified, this optimization algorithm’s results cannot be directly checked for optimality. Thus, as with classical heuristics, such as GSAT and simulated annealing [@kirkpatrick83], applied to optimization problems, this algorithm does not indicate whether its result is indeed optimal. Moreover, although we focus on the probability to find the optimal tour, algorithms for optimization problems are characterized more generally by their trade-off between search cost and quality of the result. Such trade-offs may be particularly relevant for implementations of quantum computers limited to relatively few steps due to decoherence. For the algorithms considered here, the required number of coherent computational steps (i.e., the length of a single trial) grows at most linearly with with problem size. This contrasts with the exponentially growing number of steps in a single trial of amplitude amplification. Thus the structure-based algorithms make less stringent requirements on the extent to which coherence can be maintained.
In summary, we have shown how to use the cost associated with states in an optimization problem to adjust a superposition to increase the amplitudes associated with low-cost states. This opens a new direction for applying quantum computers to combinatorial searches, but the extent to which this capability can improve on classical heuristics, on average, remains an open question.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We have benefited from discussions with Wolf Polak, Eleanor Rieffel and Christof Zalka. We also thank Weixiong Zhang for providing his TSP search program and helpful comments on its behavior.
[10]{}
Michel Boyer, Gilles Brassard, Peter Hoyer, and Alain Tapp. Tight bounds on quantum searching. In T. Toffoli et al., editors, [*Proc. of the Workshop on Physics and Computation (PhysComp96)*]{}, pages 36–43, Cambridge, MA, 1996. New England Complex Systems Institute.
Gilles Brassard, Peter Hoyer, and Alain Tapp. Quantum counting. In K. Larsen, editor, [*Proc. of 25th Intl. Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP98)*]{}, pages 820–831, Berlin, 1998. Springer. preprint quant-ph/9805082.
Nicolas J. Cerf, Lov K. Grover, and Colin P. Williams. Nested quantum search and [NP]{}-complete problems. In [*Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing*]{}. Springer, Berlin, 1998. preprint quant-ph/9806078.
Vladimir Cerny. Quantum computers and intractable ([NP]{}-complete) computing problems. , 48:116–119, 1993.
Peter Cheeseman, Bob Kanefsky, and William M. Taylor. Where the really hard problems are. In J. Mylopoulos and R. Reiter, editors, [*Proceedings of IJCAI91*]{}, pages 331–337, San Mateo, CA, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.
D. Deutsch. Quantum theory, the [Church-Turing]{} principle and the universal quantum computer. , 400:97–117, 1985.
David P. DiVincenzo. Quantum computation. , 270:255–261, 1995.
Eugene C. Freuder and Richard J. Wallace. Partial constraint satisfaction. , 58:21–70, 1992.
M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. . W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979.
Ian P. Gent, Ewan MacIntyre, Patrick Prosser, and Toby Walsh. The scaling of search cost. In [*Proc. of the 14th Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI97)*]{}, pages 315–320, Menlo Park, CA, 1997. AAAI Press.
Lov K. Grover. Quantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack. , 78:325–328, 1997. preprint quant-ph/9706033.
Lov K. Grover. Quantum search on structured problems. , 10:1695–1705, 1999.
Tad Hogg. Highly structured searches with quantum computers. , 80:2473–2476, 1998. Preprint at publish.aps.org/eprint/gateway/eplist/aps1997oct30\_002.
Tad Hogg. Single-step quantum search using problem structure. preprint quant-ph/9812049, 1998.
Tad Hogg. Quantum search heuristics. , 61:052311, 2000. Preprint at publish.aps.org/eprint/gateway/eplist/aps1999oct19\_002.
Tad Hogg, Bernardo A. Huberman, and Colin P. Williams, editors. , volume 81, Amsterdam, 1996. Elsevier. Special issue of [*Artificial Intelligence*]{}.
Tad Hogg, Carlos Mochon, Eleanor Rieffel, and Wolfgang Polak. Tools for quantum algorithms. , 10:1347–1361, 1999. preprint quant-ph/9811073.
J. J. Hopfield and D. W. Tank. “[Neural]{}” computation of decisions in optimization problems. , 52:141–152, 1985.
Richard M. Karp. A patching algorithm for the nonsymmetric traveling-salesman problem. , 8:561–573, 1979.
S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi. Optimization by simulated annealing. , 220:671–680, 1983.
Scott Kirkpatrick and Bart Selman. Critical behavior in the satisfiability of random boolean expressions. , 264:1297–1301, 1994.
E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, and D. B. Shmoys, editors. . John Wiley, NY, 1985.
Donald L. Miller and Joseph F. Pekny. Exact solution of large asymmetric traveling salesman problems. , 251(4995):754–761, Feb. 15 1991.
A. Nijenhuis and H. S. Wilf. . Academic Press, New York, 2nd edition, 1978.
Bart Selman, Hector Levesque, and David Mitchell. A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems. In [*Proc. of the 10th Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI92)*]{}, pages 440–446, Menlo Park, CA, 1992. AAAI Press.
George W. Snedecor and William G. Cochran. . Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa, 6th edition, 1967.
Lee Spector, Howard Barnum, Herbert J. Bernstein, and Nikhil Swamy. Finding a better-than-classical quantum [AND/OR]{} algorithm using genetic programming. In P. Angeline, editor, [*Proc. of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computing*]{}, Washington, DC, 1999. IEEE.
Weixiong Zhang. Depth-first branch-and-bound versus local search: A case study. In [*Proc. of the 17th Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI2000)*]{}. AAAI, 2000.
Weixiong Zhang and Richard E. Korf. A study of complexity transitions on the asymmetric traveling salesman problem. , 81:223–239, 1996.
[^1]: to whom correspondence should be sent
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A. B. Pushkarev'
- 'Y. Y. Kovalev'
- 'M. L. Lister'
- 'T. Hovatta'
- 'T. Savolainen'
- 'M. F. Aller'
- 'H. D. Aller'
- 'E. Ros'
- 'J. A. Zensus'
- 'J. L. Richards'
- 'W. Max-Moerbeck'
- 'A. C. S. Readhead'
bibliography:
- 'pushkarev.bib'
date: 'Received 15 March 2013; accepted 22 May 2013'
title: VLBA observations of a rare multiple quasar imaging event caused by refraction in the interstellar medium
---
[We have investigated highly atypical morphological parsec-scale changes in the flat spectrum extragalactic radio source 2023+335 which are coincident with an extreme scattering event (ESE) seen at radio wavelengths during the first half of 2009. ]{} [We used (i) 15.4 GHz Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observations of the quasar 2023+335 obtained at 14 epochs between July 2008 and Nov. 2012 as part of the Monitoring Of Jets in Active galactic nuclei with VLBA Experiments (MOJAVE) program, (ii) earlier archival VLBA observations of the source performed at 1.4, 2, 8, 15, 22, and 86 GHz to analyze the properties of the proposed turbulent screen toward 2023+335, and (iii) data sets from the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) and University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory (UMRAO) single-dish monitoring programs performed at 15 and 14.5 GHz, respectively, to study integrated flux density changes. ]{} [We report on the first detection of the theoretically-predicted rare phenomenon of multiple parsec-scale imaging of an active galactic nucleus induced by refractive effects due to localized foreground electron density enhancements, e.g., in an AU-scale plasma lens(es) in the ionized component of the Galactic interstellar medium. We detected multiple imaging in the low galactic latitude ($b=-2\fdg4$) quasar 2023+335 from the 15.4 GHz MOJAVE observations when the source was undergoing an ESE. While the parsec-scale jet of the source normally extends along PA$\sim-20\degr$, in the 28 May 2009 and 23 July 2009 images a highly significant multi-component pattern of secondary images is stretched out nearly along the constant galactic latitude line with a local PA$\approx40\degr$, indicating that the direction of relative motion of the plasma lens is close to orbital. Weaker but still detectable imaging patterns at similar position angles are sporadically manifest at several other epochs. Modeling the ESE that occurred in early 2009 and lasted $\sim$0.14 yr, we determined that the foreground screen has a double-lens structure, with proper motion ($\sim6.8$ masyr$^{-1}$), and angular size ($\sim0.27$ mas). We also found that the angular separation between the two brightest sub-images roughly follows a wavelength-squared dependence expected from plasma scattering. Furthermore, by analyzing archival non-simultaneous VLBA observations covering a wide frequency range from 1.4 to 86 GHz, we found that the scattered angular size of the VLBI core follows a $\nu^{-1.89}$ dependence, implying the presence of a turbulent, refractive dominated scattering screen that has a confined structure or is truncated transverse to the line of sight toward 2023+335. ]{}
Introduction
============
Radio waves are influenced by propagation effects whenever passing through an ionized medium containing free-electron density fluctuations, e.g., in the Earth’s ionosphere, the interplanetary medium, or the interstellar medium (ISM). These effects are especially prominent in observations of compact bright sources, such as pulsars, masers, and active galactic nuclei (AGN). They are represented by a wide variety of scattering signatures, including angular broadening, ionospheric or interstellar scintillations, and rare phenomena in AGN radio light curves often referred to as extreme scattering events [ESEs; @Fiedler87].
The gaseous interstellar medium is characterized by a large Reynolds number, reflecting its highly turbulent nature. The ISM is structured as a hierarchy of clouds that appears self-similar over six orders of magnitude in linear scale [@Combes00]. The turbulence in the ISM is mainly driven by supernova explosions, spiral arm instabilities, stellar winds, and cosmic rays [@Elmegreen04; @Lazarian06]. Small-scale turbulent electron density fluctuations can give rise to diffractive scattering, manifested as angular broadening of compact radio sources, while large-scale fluctuations can produce refractive scattering that modulates the overall flux density level, as in the case of scintillations or ESEs. The relative importance of refractive and diffractive scattering depends strongly on the form of the spatial power spectrum of electron density turbulence [@Goodman85; @Cordes86b; @Armstrong95; @Chepurnov10].
The ESE phenomenon, which is characterized by dramatic frequency-dependent changes in source flux density, was first detected during long-term 2.7 and 8.1 GHz monitoring of compact extragalactic radio sources [@Fiedler87]. Because of the simultaneity of the events at different frequencies and speed-of-light travel time arguments, [@Fiedler87] concluded that the events could not be explained by intrinsic variability. It is now broadly accepted [@Fiedler87; @Fiedler94; @Romani87; @Clegg88; @Clegg98] that ESEs can be explained by strong scattering, and they occur when ionized material with electron density enhancements and a transverse dimension of $\sim$ AU passes in front of a distant background radio source. Typically, such events last for several weeks to months, and they are quite rare. To date, less than twenty ESEs have been confirmed. What is still unclear about ESEs is the physical nature of the ionized structures (the “lenses”) and their relationship to the different phases of the interstellar medium. In this regard, several models have been considered. [@Clegg88; @Clegg98] have proposed that such lenses can be associated with relatively isolated discrete structures in the ISM. Alternatively, [@Heiles97] discussed the possibility of a low level cosmic ray ionization within a neutral structure. [@Walker98] suggested a model of photo-ionized molecular clouds in the Galactic halo. Studying HI absorption before and during an ESE, [@Lazio01] found no changes in equivalent width, maximum optical depth, and velocity at the maximum optical depth, but could not completely rule out the molecular cloud model of [@Walker98], since the observed velocity range covered only about 25% of the allowed range. The typical electron densities $n_e\gtrsim10^2$ cm$^{-3}$ inferred from modeling ESE light curves [@Romani87; @Clegg98] lead to pressures $n_eT\gtrsim10^6$ K cm$^{-3}$ that are $\sim10^3$ times larger than the typical pressure in the ISM [@Kulkarni87]. To overcome this problem, [@Romani87] suggested that ionization fronts and/or cooling instabilities associated with old supernova remnants are the possible sites of the lenses. Moreover, analyzing the high-resolution spectra in the HST archive and deriving ISM pressures along the line of sight, [@Jenkins07] found that a large fraction of the ISM is at the canonical pressure, about $10^3$ K cm$^{-3}$. However, they found a tail in the distribution, extending to pressures $\gtrsim10^5$ K cm$^{-3}$. Apparently, there are extremely over-pressure regions in the ISM. Their volume filing factor is low, and they may be short-lived, but they clearly exist.
One of the most intriguing predictions of the scattering theory is the possible creation of multiple images of a compact radio source seen through the turbulent screen with refractive dominated properties [@Lovelace70; @Cordes86b; @Rickett88]. [@Goodman85] argued that the image may be broken up into a small number of sub-images, each of which is further fragmented by phase fluctuations on the next smaller scale and so on, thus forming a hierarchical structure similar to a fractal geometry. By investigating refraction in Gaussian plasma lenses as a model of ESE, [@Clegg98] predicted the formation of up to 3 images during periods when the caustic surfaces are formed. [@Cordes01] also reported on a possible creation of multiple imaging by multiple descrete scattering screens. The observable effect of multiple imaging has been detected in the dynamic spectra of pulsars [@Cordes86; @Cordes86b]. For AGN, however, there has yet to be a direct detection of the effect. This is largely due to a very low occurrence rate of ESEs ($\sim 0.01$ event-years per source-year; @Fiedler94), and the roughly twice as infrequent caustic surface periods when multiple imaging could potentially be detected. The only earlier set of VLBI observations of an AGN during an ESE (the quasar 1741$-$038) did not reveal any evidence of multiple imaging, presumably because of the insufficient refractive strength of the lens [@Lazio00].
In this paper, we describe the discovery of multiple imaging of an AGN on parsec scales caused by refraction effects in localized structures with electron density enhancements in the interstellar medium. We analyze a sequence of the 15.4 GHz maps of the quasar 2023+335 obtained within the framework of the MOJAVE (Monitoring of Jets in Active galactic nuclei with VLBA Experiments) program [@MOJAVE]. By modeling the dramatic changes in the total flux density attributed to an extreme scattering event registered by the 15 GHz OVRO observations near 2009.3, we constrain the basic physical characteristics of the intervening plasma lens. Using available multi-frequency VLBA observations, we also study the angular broadening of to derive the properties of the scattering screen toward the source.
Throughout the paper, we use the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with $H_0=71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m=0.27$, and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$ [@Komatsu09]. All position angles are given in degrees from north through east. The spectral index $\alpha$ is defined according to the convention $S\propto\nu^\alpha$, where $S$ is the flux density and $\nu$ the observing frequency.
Observations and data reduction {#s:obs}
===============================
The extragalactic radio source 2023+335 () is a flat-spectrum ($\alpha\approx+0.07$) quasar located at $z=0.22$ [@Sowards_Emmerd03]. The quasar is also detected at high energies. It is positionally associated with the X-ray source [@Sguera04] and with the $\gamma$-ray source detected by the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT [@Kara12].
VLBA observations
-----------------
2023+335 was included into the extension of the statistically complete flux-density-limited MOJAVE sample [@MOJAVE] in July 2008 and has since been monitored at approximately 4 month intervals with the VLBA at an observing frequency of 15.4 GHz[^1]. The observations were made in dual circular polarization mode, and recorded with a bit rate of 256 Mbps, which was increased to 512 Mbps in the epoch 2008 October 3 and epochs thereafter.
The initial calibration was performed with the NRAO Astronomical Image Processing System (AIPS) [@aips] following standard data reduction techniques. CLEANing [@CLEANref], phase and amplitude self-calibration [@Jennison58; @Twiss_etal60] were performed in the Caltech Difmap [@difmap] package. In all cases a point-source model was used as an initial model for the iterative procedure. Final maps were produced by applying natural weighting of the visibility sampling function. The typical uncertainty of the obtained flux densities is $\sim 5\%$. The absolute calibration of electric vector position angles (EVPAs) is approximately $3\degr$ [@Hovatta_RM]. The source structure was model-fitted in the visibility ($u,v$) plane in Difmap using circular and elliptical Gaussian components. For a more detailed discussion of the data reduction and imaging process schemes, see [@MOJAVE; @MOJAVE_VI].
Single-dish monitoring
----------------------
The quasar 2023+335 has been frequently monitored with single-dish radio telescopes, including the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) 40-m telescope at 15 GHz [@Richards11]. This program, which commenced in late 2007, now includes about 1700 sources, each observed with a nominal twice per week cadence. The OVRO 40 m uses off-axis dual-beam optics and a cryogenic high electron mobility transistor (HEMT) low-noise amplifier with a 15.0 GHz center frequency and 3 GHz bandwidth. The two sky beams are Dicke-switched using the off-source beam as a reference, and the source is alternated between the two beams in an ON-ON fashion to remove atmospheric and ground contamination. Calibration is achieved using a temperature-stable diode noise source to remove receiver gain drifts, and the flux density scale is derived from observations of 3C 286 assuming the [@Baars77] value of 3.44 Jy at 15.0 GHz. The systematic uncertainty in the flux density scale is estimated to be $\sim$5%. Complete details of the reduction and calibration procedure are given by [@Richards11].
Total flux density and linear polarization observations of 2023+335 were also obtained with the UMRAO Michigan 26-m paraboloid dish as part of the Michigan extragalactic variable source-monitoring program [@Aller85]. The polarimeter consists of dual rotating, linearly polarized feed horns, which are symmetrically placed around the paraboloid’s prime focus, and feed a broadband uncooled HEMT amplifier with central frequency 14.5 GHz and bandwidth 1.7 GHz. Each daily observation of the target source is an average of 16 measurements over a 40-minute time period. The adopted flux density scale is based on [@Baars77]. In addition to the observations of this primary standard, observations of nearby secondary flux density calibrators were interleaved with the observations of the target source every 1.5 to 2 hours to verify the stability of the antenna gain and to verify the telescope pointing. The EVPAs were calibrated using a source of known polarized emission mounted at the vertex of the paraboloid. To verify the calibration of the instrumental polarization, selected galactic H II regions were observed several times each day.
Fermi LAT observations
----------------------
The [*Fermi*]{} LAT light curve was calculated using an un-binned likelihood analysis (tool gtlike), as implemented in the ScienceTools-v9r27p1 package with P7V6 Source event selection. A region of interest of $10\degr$ around the target position was used. All sources within $15\degr$ of the target were included in the likelihood model, and their spectral parameters were frozen to the values obtained from the 2FGL catalog. Other selections and cuts were based on the recommendations from the LAT Science team. We used monthly binning and calculated an upper limit if the test statistic (TS) value was 10 or less. During the flaring period (2009.27–2009.65) we used weekly binning to resolve the temporal substructure of the flare.
Arguments for refractive scattering {#s:refrac_scat}
===================================
Serendipitous discovery of unusual parsec-scale structure of the quasar at 15 GHz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[f:maps\], we present naturally weighted total intensity and linear polarization VLBA images of 2023+335 at 16 epochs covering a time period of about 11 years. Since the source was not observed in the MOJAVE program prior to 2008, we have reduced the available archival VLBA data at 15 GHz to examine the past structural history of the source. The image parameters are listed in Table \[t:maps\].
Typically, the milliarcsecond-scale radio morphology of bright, compact AGN jets consists of a one-sided core-jet structure, reflecting strong selection effects and the Doppler boosting of jet emission [e.g., @MOJAVE_VI]. The VLBI core component is associated with the apparent origin of AGN jets and commonly appears as the brightest feature in VLBI images. The core is typically unresolved along one or both axes of the restoring beam [@Kovalev05].
------------ ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------
Epoch $S_\mathrm{VLBA}$ $S_\mathrm{base}$ $P_\mathrm{VLBA}$ $P_\mathrm{base}$ $\chi$
(mJy) (mJy bm$^{-1}$) (mJy) (mJy bm$^{-1}$) ($^\circ$)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2002–02–15 1715 2.5 6 2.6 $-$4
2005–09–15 2041 1.2 28 1.0 9
2008–07–17 2557 0.8 52 0.8 4
2008–11–26 3228 1.5 53 0.7 1
2009–05–28 4806 1.1 48 0.9 60
2009–07–23 4125 0.6 16 0.9 91
2009–10–27 4952 1.0 42 1.2 46
2009–12–10 5442 2.3 86 2.5 43
2010–02–11 5696 1.5 120 1.2 40
2010–08–06 5294 0.9 183 1.2 35
2010–10–25 3213 1.4 99 1.1 29
2010–12–24 2539 1.3 44 0.8 32
2011–05–21 2884 1.2 40 1.1 50
2011–09–12 2616 1.0 44 0.9 28
2012–07–12 3294 1.1 68 1.1 4
2012–11–11 2960 1.0 65 1.3 17
------------ ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------
: Parameters of the 15 GHz naturally weighted images.[]{data-label="t:maps"}
[**Notes.**]{} Columns are as follows: (1) epoch of observations, (2) total VLBA flux density, (3) lowest contour in total intensity image, (4) total VLBA polarized intensity, (5) lowest contour in polarization intensity image, (6) position angle of the electric vector on the sky.
When 2023+335 was first added to the MOJAVE VLBA imaging program in 2008, the source displayed a classical one-sided morphology, with a strong core and a jet extending along position angle $\sim-20\degr$. However, an image taken in May 28, 2009 unexpectedly showed surprising structural changes, with additional bright new emission regions elongated in a direction of position angle $\sim40\degr$ and $\sim-130\degr$. We have not witnessed this type of behavior in any of the other $\sim300$ AGN jets regularly monitored by the MOJAVE or VLBA 2cm survey programs [@2cmPaperI; @2cmPaperII; @MOJAVEI; @MOJAVE]. Such unusual structural evolution cannot be explained by the standard relativistic jet expansion model [@Blandford79] since it would require bi-directional superluminal expansion — an impossibility according to simple causality arguments. Thus, we rule out the intrinsic variation scenario.
Galactic plane sky location
---------------------------
The first clue to the physical mechanism responsible for these dramatic and quite atypical morphological changes is the fact that the source is at very low galactic latitude $b=-2\fdg37$, suggesting that those structural changes could be caused by some form of propagation effect. Light propagation effects have been seen in other AGN, in the form of scintillation [see e.g., @Quirrenbach89; @Jauncey00; @Dennett-Thorpe02; @Lovell08; @Savolainen08] or extreme scattering events [@Fiedler87; @Cimo02; @Senkbeil08]. The second hint is the galactic longitude $l=73\fdg13$ of the source, which places it behind the highly turbulent Cygnus region [@Bochkarev85; @Fey89]. The line of sight to 2023+335 passes near the loop supernova remnant [@Pineault90] that may locally ionize the ISM [@Romani87].
Extreme scattering events
-------------------------
The final clue to the event can be found in the OVRO light curve (Fig. \[f:light\_curves\], top panel). This shows that the source was undergoing an ESE around the epoch 2009.3 due to the prominent dip and rise features, as was previously reported by [@Kara12]. We can additionally conclude that the refractive strength of the scattering screen must be very high, because all previously known ESEs have been detected at lower radio frequencies, at which the effect is more pronounced. The VLBA observations on May 28, 2009 serendipitously coincided with a special feature of the ESE, the caustic spike, when the secondary images are expected to have the largest angular separations [@Fiedler87; @Romani87; @Clegg98; @Lazio04]. All these facts coherently lead to the conclusion that the new-born structure detected on May 28, 2009, is the result of multiple imaging of the source, induced by refraction in an intervening ISM screen. We model the physical characteristics of the scattering screen in Sect. \[s:ESE\].
In the current paradigm, an ESE occurs when a localized structure (lens/cloud) of partly-ionized material with electron density enhancements passes in front of a distant background radio source. The significant changes in flux density attributed to ESE are expected when the ratio of the angular size of the lens to the intrinsic angular size of the VLBI core is within a quite narrow range $[1/n; n]$, where $n$ is limited by a few. This condition, as well as the turbulence spectrum of a typical screen, determines the expected rate of such events. In addition, the electron density in the screen must be high enough to result in significant scattering that can be detected and recognized as an ESE. ESEs are more prominent at lower frequencies (a few GHz), as the refractive power of the lens is greater. This is why most ESEs are detected at 2 GHz, some at 6–8 GHz, and only one, to our knowledge, at 15 GHz (this paper).
In the case of 2023+335, which is a galactic plane source seen through the Cygnus region, the probability of observing an ESE is certainly higher than average. For the successful detection of more frequent ESEs, the source should be monitored at lower frequency. Yet even at 15 GHz, the OVRO monitoring revealed a clear ESE after only one year of the operation of the program, and has provided evidence for other ESEs in the form of flux density excursions at later epochs (around $\sim2009.9$, $\sim2010.05$, $\sim2011.2$, $\sim2011.7$), indicating more complex structure of the scattering screen. Thus, the quasar 2023+335 is a promising target for future ESE detections and corresponding studies.
Joint analysis of VLBA, OVRO, and UMRAO 15 GHz data supplemented by $\gamma$-ray Fermi results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to construct an overall picture of what has occurred in the source since $\sim$2008.5, we analyzed our 15.4 GHz total VLBA flux density measurements, superposed with the more densely sampled OVRO and UMRAO light curves (Fig. \[f:light\_curves\], top panel). We found good agreement between (i) the VLBA and single-dish flux density measurements, and (ii) the VLBA and UMRAO EVPAs, indicating that virtually all of the emission of 2023+335 at 15 GHz originates from parsec scales probed by the VLBA. The source was undergoing a flare during the period 2008.5–2010.5, during which it increased its intensity by a factor of $\sim$2. Most likely, the flare was intrinsic to the source, rather than the result of a focusing effect caused by the ISM. The radio flare is expected to occur when the perturbation moving down the jet crosses the $\tau_\nu\sim1$ region at a given frequency $\nu$, the VLBI core. This happens during 2010, when the flux density reaches the maximum of about 6 Jy. Therefore, in 2009 the perturbation is still within the compact VLBI core region, not at significantly larger angular separations, where the new-born emission is detected in May 2009. Moreover, the perturbation is expected to propagate in the direction of the jet ($\mathrm{PA}\sim-20\degr$), while the observed morphology instead shows the new-born emission appearing at $\mathrm{PA}\sim40\degr$ and $\mathrm{PA}\sim-130\degr$.
The intrinsic core flare scenario is supported by several observations. First, the flare was accompanied by a rapid $\sim90\degr$ change in EVPA (Fig. \[f:light\_curves\], middle panel). This is typically observed when a perturbation crossing the $\tau_\nu=1$ core region at a given frequency, i.e., the VLBI core, changes the regime of synchrotron radiation from being optically thick to optically thin, and the EVPA subsequently returns slowly to the pre-flare value, $\chi\sim0\degr$, that roughly aligns with the inner jet direction. Second, it is known that the $\gamma$-ray emission is not affected by the ISM, but during the rising part of the radio flare, the source became bright at energies above 100 MeV (Fig. \[f:light\_curves\], bottom panel), with the $\gamma$-ray peak preceding the 15 GHz one by about 8 months [see also @Kara12]. This is consistent with the established close radio/$\gamma$-ray connection [e.g., @Kovalev09; @Pushkarev10] in the light of a scenario of broadband synchrotron-Compton flares in the base of the jet [e.g., @Dermer09; @Bottcher10]. Therefore, the flaring in the 15 GHz VLBA core, the apparent jet base, made this most-compact region of the source even more flux-density dominated and thus a region more susceptible to propagation effects in the ISM. The latter are more pronounced for highly compact features.
To analyze the refractive-induced pattern detected on May 28, 2009 in more detail we fit the observed brightness distribution at this epoch with Gaussian emission features (Table \[t:model\]) and performed difference imaging with the previous epoch, 2008 November 26, which appears to be the least affected by scattering (Fig. \[f:diff\_image\_u\]). The pattern is quasi-symmetric, and consists of a hierarchy of secondary images produced by ray crossings. The best fit model contains four Gaussian components that are progressively de-magnified with angular separation from the primary image, with two closer sub-images at the level of $\sim$10% of the core flux density and two outer ones at $\sim(3-4)$% level. The pattern is stretched out along the line of constant galactic latitude. A noteworthy feature of the pattern is that it exhibits sub-images on either side of the core, while in a typical ESE event these are expected to lie only on one side [@Clegg98]. This could be explained by complex structure of the screen, having free-electron density enhancements separated by an angular distance comparable to the VLBI core extent, i.e. a double-lens system, like those investigated by [@Kim05]. In this case, two secondary images could be created on both sides of the VLBI core, if the density profile of each lens is close to Gaussian [@Clegg98]. The primary image would likely show some elongation. This is consistent with the observed ellipticity of the VLBI core component (Fig. \[f:diff\_image\_u\], Table \[t:model\]).
------- ------- ----- ------- ----------- ------- ------- -------
Comp. $S$ SNR $r$ $\varphi$ Maj. Ratio P.A.
(mJy) (mas) (deg) (mas) (deg)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
C 3649 833 … … 0.53 0.58 33
J 51 18 0.75 $-$11 0.28 1.00 …
J 121 17 1.54 $-$20 1.13 1.00 …
S 393 166 0.77 $-$144 0.29 1.00 …
S 302 70 0.78 33 0.38 1.00 …
S 144 83 1.21 $-$138 0.27 1.00 …
S 119 28 1.45 33 0.45 1.00 …
------- ------- ----- ------- ----------- ------- ------- -------
: 15 GHz Gaussian component model at epoch 2009 May 28.[]{data-label="t:model"}
[**Notes.**]{} Columns are as follows: (1) component designation: C is the core, J is the jet, S is the secondary image component, (2) fitted Gaussian flux density at 15 GHz, (3) signal-to-noise ratio determined as the ratio of the peak flux density of the component to the rms noise under it, (4) position offset from the core component, (5) position angle of the component with respect to the core component, (6) FWHM major axis of the fitted Gaussian, (7) axial ratio of the fitted Gaussian, (8) major axis position angle of the fitted Gaussian.
We did not detect any significant image wander of the type expected for refractive ESE [@Clegg98]. Our observations were not carried out in a phase-reference mode, and during imaging we performed self-calibration that erases all absolute position information, making relative position shift analysis impossible. On the other hand, as the lens covered only the most compact component, the VLBA core, it did not affect the position of the rest of the real jet structure, which we were able to use as the reference location when applying the two-dimensional cross correlation technique [@Lewis95].
The signatures of refractive sub-images at epochs 2008 July 17, 2009 May 28, 2009 July 23, 2009 December 10, 2010 August 6, 2010 December 23, and 2011 May 21 are all preferentially aligned along the constant galactic latitude line with respect to the VLBI core (Fig. \[f:maps\]). This indicates that the discrete structures of electron density enhancements acting as refractive lenses move parallel to the Galactic plane, which corresponds to the direction from North-East to South-West on the images in the equatorial coordinates. This is consistent with the changes in the induced patterns between the epochs of May and July 2009, implying that the observed proper motion of the screen is prograde with regard to the galactic center. However, emission with a high signal-to-noise ratio was detected due East of the core at one full-track pre-MOJAVE epoch with high sensitivity, September 15, 2005, presumably suggesting that a lens drifted over the source along the tangent line. The remaining epochs, with the possible exception of November 26, 2008, are characterized by angular broadening of the VLBI core region. Interestingly, the secondary images that are also detected in linear polarization, e.g., on May 28, 2009, December 23, 2010, and May 21, 2011, show EVPAs aligned with those in the primary image.
Additional evidence from 8 GHz VLBA observations
------------------------------------------------
The quasar 2023+335 was also observed with the VLBA at 8.4 GHz on five occasions from November 2008 to November 2009 as a phase-reference calibrator in a framework of the black hole X-ray binary V404 Cyg project [@Miller-Jones09]. We reduced these archival VLBA data and found structural behavior very similar to our 15.4 GHz results. The source was least affected by the ISM in November 2008, but revealed multiply-imaged structure stretched out along the constant galactic latitude line at other epochs, including the 3 July 2009 epoch (Fig. \[f:diff\_image\_x\]), which was only 20 days prior to our 15.4 GHz MOJAVE epoch. The 8.4 GHz peaks of the induced structure are separated by $\sim$3.0 mas, while at 15.4 GHz the separation is $\sim$0.8 mas on 23 July 2009 ($\sim$1.0 mas on 28 May 2009). The separation thus scales as $\lambda^{2.2}$ ($\lambda^{1.75}$ 28 May 2009), which we consider to be convincing proof of a plasma scattering origin for the multiple imaging event [@Rickett88], because the refraction angle in plasma scattering is expected to follow a $\lambda^2$ dependence [@Clegg98], while for the intrinsic scenario the studied parameter of the angular separation is frequency-independent since the synchrotron jet emission is optically thin [e.g., @PK2012].
Summary of observational evidence in support of refractive scattering
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, we have found several pieces of observational evidence which suggest that the multiple imaging event witnessed in 2009 in 2023+335 was caused by refraction in the interstellar medium:
- the 8 and 15 GHz parsec-scale jet structure shows strongly induced patterns at two epochs, with weaker manifestations of the effect seen at several other epochs;
- the strongly induced patterns are coincident with an ESE event in the radio light curve, as predicted by models;
- the source is located in the Galactic plane behind the Cygnus loop, which provides a high probability of a propagation effect through an intervening turbulent screen;
- the angular separation between the peaks of the induced structure shows a $\lambda^2$-dependence, which is convincing proof of a plasma scattering origin of the induced sub-images. This argument also rules out a scenario in which the observed structural changes between epoch of Nov 2008 and May 2009 are intrinsic to the source.
Derived properties of the screen {#s:ESE}
================================
We can draw some basic conclusions from a simple analysis of the shape of the ESE light curve (Fig. \[f:ESE\_modeling\]). The rounded minimum of the ESE suggests that the lens is comparable to or smaller in size than the part of the source which it occults; otherwise, a flat-bottomed minimum is expected. Also, the ESE caused a $\sim30$% decrease in the source’s total flux density at 15 GHz. This indicates that the lensed part of the source contains a significant fraction of the total flux density. The most likely candidates for such a region are the VLBI core and/or, if present and bright, the innermost VLBI jet component, because (i) the source is highly core dominated on milliarcsecond scales and (ii) the total VLBA flux density agrees well with the single-dish flux density of the source, indicating that virtually all the 15 GHz emission originates from milliarcsecond scales. Finally, the sharp spike at the epoch of $\sim$2009.4 is likely attributable to an outer caustic that is associated with the passage of the lens edge over the background source. The presence of this caustic suggests that the refractive scattering is strong, and multiple images are expected to be formed (Fig. \[f:diff\_image\_u\]). The other outer caustic at the epoch of $\sim$2009.1 is present but less pronounced, indicating a difference in the free-electron density profile across the scattering screen.
Stochastic broadening
---------------------
To derive the quantitative parameters of the plasma lens, we used a statistical model for flux redistribution developed by [@Fiedler94] and based on stochastic broadening regardless of its nature, refractive or diffractive. In this model, the flux density of a distant background source at a time $t$ during an ESE is determined as $f(t; I_0,\mu,\theta_s,\theta_l,\theta_b)$, where $I_0$ is the nominal (un-lensed) flux density level of the source outside the lens, $\mu$ is the proper motion of the lens across the line of sight, $\theta_s$ is the intrinsic FWHM angular size of the source, $\theta_l$ is the apparent angular width of the lens (which has a band-shaped geometry when projected on the sky), and all parallel rays incident on the lens are assumed to be scatter-broadened into a Gaussian brightness distribution of FWHM $\theta_b$. Both $\theta_l$ and $\theta_b$ are measured with respect to $\theta_s$; thus we fit their ratios.
We used a two-component model, with a lensed component $I_\mathrm{scat}(t)$ being subject to temporal flux density variations from scattering during the ESE, and an un-lensed part $I_\mathrm{unscat}$ such that their sum equals the nominal flux density level outside the ESE. We also assumed that there are no significant intrinsic flux density changes during the event. We then fitted $\theta_l$, $\theta_b$, $I_0$, $I_\mathrm{scat}$, and $\mu$ by searching in parameter space and evaluating the goodness of fit using the $\chi^2$ statistic. We found good agreement with the depth and shape of the minimum being reproduced. In Fig. \[f:ESE\_modeling\], we show the simulated light curve superposed on the 15 GHz OVRO light curve for the set of best-fit parameters listed in Table \[t:ESE\_modeling\]. The scattered component comprises 51% of the total flux density. This rules out a scenario where the lens drifts over any downstream jet component, because the brightest of them, at the latest prior epoch (2008 November 26), accounted for only about 10% of the 15 GHz total flux density. Therefore, it is most likely that the lens passed over the VLBI core component.
The fitted parameters could be used to calculate the following physical characteristics of the plasma lens:
- Angular size $\theta_l=\theta_s/1.03$, where the intrinsic angular size of the VLBI core $\theta_s=\theta_b/1.88\approx0.28$ mas, and $\theta_b\approx0.53$ mas is the FWHM of the observed VLBI core size at epoch 2009 May 28. We then obtained $\theta_l\approx0.27$ mas, which is an upper limit since the lens passage would most likely occur along a chord rather than precisely along the diameter of the VLBI core. It is also worth noting that the observed size of the VLBI core component at the epoch 2008 November 26, which seems to show the source structure when least affected by scattering, is only $\sim$15% broader than the inferred intrinsic extent $\theta_s=0.28$ mas.
- Transverse linear size $a=\theta_l\,D$, where $D$ is the distance to the lens. The distance to the lens is uncertain, as the line of sight to 2023+335 passes through the nearby ($D\sim1.5$ kpc, e.g., @Rygl2012) Cygnus region in the Local Arm (also known as the Orion or Local Spur), the Perseus Arm ($D\sim6$ kpc), and the Outer Arm ($D\sim10$ kpc) (see Fig. \[f:gal\_arms\]). We assume that the lens is in the highly turbulent Cygnus region at the distance of $\sim1.5$ kpc, which yields $a\approx0.4$ AU.
- Proper motion $\mu=3.5\,\theta_s/\tau\approx6.8$ mas yr$^{-1}$, where $\tau\approx0.14$ yr is the duration of the ESE as measured between the peaks that surrounds the minimum of the flux density modulation.
- Transverse speed $V_{l\perp}=4.74\,\mu_{\mathrm{[mas/yr]}}\,D_{\mathrm{[kpc]}}\approx48.7$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the observer. Taking into account the Earth’s motion around the Sun, the projected speed of the screen at the middle phase of the ESE in the Sun’s rest frame is about 56 km s$^{-1}$.
The fitted light curve reproduces the inner caustics quite well. What the model does not reproduce are the flux density enhancements attributed to outer caustics, the earlier one of which shows an excess of $\sim$0.5 Jy comparing to the unlensed flux density level, while the later outer caustic is characterized by nearly twice as large flux density excess, $\sim$1 Jy. The latter value is consistent with the total flux density of the induced quasi-symmetric multi-component pattern (see ’S’ components in Table \[t:model\]), indicating that the scattering screen at epoch 2009 May 28 has a double-lens structure (Fig. \[f:ESE\_modeling\], upper panel) that creates the secondary images on both sides from the VLBI core, as depicted in Fig. \[f:diff\_image\_u\], and thus considerably deviates from the model light curve.
Parameter Value Unit
----------------------- ------- ----------------------
$\theta_s/\theta_l$ 1.03
$\theta_b/\theta_s$ 1.88
$I_0$ 3.67 Jy
$I_\mathrm{scat}/I_0$ 0.51
$\tau^\mathrm{\,\,a}$ 0.14 yr
$\mu$ 25.01 $\theta_s$ yr$^{-1}$
$\chi^2$ 0.02
: Parameters of the best-fit stochastic broadening model.[]{data-label="t:ESE_modeling"}
[**Note.**]{} $^\mathrm{a}$ This parameter held fixed.
Refraction defocusing
---------------------
Another approach is provided by the refraction defocusing (RD) model [@Clegg98], in which the intervening scattering screen is represented by a plasma lens with a Gaussian profile of free-electron column density. The refractive properties of the lens in this model are described completely by an introduced dimensionless parameter $$\alpha=3.6\left(\frac{\lambda}{\mathrm{1~cm}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{N_0}{\mathrm{1~pc~cm}^{-3}}\right)
\left(\frac{D}{\mathrm{1~kpc}}\right)
\left(\frac{a}{\mathrm{1~AU}}\right)^{-2}\,,$$ where $N_0$ is the maximum column density through the lens and $\lambda$ is the observing wavelength. In case of moderate and strong refraction, the caustic spikes are expected to be formed. The relative separation between the inner $\Delta x_i^\prime$ and outer $\Delta
x_o^\prime$ pair of caustics is an important observable that allows us to place a constraint on $\alpha$ through the following analytic expression [@Clegg98 Eq. 23] $$\alpha \simeq 1.7\left(3\frac{\Delta x_o^\prime}{\Delta x_i^\prime}-1\right)^{1.06}\,.$$ For the ESE in 2023+335, the ratio $\Delta x_o^\prime/\Delta x_i^\prime\approx2$. Then the strength of the lens is $\alpha\simeq10$. We can now derive the following properties of the lens:
- maximum electron column density through the lens $N_0=0.28\,\alpha\,\lambda_\mathrm{[cm]}^{-2}\,D_\mathrm{[kpc]}\,\theta_{l\,\mathrm{[mas]}}^2\approx2.5\times10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of observation in cm;
- free-electron density within the lens $n_e\approx N_0/a\approx4.0\times10^4$ cm$^{-3}$;
- mass of the lens $M_l\sim m_p n_e a^3$, where $m_p$ is the proton mass. For a lens at 1.5 kpc, $M_l\sim1.4\times10^{19}\mbox{~g}\sim7.2\times10^{-15} M_\mathrm{\sun}$.
It is worth noting that the inner caustics are less pronounced in comparison with the outer one clearly seen at the epoch of $\sim$2009.4 in Fig. \[f:ESE\_modeling\], while in the RD model they are expected to have comparable levels. However, simulations performed by [@Stinebring07] considering a two-dimensional (rather than a one-dimensional as in the RD model) lens with a Gaussian density profile have shown the absence of strong inner caustics. More complex cases of double-lens systems have been investigated by [@Kim05].
Turbulent angular broadening {#s:broadening}
============================
Diffraction phenomena associated with scattering by a turbulent interstellar medium results in the angular broadening of a distant background radio source. Thus, its observed brightness distribution is a convolution of the intrinsic source structure with a scattering function. The angular size of a broadened source scales with frequency through the following relation [@Rickett77] $$\theta_\mathrm{scat}\propto\nu^{k}, \qquad k=-\frac{\beta}{\beta-2}\,,
\label{eq:scat}$$ where $\beta$ is the index of the assumed power-law spectrum of the turbulent electron density fluctuations $\delta n_e/n_e$ [@Cordes85] $$P_{\delta n_e}(q)=C_n^2q^{-\beta}, \qquad q_0\le q\le q_1\,,$$ where $C_n^2$ is a normalizing constant, and $q_0$ and $q_1$ are spatial wave-number cutoffs corresponding to the outer and inner scales of the turbulence, respectively, bracketing over 6 orders of magnitude of irregularity scales from $\sim10^{8}$ cm to $\sim10^{15}$ cm [@Armstrong95; @Combes00; @Cordes86]. A theory of turbulence developed by [@Kolmogorov41] predicts that $\beta=11/3$ for isotropic density fluctuations, and it has been reported that observational data are consistent with this value for a number of lines of sight [@Armstrong81; @Wolszczan83; @Rickett90; @Fey91]. In this case, the scattered angular size is expected to be proportional to $\nu^{-2.2}$. However, the theory accommodates steeper density fluctuation spectra ($\beta>4$) as well [@Cordes01], being observed for some other lines of sight [@Hewish85; @Romani86]. Scattering can manifest itself through diffractive and/or refractive effects, depending on the size of turbulent eddies and associated turbulence spectrum. Diffractive effects will dominate for a screen with small-scale electron-density irregularities, yielding shallow ($\beta<4$) spectra, while considerably more refraction is expected for large-scale turbulent eddies causing steep ($\beta>4$) spectra [@Cordes86]. Note that if no scattering is present, the observed angular size of a flat-spectrum, inhomogeneous synchrotron source is expected to scale approximately as $\nu^{-1}$ [@KPT81], although departures from this dependence are also possible and can be caused by pressure and density gradients in the jet or by external absorption from the surrounding medium [@Lobanov98; @Kovalev_cs; @Sokolovsky_cs; @Pushkarev_cs and references therein].
----------- -------------- --------------- ----------------
Frequency Epoch Flux density Angular size
(GHz) (yyyy-mm-dd) (Jy) (mas)
1.421 1995-06-23 $1.08\pm0.28$ $28.49\pm7.89$
2.265 1995-10-12 $1.93\pm0.44$ $11.89\pm2.99$
2.269 1996-05-15 $1.94\pm0.47$ $11.08\pm2.99$
2.292 2001-03-12 $1.20\pm0.37$ $ 9.65\pm3.13$
2.309 2003-07-09 $0.73\pm0.36$ $14.78\pm3.75$
8.335 1995-10-12 $2.66\pm0.41$ $ 0.95\pm0.21$
8.339 1996-05-15 $2.62\pm0.42$ $ 0.74\pm0.20$
8.646 2001-03-12 $1.79\pm0.34$ $ 1.00\pm0.23$
8.646 2003-07-09 $1.05\pm0.26$ $ 1.25\pm0.37$
8.322 2010-01-07 $3.17\pm0.50$ $ 1.23\pm0.26$
15.365 2000-04-02 $0.89\pm0.09$ $ 0.56\pm0.08$
15.365 2001-09-19 $1.54\pm0.16$ $ 0.39\pm0.07$
15.365 2002-02-15 $1.27\pm0.11$ $ 0.32\pm0.06$
15.365 2008-07-17 $1.27\pm0.07$ $ 0.46\pm0.04$
15.357 2008-11-26 $2.80\pm0.15$ $ 0.36\pm0.03$
15.357 2009-05-28 $3.65\pm0.15$ $ 0.53\pm0.03$
15.357 2009-07-23 $3.44\pm0.15$ $ 0.48\pm0.03$
15.357 2009-10-27 $1.87\pm0.10$ $ 0.37\pm0.04$
15.357 2009-12-10 $4.87\pm0.21$ $ 0.35\pm0.03$
15.357 2010-02-11 $4.52\pm0.15$ $ 0.48\pm0.02$
15.357 2010-08-06 $4.30\pm0.18$ $ 0.35\pm0.03$
15.357 2010-10-25 $2.05\pm0.13$ $ 0.41\pm0.04$
15.357 2010-12-24 $2.16\pm0.07$ $ 0.45\pm0.02$
15.357 2011-05-21 $1.08\pm0.04$ $ 0.40\pm0.02$
15.357 2011-09-12 $1.32\pm0.06$ $ 0.39\pm0.03$
15.357 2012-07-12 $2.51\pm0.14$ $ 0.45\pm0.04$
15.357 2012-11-11 $2.31\pm0.19$ $ 0.38\pm0.05$
22.204 2008-06-01 $1.39\pm0.16$ $ 0.24\pm0.05$
22.241 2010-04-24 $4.71\pm0.28$ $ 0.23\pm0.03$
22.240 2010-07-26 $2.97\pm0.27$ $ 0.27\pm0.04$
22.239 2010-09-25 $3.03\pm0.32$ $ 0.24\pm0.05$
22.238 2010-11-18 $2.41\pm0.15$ $ 0.28\pm0.03$
22.238 2010-12-16 $1.37\pm0.12$ $ 0.26\pm0.04$
22.241 2011-04-25 $1.64\pm0.13$ $ 0.28\pm0.04$
24.433 2006-06-04 $2.05\pm0.15$ $ 0.21\pm0.03$
86.248 2002-04-20 $0.42\pm0.12$ $ 0.03\pm0.02$
----------- -------------- --------------- ----------------
: VLBI core parameters at different observing frequencies/epochs.[]{data-label="t:freq_vs_size"}
[**Notes.**]{} Columns are as follows: (1) central observing frequency, (2) epoch of observations, (3) fitted Gaussian flux density, (4) FWHM angular size of the fitted Gaussian.
To investigate the amount and nature of scattering occurring along the line of sight to 2023+335, we used the 15 GHz MOJAVE data together with other publicly available[^2] VLBI data for 2023+335 at other frequencies, such as 1.4, 2, 8, 15, 24, and 86 GHz (see Table \[t:freq\_vs\_size\]). The archival data for all experiments except two, carried out in Oct 1995 at 2 and 8 GHz [@Fey97] and Apr 2002 at 86 GHz [@Lee08], were reduced by us. The source structure was model fitted with circular Gaussian components that after being convolved with the restoring beam, adequately reproduce the constructed brightness distribution. In Fig. \[f:size\_vs\_freq\], we plot the angular size of the VLBI core component as a function of observing frequency listed in Table \[t:freq\_vs\_size\]. We fitted the measured angular width to the following relation [@Lazio08] $$\theta^2_\mathrm{observed} = \left(\theta_\mathrm{scat}\nu^k\right)^2 + \left(\theta_\mathrm{int}\nu^{-1}\right)^2\,,
\label{r:size_vs_freq}$$ where $\theta_\mathrm{scat}$ and $\theta_\mathrm{int}$ are the scattered and intrinsic FWHM diameters of the VLBI core, respectively, scaled to a frequency of 1 GHz. We used a grid-search method to fit for $\theta_\mathrm{scat}$, $\theta_\mathrm{int}$, and $k$ that produced the minimum $\chi^2$. We found the following best-fitting values $\theta_\mathrm{scat}=55.8$ mas, $\theta_\mathrm{int}=4.2$ mas, and the index $k=-1.89$, which corresponds to $\beta=4.3$. This indicates that the angular size of the VLBI core increases faster than would be expected if there is no scattering, but not as fast as in case of scattering caused by a Kolmogorov electron density spectrum.
Partly, this can be due to the non-simultaneity of the VLBI observations, given the maximum epoch difference of $\sim$16 yr between the 2/8 GHz and 15 GHz data. On the other hand, the observations at 2 and 8 GHz at four epochs were carried out simultaneously, thereby providing more robust estimates of the $k$-index, although determined within a $\sim$10 times narrower frequency range, with the average value of $-1.90\pm0.13$ ($\beta\approx4.2$). This is consistent with the one calculated from the all non-simultaneous data covering a broader frequency range. This average two-frequency value of $k$ also agrees well with the power index $k=-1.97\pm0.29$ derived by [@Fey_et_al_89] from earlier non-simultaneous VLBI observations of 2023+335 performed at 0.61, 1.66, and 4.99 GHz, but still deviates from the conventional index of $-2.2$ expected for a Kolmogorov spectrum. The following questions then arise: (i) is it a result of a non-Kolmogorov turbulence, e.g., caused by anisotropy effects?, (ii) what may cause the weaker frequency dependence?, and (iii) why the slope of [@Fey_et_al_89] ($-1.97$) is closer to that of Kolmogorov ($-2.2$) than our estimate of the slope ($-1.89$)? The currently most accepted model of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence developed by [@Goldreich95], in which the compressible regime was tested numerically [@Cho02; @Cho03], includes anisotropy effects and predicts the Kolmogorov spectrum. As for the second question, [@Cordes01] reported that the scaling law of angular size with frequency can be considerably shallower than the canonical $\nu^{-11/5}$ dependence if the scattering screen with Kolmogorov fluctuations has a confined structure or is truncated transverse to the line of sight, i.e. the “container” in which the turbulence resides has boundaries. This is consistent with the observed ESE that likely indicates the presence of discrete density structures, the observational manifestations of which we discussed in Sect. \[s:refrac\_scat\]. To speculate on the third question, we see two possible explanations: (1) the data used by [@Fey_et_al_89] probed somewhat different (larger) spatial scales, because the lowest frequency in their data was 0.61 GHz, while that in our set of data is higher by a factor of 2.3, 1.4 GHz; (2) the properties of the screen, as a function of time, could be different at epoch of 1985-1986 studied by [@Fey_et_al_89]. Most probably, both of these possibilities play a role to some degree.
The most prominent angular broadening occurs at the lowest of the available observing frequencies, 1.4 GHz, and increases the angular size by a factor of $\sim$10 as seen in Fig. \[f:size\_vs\_freq\]. The expected size of the core component, if there were no screen, is within typical VLBI core sizes of $\sim$(1-2) mas at 2 GHz and $\sim$(0.3-0.6) mas at 8 GHz as derived from a sample of 370 sources [@PK2012], and $\sim$(0.2-0.4) mas at 15 GHz from a sample of 133 sources [@Kovalev05].
From the above analysis, we can constrain the turbulence spectrum index toward 2023+335 to within the range $4.2\lesssim\beta\lesssim4.7$. We note that such steep turbulence spectra ($\beta\sim4.3$) have been seen previously in nature, specifically in laboratory scattered laser light experiments [@Jakeman84; @Walker84], suggesting that spectra that are steeper than the Kolmogorov spectrum may not be that unusual.
Summary {#s:summary}
=======
We have found convincing evidence for the first detected multiple imaging of an AGN jet due to refractive foreground scattering in our galaxy. This rare phenomenon was theoretically predicted several decades ago and is based on the refractive properties of localized electron density enhancements in the ionized component of the Galactic interstellar medium [@Lovelace70; @Cordes86b; @Rickett88]. We detected the effect in the low galactic latitude ($b=-2\fdg4$) quasar 2023+335 in a number of VLBA observations obtained between 2008 and 2012 as part of the MOJAVE program. Its strongest manifestation, at $\sim$10% of the primary image flux density, occurred on May 28, 2009 at 15 GHz, when the source was undergoing an extreme scattering event, specifically during a special phase when a caustic spike associated with the lens edge passed over the source. We observed a highly significant multi-component pattern of secondary images induced by strong refraction in May 2009 and July 2009, which was stretched out roughly along the constant galactic latitude line with $\mathrm{PA}\approx40\degr$. This suggests that the direction of relative motion of the lens is parallel to the galactic plane, as expected for an orbiting cloud. We observed sporadic weaker but still detectable patterns at similar position angles with respect to the VLBI core at other epochs. Using archival VLBA data, we were able to detect the same effect at a lower observing frequency, 8.4 GHz. The angular separation of the peaks of the scatter-induced structure follows a $\lambda^2$ dependence, which provides strong evidence for a plasma scattering origin of the multiple imaging. The parsec-scale source structure, when unaffected by scattering, consists of a bright core that typically accounts for $\sim$80% of the total VLBA flux density, and a short jet extending along $\mathrm{PA}\approx-20\degr$. Our multiple imaging observations provide valuable information for discriminating between various competing models of ESE, the true nature of which is still uncertain.
By taking into account the length of the ESE event ($\sim$0.14 yr) and by assuming that it was caused by an ionized gas cloud drifting across the line of sight, we determined the proper motion of the lens: $\sim$6.8 mas yr$^{-1}$, and its angular size: $\sim$0.27 mas. The latter is comparable to the intrinsic size of the VLBI core at 15 GHz: $\sim$0.28 mas ($\sim$1 pc). The line of sight toward 2023+335 passes through the highly turbulent Cygnus region located at a distance of about 1.5 kpc. Assuming that that the lens lies at this distance, its transverse speed and linear size are $\sim$56 km s$^{-1}$ and $\sim$0.4 AU, respectively.
Our observations support a model of ESE suggested by [@Clegg98], since formation of multiple imaging of the background source along with formation of caustics surfaces in a light curve predicted by the model have been detected. However, we were not able to detect any substantial angular position wander of the background source, as predicted by the model.
Analyzing the non-simultaneous multi-frequency VLBI observations covering a frequency range from 1.4 to 86 GHz, we found that the scattered angular size of the VLBI core scales as $\nu^{-1.89}$, implying the presence of a highly turbulent, refractive dominated scattering screen along the line of sight to 2023+335. The shallower than canonical Kolmogorov $\nu^{-2.2}$ dependence may be caused by a confined structure of the screen with arbitrary spatial variations of scattering power in the transverse direction.
We note that future multiple imaging events in AGN caused by refraction scattering in the interstellar medium can be successfully detected if the following two conditions are fulfilled: (i) a target is observed by a multi-band VLBI when it is passing through the caustic surface of an ESE; (ii) the refractive power of the lens is sufficiently strong to separate the secondary images at angular distances larger than the scattered diameter of the primary image.
The authors acknowledge K. I. Kellermann, E. Clausen-Brown, and the other members of the MOJAVE team. We are also grateful to J. Cordes, B. Rickett and T. J. W. Lazio for productive discussions. We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments which helped to improve the manuscript. This research has made use of data from the MOJAVE database that is maintained by the MOJAVE team [@MOJAVE]. The MOJAVE project is supported under NASA [*Fermi*]{} grant 11-Fermi11-0019. Part of this work was supported by the COST Action MP0905 “Black Holes in a Violent Universe”. A. B. P. was partially supported by DAAD and the “Non-stationary processes in the Universe” Program of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Y. Y. K. was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (projects 11-02-00368, 12-02-33101), the basic research program “Active processes in galactic and extragalactic objects” of the Physical Sciences Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Dynasty Foundation. T. H. was supported by the Jenny and Antti Wihuri foundation. E. R. was partially supported by the Spanish MINECO projects AYA2009-13036-C02-02 and AYA2012-38491-C02-01 and by the Generalitat Valenciana project PROMETEO/2009/104. The UMRAO monitoring program is supported in part by NASA [*Fermi*]{} GI grants NNX09AU16G, NNX10AP16G and NNX11AO13G and NSF grant AST-0607523. The OVRO 40-m monitoring program is supported in part by NASA grants NNX08AW31G and NNX11A043G, and NSF grants AST-0808050 and AST-1109911. The VLBA is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory under cooperative agreement with Associated Universities, Inc. This research has made use of BM046, RDV26,40, BM290A-E, BR149, BM167, BM231, GM064, BR145D experiment data from the public VLBA archive of correlated data. This work made use of the Swinburne University of Technology software correlator [@Deller11], developed as part of the Australian Major National Research Facilities Programme and operated under licence.
[^1]: <http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astro/MOJAVE>
[^2]: <http://astrogeo.org/vlbi_images>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Much progress has been made in measuring black hole (BH) masses in (non-active) galactic nuclei using the tight correlation between stellar velocity dispersions $\sigma$ in galaxies and the mass of their central BH. The use of this correlation in quasars, however, is hampered by the difficulty in measuring sigma in host galaxies that tend to be overpowered by their very bright nuclei. We discuss results from a project that focuses on $z\sim0.3$ quasars suffering from heavy extinction at shorter wavelengths. This makes it possible to obtain clean spectra of the hosts in the spectral regions of interest, while broad lines (like H$\alpha$) are still visible at longer wavelengths. We compare BH masses obtained from velocity dispersions to those obtained from the BLR and thus probe the evolution of this relation and BH growth with redshift and luminosity. Our preliminary results show an offset between the position of our objects and the local relation, in the sense that red quasars have, on average, lower velocity dispersions than local galaxies. We discuss possible biases and systematic errors that may affect our results.'
author:
- Gabriela Canalizo
- Margrethe Wold
- Mariana Lazarova
- Mark Lacy
title: Quasar Black Hole Masses from Velocity Dispersions
---
[ address=[Dept. of Physics and Astronomy and IGPP, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA]{} ]{}
[ address=[Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, N-0315 Oslo, Norway]{} ]{}
[ address=[Dept. of Physics and Astronomy and IGPP, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA]{} ]{}
[ address=[Spitzer Science Center, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA]{} ]{}
Background
==========
Black hole (BH) mass is believed to be one of the fundamental parameters that characterize quasar activity and much effort has been devoted to obtaining accurate BH masses for quasars and other AGN [@ho99]. In recent years, much progress has been made in measuring BH masses in galactic nuclei, particularly with the remarkable discovery by @geb00a and @fer00 of a tight correlation between stellar velocity dispersion in galaxies and the mass of their central BH (M$_{\rm BH}\propto\sigma^{n}$). The use of this correlation to derive BH masses in AGN, however, is hampered by the difficulty in measuring velocity dispersions in host galaxies that tend to be overpowered by their very bright nuclei. Nevertheless, the correlation has been shown to be present at low redshift ($z<0.1$) in low luminosity AGN ( BL Lac objects: [@barth03]; or Seyfert galaxies: [@geb00b]). Seyfert galaxies at higher redshift ($z\sim0.36$ and $z\sim0.57$), however, appear to show an offset from the local relation [@Woo2008 and references therein].
It is not yet known whether the M$_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ correlation holds for the highest luminosity AGN. A loose correlation has been found by using the width of \[OIII\] lines in active nuclei [@nel00; @shi03], but the width of these lines is dependent upon other parameters (outflows, radio luminosity, etc.) and therefore lead to a correlation with a large scatter. BH masses derived from \[OIII\] emission line widths can only be accurate to within a factor of five at best [@bor03]. More accurate determinations are necessary if we hope to use them to disentangle some of the other fundamental relationships among quasar parameters.
Red quasars
===========
We are therefore carrying out a program to measure stellar velocity dispersions in quasar host galaxies. We have selected a sample of $z<0.4$ $red$ quasars from 2MASS. Red quasars are likely the dust obscured equivalent of the blue quasar population, and they have the advantage that the nucleus is highly extincted at optical wavelengths, so that the contrast between the stellar flux from the host galaxy and that of the nucleus is increased. Thus, the spectra of these objects show, at shorter wavelengths, stellar features that are useful to measure velocity dispersions and, at longer wavelengths, broad emission lines from which to obtain virial estimates of BH masses.
Our sample of 11 objects is drawn from @mar03. We obtained deep, medium resolution spectroscopic observations with the Echelle Spectrograph and Imager (ESI) on the Keck II telescope. We placed the slit through the center of the host galaxies in order to measure velocity dispersions of the bulges of the hosts. Figure 1 shows the spectrum of one of the objects in the sample demonstrating that they suffer little contamination from the nucleus at wavelengths shorter than H$\alpha$.
{height=".4\textheight"}
Velocity Dispersions
--------------------
We first estimated the size of the stellar bulges by inspecting archival $HST$/WFPC2 images (proposal ID 9057; PI D. Hines) and extracted spectra from these regions. We measured velocity dispersions ($\sigma_{c}$) by fitting the spectra in the rest frame region between 5220 and 5550 Å for each of the targets. We used templates formed from the combination of spectra of stars of different spectral types observed also with ESI. To these templates we added a small fraction of a continuum to simulate any potential contamination from the active nucleus. We were able to obtain a reliable $\sigma_{c}$ for eight of the targets, with typical errors at the 95% confidence level of $\sim$ $\pm$ 20 km s$^{-1}$.
Black Hole Masses
-----------------
We estimated virial masses for the BHs in the sample by first fitting the FWHM of the broad component of H$\alpha$, and then using the scaling relation given by @kas00. In this relation, the size of the broad line region is a function of the continuum luminosity at rest frame 5100 Å. However, as mentioned before, the quasar continuum suffers from heavy extinction in this spectral region. To obtain the unobscured flux at 5100 Å, we used the following procedure: (1) We measured the flux of the quasar at F814W in the HST images by fitting an empirical PSF to the nucleus. In this way, we also determined the relative flux contribution from the host galaxy and the quasar in the region covered by the slit. (2) We scaled the Keck ESI spectrum to match the flux obtained from the HST images. (3) We fitted a reddened version of the SDSS composite quasar spectrum plus a reddened stellar population, using the relative contributions determined in (1), and varying the amount of reddening, guided by the measured ratios of H$\alpha$/H$\beta$. The E(B-V) that we measured in the sample varied from 0.5 to 2. Measuring the extinction accurately is currently our main source of uncertainty and, until we perform more detailed fitting of the spectra, our results are only tentative.
{height=".51\textheight"}
The M$_{BH}$–$\sigma_{c}$ relation.
-----------------------------------
Preliminary results for the eight objects we measured are plotted as solid circles in Fig. 2, along with results from local objects taken from @geb00a and @fer00, and Seyfert galaxies at $z=0.37$ taken from @treu04. While half of the objects have positions consistent with the local relation, the other half seem to have an offset in the sense that $\sigma$ has lower values for a given BH mass. The positions of these objects in the plot are more consistent with those of Seyfert galaxies at higher $z$ published by @treu04, who have found evidence for evolution in the relation from $z=0.57$ to the present [@Woo2008]. The two objects that fall beneath the relation in Fig. 2 are indeed the ones with the lowest $z$ in our sample. However, until we perform more careful modeling to determine the nuclear extinction, we can only speculate about this potential evidence pointing to evolution.
Support for this project was provided by the NSF, under grant number AST 0507450.
[9]{}
Ho, L. C. 1999, in [*Observational Evidence for Black Holes in the Universe*]{}, ed. S. K. Chakrabarti (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 157
Gebhardt, K. 2000, *ApJ Letters*, **539**, L13
Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, *ApJ Letters*, **539**, L9
Barth, A. J., Ho, L. C., Sargent, W. L. W. 2003, *ApJ*, **583**, 134
Gebhardt, K. et al. 2000b, *ApJ Letters*, **543**, L5
Nelson, C. H. 2000, *ApJ*, **544**,91
Shields, G. A. et al. 2003, *ApJ*, **583**, 124
Boroson, T. A. 2003, *ApJ*, **585**, 647
Woo, J-H., Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., Blandford, R. D. 2008, *ApJ*, in press.
Marble, A. R., Dean, H. C., Schmidt, G. D., Smith, P. S. 2003, ApJ, 590, 707
Kaspi, S. et al. 2000, *ApJ*, **533**, 677
Treu, T., Malkan, M. A., Blanford, R. D.2004, *ApJ Letters*, **615**, 97
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is conjectured that the an entanglement output states from a beam splitter requires the non-classicality in the input state(M.S. Kim, W. Son, V. Buzek and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A, 65, 032323(2002)). Here we give a proof for this conjecture.'
author:
- |
Wang Xiang-bin[^1]\
Imai Quantum Computation and Information project, ERATO, Japan Sci. and Tech. Corp.\
Daini Hongo White Bldg. 201, 5-28-3, Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
title: A theorem for the beam splitter entangler
---
The beam splitter is one of the few quantum devices that may act as the entangler. The entangler properties of a beam splitter have been studied in the past[@tan; @sanders; @paris; @kim]. In particular, Kim et al[@kim] studied the entangler property with many different input states such as the Fock number state, the coherent state, the squeezed state and the mixed states in Gaussian form. It has been conjectured there that, to obtain an entangled output state, a necessary condition is that the input state should be non-classical. Unfortunately, there is no proof for this conjecture. In this paper, we give a very simple proof for this conjecture.\
Consider a loseless beam splitter(see figure 1). We can distinguish the field mode $a$ and mode $b$ by the different propagating direction. Most generally, the property of a beam splitter operator $\hat B$ in Schrodinger picture can be summarized by the following equations(see e.g., ref[@campos0]) $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{out}=\hat B \rho_{in} \hat B^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat B^\dagger=\hat B^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat B \left(\begin{array}{c}\hat a\\\hat b\end{array}\right)\hat B^{-1}
=M_{B}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hat a\\ \hat b\end{array}\right)\label{m1},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
M_B
=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\cos\theta e^{i\phi_0}& \sin\theta e^{i\phi_1}\\ -\sin\theta e^{-i\phi_1}
& \cos\theta e^{-i\phi_0} \end{array}\right)
\label{m2}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat B |00\rangle=|00\rangle\label{va}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\rho_{in}$ and $\rho_{out}$ are the density operator for the input and output states respectively. Both of them are two mode states including mode $a$ and mode $b$. The elements in the matrix $M_B$ are determined by the beam splitter itself, $\hat a,\hat b$ are the annihilation operators for mode $a$ and mode $b$ respective, $|00\rangle$ is the vacuum state for both mode. Equation (\[va\]) is due to the simple fact of no input no output. Without any loss of generality, we can express $\rho_{in}$ by the $P$ representation in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{in}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
P(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)
|\alpha_a,\alpha_b\rangle\langle\alpha_a,\alpha_b|{\rm d^2}\alpha_a
{\rm d^2} \alpha_b, \end{aligned}$$ where $|\alpha_a,\alpha_b\rangle$ is the coherent state in two mode Fock space, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha_a,\alpha_b\rangle=\hat D_{ab}(\alpha_a,\alpha_b)|00\rangle \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat D_{ab}(\alpha_a,\alpha_b)
=e^{\hat a^\dagger \alpha_a-\hat a \alpha_a^*+\hat b^\dagger \alpha_b-\hat b \alpha_b^* }.\end{aligned}$$ If $\rho_{in}$ is a classical state, the distribution function $P(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*) $ must be non-negative definite in the whole complex planes. In such a case, the ouput state is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{out}= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
P(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)\hat B
|\alpha_a,\alpha_b\rangle\langle\alpha_a,\alpha_b|\hat B^{-1}{\rm d^2}\alpha_a
{\rm d^2} \alpha_b\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{out}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
P(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)\hat B \hat D_{ab}(\alpha_a,\alpha_b) \hat B^{-1}\cdot \hat B
|00\rangle\langle 00|\hat B^{-1}\cdot \hat B \hat D_{ab} \hat B^{\dagger}. \end{aligned}$$ From equation(\[va\]) we know that $\hat B
|00\rangle\langle 00|\hat B^{-1}=|00\rangle\langle 00|$. By equation(\[m1\]) we can see that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat B \hat D_{ab}(\alpha_a,\alpha_b) \hat B^{-1}=\hat D_{ab}(\alpha'_a,\alpha'_b)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha_a',\alpha_b')=(\alpha_a,\alpha_b)M_B.\end{aligned}$$ In short, the following equatoin can be easily obtained by equation(\[m1\],\[m2\],\[va\] ) $$\begin{aligned}
\hat B|\alpha_a,\alpha_b\rangle\langle\alpha_a,\alpha_b|\hat B^{-1}=
|\alpha_a',\alpha_b'\rangle\langle\alpha_a',\alpha_b'|\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\rm det} M_B=1 $, we have the following formula for the output state $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{out}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
P(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)
|\alpha_a',\alpha_b'\rangle\langle\alpha_a',\alpha_b'|{\rm d^2}\alpha_a'
{\rm d^2} \alpha_b'.\end{aligned}$$ This is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{out}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
P'(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)
|\alpha_a,\alpha_b\rangle\langle\alpha_a,\alpha_b|{\rm d^2}\alpha_a
{\rm d^2} \alpha_b\label{sep}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
P'(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)
=P(\alpha_a'',\alpha_b'',\alpha_a''^*,\alpha_b''^*) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha_a'',\alpha_b'')=(\alpha_a'',\alpha_b'')M_B^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $P(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)$ is non-negative, functional $P'(\alpha_a,\alpha_b,\alpha_a^*,\alpha_b^*)$ must be also non-negative. By the definition of separability, state $\rho_{out}$ defined by equation(\[sep\]) must be separable. Therefore we have the following theorem:\
[**Theorem:**]{} [*If the input state is a classical state, the output state of a beam splitter must be a separable state.*]{}\
This is equivalent to say, in order to obtain an entangled output state, the non-classicality of the input state is a necessary condition. This theorem can be extended to a more general situation in the [*multi*]{}mode Fock space. Let’s consider the rotation operator $\hat R$ in n-mode Fock space. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat R \Lambda \hat R^{-1}=M_R \Lambda,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda=(\hat c_1,\hat c_2\cdots \hat c_n)^T$, $\hat c_i$ are the annihilation operators of the $i'$th mode and $M_R$ is a $n-$dimensional unitary matrix. By using the BCH formula $$\begin{aligned}
e^\mu \nu e^{-\mu}=\nu + [\mu,\nu]+\frac{1}{2!}[\mu,[\mu,\nu]] +\cdots\end{aligned}$$ we have the following explicitly formula for the operator $\hat R$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat R =\exp\left(-\Lambda^\dagger \ln M_R \Lambda\right).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat R |00\cdots 0\rangle =|00\cdots 0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Any classical multimode state in Fock space can be written in the following probabilistic distribution $$\begin{aligned}
\rho = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\bf P({\bf \alpha, \alpha^*}) |{\bf \alpha}\rangle\langle \bf \alpha |
\rm d^2\bf \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ where $|\bf \alpha\rangle=|\alpha_1 \alpha_2\cdots\alpha_n\rangle$ and $\bf P({\bf \alpha, \alpha^*}) $ is a non-negative functional provided that $\rho$ is a classical state. Similar to the two mode case, we can shown that, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\bf P'({\bf \alpha, \alpha^*}) |{\bf \alpha}\rangle\langle \bf \alpha |
\rm d^2\bf \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bf P'({\bf \alpha, \alpha}^*)
=\bf P({\bf \alpha}'',
{\bf \alpha}^{''*}) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha'')=( \alpha)\cdot M_R^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, the funtional $\bf P'({\bf \alpha, \alpha^*}) $ is non-negative. Thus we draw the following conclusion in the multimode Fock space: [*A classical density operator in the multimode Fock space is separable under arbitrary rotation*]{}.\
Although the nonclassicality in the input state is a necessary condition, it is obviously not a sufficient condition for the entanglement in the output state of a beam splitter. Since a beam splitter operater is unitary, it is reversible. It has been shown in ref[@kim] that nonclassical separable input state can be changed to an entangled state in the output. The inverse of such a process makes examples that even though the input state is nonclassical, the output could be still separable. Some specific examples are given in [@campos].\
I thank Prof Imai for support. I thank Dr Huang WY, Dr Winter, Dr Yura H, Dr Matsumoto K,and Dr Tomita A for useful discussions.
[99]{}
R. A. Campos, B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Phys. Rev. A, 40, 1371(1089). S. M. Tan, D. F. Walls, and M. J. Collett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 285(1990). B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6811(1992); B. C. Sanders, K. S. Lee, and M. S. Kim, [*ibid*]{}, 52, 735(1995); S. Scheel [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. A 62, 043803. M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1615(1999). M. S. Kim, W. Son, V. Buzek, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032323(2002). D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Opotics, Springer-Verlag, 1994. R. A. Campos, Phys. Rev. A, 62, 013809(2000).
[^1]: email: wang$@$qci.jst.go.jp
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We introduce a variant of the large sieve and give an example of its use in a sieving problem. Take the interval $[N] = \{1,\dots,N\}$ and, for each odd prime $p {\leqslant}\sqrt{N}$, remove or “sieve out” by all $n$ whose reduction $n{\ensuremath{(\operatorname{mod}\, p)}}$ lies in some interval $I_p \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ of length $(p-1)/2$. Let $A$ be the set that remains: then $|A| \ll_{{\varepsilon}} N^{1/3 + o(1)}$, a bound which improves slightly on the bound of $|A| \ll N^{1/2}$ which results from applying the large sieve in its usual form. This is a very, very weak result in the direction of a question of Helfgott and Venkatesh, who suggested that nothing like equality can occur in applications of the large sieve unless the unsieved set is essentially the set of values of a polynomial (e.g. $A$ is the set of squares).
Assuming the “exponent pairs conjecture” (which is deep, as it implies a host of classical questions including the Lindelöf hypothesis, Gauss circle problem and Dirichlet divisor problem) we can improve the bound to $|A| \ll N^{o(1)}$. This raises the worry that even reasonably simple sieve problems are connected to issues of which we have little understanding at the present time.
address: |
Centre for Mathematical Sciences\
Wilberforce Road\
Cambridge CB3 0WA\
England
author:
- Ben Green
title: On a variant of the large sieve
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The large sieve is, in its purest form, the following analytic inequality.
\[large-sieve\] Suppose that $N {\geqslant}1$ is an integer and that $\delta \in (0,1)$. Suppose that the points $\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k \in {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ are $\delta$-separated, that is to say $$\label{separation} |\theta_i - \theta_j | {\geqslant}\delta$$ whenever $1 {\leqslant}i < j {\leqslant}k$. Let $(a_n)_{n \in [N]}$ be any sequence of complex numbers. Then $$\label{l-sieve}\sum_{i=1}^k |\sum_{n \in [N]} a_n e(n\theta_i)|^2 {\leqslant}(N + \delta^{-1})\sum_{n \in [N]} |a_n|^2.$$
As it stands, this inequality may be thought of as a kind of approximate Bessel’s inequality; the separation condition acts to ensure that the exponentials $e(n\theta_i)$, $i = 1,\dots,k$, are roughly orthogonal over $n \in [N]$. The rather clean form of was proved by Montgomery and Vaughan [@montgomery-vaughan] and to prove it somewhat careful arguments are needed. It is much easier to establish a weaker inequality in which the right-hand side is replaced by (say) $8(N + \delta^{-1})\sum |a_n|^2$; at the level of the discussions in this paper, this is just as good.
The large sieve gets its name from the fact that may be used to give bounds for certain sieving problems, of which the following is an example.
\[sieve-problem\] Let $N {\geqslant}1$. Suppose that for each off prime $p {\leqslant}\sqrt{N}$ one is given a set $S_p \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $|S_p| = (p-1)/2$. Let $A \subseteq \{1,\dots,N\}$ be the set obtained by “sieving out” the residue classes $S_p$ for each prime, that is to say by removing from $[N]$ each $n$ for which $n {\ensuremath{(\operatorname{mod}\, p)}}$ lies in $S_p$ for some $p$. What upper bounds can one place on $A$?
*Remark.* In actual fact one may consider far more general settings. The *sieving limit* $X = \sqrt{N}$ may be reduced, one might sieve only by a subset of the primes $p {\leqslant}X$ rather than by all primes, and the size of $S_p$ might vary less regularly with $p$.
The large sieve gives, by an argument of Montgomery [@montgomery-lsieve], the following result concerning Problem \[sieve-problem\].
\[l-sieve-bound\] In Problem \[sieve-problem\] we have the bound $|A| {\leqslant}C\sqrt{N}$ for some absolute constant $C$.
Theorem \[l-sieve-bound\] is essentially sharp. Indeed if one takes $S_p$ to consist of the quadratic non-residues for each prime $p$ then the unsieved set $A$ contains all of the squares less than or equal to $N$, and so $|A| {\geqslant}(1 -o(1))\sqrt{N}$. It is, however, very hard to think of an essentially different example giving a comparable lower bound. As a result Helfgott and Venkatesh [@helfgott-venkatesh] and independently Croot and Elsholtz (cf. [@croot-lev Problem 7.4]) were motivated to make the beautiful guess that any set $A$ of size close to $\sqrt{N}$ which survives the sieving process in Problem \[sieve-problem\] is essentially the set of values of some quadratic polynomial.
\[sieve-inverse\] Suppose that the set $A$ is the result of the sieving process in Problem \[sieve-problem\] and that $|A| {\geqslant}N^{0.499}$. Then all but $O(N^{o(1)})$ points of $A$ are contained in the set of values of a quadratic polynomial $f(n) = an^2 + bn + c$.
*Remark.* In fact it is not unreasonable to think, as Croot, Elsholtz, Helfgott and Venkatesh did, that much more should be true. One might consider more general sieving situations than the one in Problem \[sieve-problem\], and even under an assumption as weak as $|A| {\geqslant}N^{\eta}$ the set $A$ should have some fairly rigid “algebraic” structure.
Conjecture \[sieve-inverse\] seems to be of interest in its own right. Furthermore suitable variants of it ought to have applications, for example to Ostmann’s Inverse Goldbach Problem as considered in a series of papers by Elsholtz [@elsholtz].
We are not able to establish Conjecture \[sieve-inverse\] or anything close to it. The aim of this paper is to develop ideas which go somewhat beyond the large sieve in using the *structure* of the residue classes $S_p$ rather than merely their size. Rather than develop these ideas in the most general context we use them to address the most extreme case in which each set $S_p$ of residues is an interval in ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$. The following is our main result.
\[middle-half\] Let $N {\geqslant}1$, and suppose that for each odd prime $p {\leqslant}\sqrt{N}$ one is given an interval $I_p \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ of length $(p-1)/2$. Let $A \subseteq \{1,\dots,N\}$ be the set obtained by sieving out all $n$ for which $n{\ensuremath{(\mbox{\textup{mod}}\, p)}}$ lies inside $I_p$ for some $p$. Then $|A| \ll N^{1/3 + o(1)}$.
*Remarks.* We have concocted this problem so that the theorem is not obviously trivial given known results. For the more specific situation in which, for example, $I_p = [p/4,3p/4]$ is the “middle-half” it follows from results of Jutila [@jutila] that $|A| = O(1)$, and it is quite possible that this bound could be made rather effective using the results of Granville and Ramaré [@granville-ramare]. It seems quite reasonable to suppose that $|A| = O(1)$ in the somewhat more general setting of Theorem \[middle-half\], uniformly in the choice of the intervals $I_p$.
Our own arguments are fairly routine, but we do import a very interesting result of Roberts and Sargos [@robert-sargos] concerning the spacing properties of the set of unit fractions $\{1/x : X {\leqslant}x < 2X\}$. If the argument were written down in a self-contained manner, this result would certainly be the beef. As we shall sketch later on, the *exponent pairs conjecture* may be used to obtain the stronger bound $|A| \ll N^{o(1)}$.
A variant of the large sieve
============================
The goal of this section is to prove the following proposition, which is our variant of the large sieve. In this proposition $\mathbf{a} = (a_n)_{n \in [N]}$ is a sequence of complex numbers and we write $$\Vert \mathbf{a} \Vert_r := \big( \sum_{n \in [N]} |a_n|^r \big)^{1/r}$$ for $r {\geqslant}1$.
\[prop3.1\] Let $\mathbf{a} = (a_n)_{n \in [N]}$ be a sequence of complex numbers. Let $X,N$, $1 {\leqslant}X {\leqslant}N$, be parameters. Then $$\sum_{X {\leqslant}x < 2X} |\sum_{n \in [N]} a_n e(n/x)|^2 \ll (N + X^3)^{1/4}X^{1/2 + o(1)} \Vert \mathbf{a} \Vert_{4/3} \Vert \mathbf{a} \Vert_1.$$ The same is true with $e(n/x)$ replaced by $e(2n/x)$.
*Remark.* When we apply this proposition to the interval sieve problem in the next section we will need the exponentials $e(2n/x)$ as well and that is why we have mentioned them here. One could use $e(kn/x)$ for any fixed $k$, though the implied constants would depend on $k$.
The proof of the corresponding inequality when $e(2n/x)$ replaces $e(n/x)$ is identical and we say nothing more about it. Let $\psi : {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}_{{\geqslant}0}$ be a Beurling-Selberg function with the following properties:
1. $\psi(t) {\geqslant}1$ for $|t| {\leqslant}N$;
2. $\tilde \psi(\xi)$ is supported on $|\xi| {\leqslant}1/X^3$, where $\tilde\psi(\xi) := \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \psi(x) e^{-i\xi x}\, dx$;
3. $\Vert \psi \Vert_1 \ll N + X^3$.
The use of these majorants in analytic number theory is well-known, and the book of Montgomery [@montgomery-ten-lecture] or the article of Vaaler [@vaaler] may be consulted for more information concerning their construction.
Now the left-hand side in our proposition may be expanded as $$\sum_{n \in [N]} \frac{a_n}{\psi(n)^{1/4}} \psi(n)^{1/4} \sum_{m,x} \overline{a_m} e(n/x)e(-m/x).$$ By Hölder’s inequality this is at most $$\big(\sum_{n \in [N]} \frac{|a_n|^{4/3}}{\psi(n)^{1/3}}\big)^{3/4} \big( \sum_n \psi(n)|\sum_{m,x} \overline{a_m} e(n/x) e(-m/x)|^4 \big)^{1/4}.$$ By property (i) of the majorant $\psi$, the first factor is bounded by $\Vert \mathbf{a}\Vert_{4/3}$. The expression inside the second bracket may be expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4} \sum_{m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4} \overline{a_{m_1}a_{m_2}}a_{m_3}a_{m_4} & e(-m_1/x_1) e(-m_2/x_2) e(m_3/x_3)e(m_4/x_4)\times \\ & \times\sum_n \psi(n) e(n (\frac{1}{x_1} + \frac{1}{x_2} - \frac{1}{x_3} - \frac{1}{x_4})),\end{aligned}$$ which is bounded by $$\label{bounded-by} \Vert \mathbf{a} \Vert_1^4\sum_{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4} |\widehat{\psi} (\frac{1}{x_1} + \frac{1}{x_2} - \frac{1}{x_3} - \frac{1}{x_4})|.$$ Here, the hat denotes the Fourier transform on ${\mathbb{Z}}$, so we are writing $$\widehat{\psi}(\theta) := \sum_n \psi(n) e^{2\pi i n \theta}.$$ By the Poisson summation formula we have $$\widehat{\psi}(\theta) = \sum_n \tilde \psi(\theta - n),$$ and so by properties (ii) and (iii) of $\psi$ we see that is at most $C\Vert a \Vert_1^4 (N + X^3)$ times the number of quadruples $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4 \in [X,2X)$ with $$|\frac{1}{x_1} + \frac{1}{x_2} - \frac{1}{x_3} - \frac{1}{x_4}| {\leqslant}\frac{1}{X^3}.$$ It follows from Theorem 2 of Roberts and Sargos [@robert-sargos] that there are $\ll X^{2 + o(1)}$ such quadruples. The proposition follows quickly.
*Remark.* The reader familar with basic duality theory in Banach spaces may recognise some aspects of the proof of Proposition \[prop3.1\]. It is very closely modelled on the proof that $\Vert T \Vert_{4/3 \rightarrow 2} = \Vert T^* \Vert_{2 \rightarrow 4}$, where $T : B(X) \rightarrow B(Y)$ and $T^* : B(Y) \rightarrow B(X)$ are mutually adjoint operators on spaces $B(X),B(Y)$ of bounded functions. One might also regard our variant of the large sieve as a kind of *restriction theorem*, where one looks at the Fourier transform of the sequence $(a_n)$ restricted to the set of frequencies $\{1/x : x \in [X,2X)\}$. Proposition \[prop3.1\] then reflects a kind of “discrete curvature” of this set of frequencies, and is closely analogous to such estimates as the Tomas-Stein restriction theorem (cf. [@tao-restriction]).
Interval sieve problem
======================
It is a reasonably straightforward matter to apply Proposition \[prop3.1\] to get the stated bound for the interval sieve problem.
\[large-fourier\] Suppose that $p$ is a prime, that $I_p \subseteq {\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ is an interval of length $(p-1)/2$ and that $A \subseteq [N]$ is a set such no $a \in A$ has $a{\ensuremath{(\mbox{\textup{mod}}\, p)}} \in I_p$. Then either $\sum_{n \in [N]} 1_A(n) e(n/p)$ or $\sum_{n \in [N]} 1_A(n) e(2n/p)$ has magnitude at least $|A|/3$.
We note that $1 - 2\cos \theta + \cos 2\theta {\leqslant}0$ when $|\theta| {\leqslant}\pi/2$; rewriting the left-hand side as $2\cos\theta (\cos \theta - 1)$, this becomes clear. It follows that there is $\beta \in [0,1]$ (depending on $I_p$) such that if $n \in A$ then $$1 - 2\cos 2\pi (\frac{n}{p} + \beta) + \cos 4\pi (\frac{n}{p} + \beta) {\leqslant}0,$$ and hence $$1 - e(\beta)e(n/p) - e(-\beta)e(-n/p) + \frac{1}{2}e(2\beta)e(2n/p) + \frac{1}{2}e(-2\beta)e(-2n/p) {\leqslant}0.$$ Summing over $n \in A$ and using the triangle inequality, one obtains $$|A| {\leqslant}2|\sum_{n \in [N]} 1_A(n) e(n/p)| + |\sum_{n \in [N]} 1_A(n) e(2n/p)|,$$ from which the result follows immediately.
*Remark.* What we have shown here is that if $A {\ensuremath{(\operatorname{mod}\, p)}}$ does not meet $I_p$ then $A$ has an extremely large discrete Fourier coefficient in ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$. In the usual application of the large sieve, one shows that the $L^2$-mass of the discrete Fourier transform of $A$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ has significant mass away from the zero mode; this is much weaker information and in our case is wasteful as it does not utilise the specific additive structure of the excluded residues $I_p$.
We may now prove Theorem \[middle-half\]. Suppose that $A$ is the set of those elements of $[N]$ which remain after sieving by all residues in $I_p$, for all $p {\leqslant}\sqrt{N}$. Then, setting $a_n := 1_A(n)$, the previous lemma implies that $$\max ( |\sum_{n \in [N]} 1_A(n) e(n/p)|, |\sum_{n \in [N]} 1_A(n) e(2n/p)| ) {\geqslant}|A|/3.$$ Note that if $\mathbf{a} = (a_n)_{n \in [N]}$ then $\Vert \mathbf{a} \Vert_1 = |A|$ and $\Vert \mathbf{a} \Vert_{4/3} = |A|^{3/4}$. Substituting into Proposition \[prop3.1\], we obtain for any $X$ the bound $$X |A|^2 \ll (N + X^3)^{1/4} X^{1/2 + o(1)}|A|^{7/4}.$$ Taking $X = N^{1/3}$ leads to the stated bound.
*Remark.* Our argument has something in common with the argument used to obtain lower bounds in the Kakeya problem from restriction estimates for the sphere, which had its origin in the work of Fefferman [@fefferman]. Indeed our sieve bound, phrased differently, provides a *lower bound* of $N - O(N^{1/3 + {\varepsilon}})$ for a union of sets $(I_p + p{\mathbb{Z}}) \cap \{1,\dots,N\}$ which, at a stretch, might be thought of as “lines” in different directions in the spirit of the Kakeya problem. These ideas have been considered in a number theoretic context before in the work of Bourgain [@bourgain-montgomery].
Further remarks
===============
We conjecture that the following is true.
\[conj-5\] Suppose that $r {\geqslant}1$ is an integer. Then the number of $x_1,\dots,x_{2r} \in [X,2X)$ such that $$\label{eq56} |\frac{1}{x_1} + \dots + \frac{1}{x_r} - \frac{1}{x_{r+1}} - \dots - \frac{1}{x_{2r}}| {\leqslant}\frac{1}{X^{r+1}}$$ is $\ll_{r,{\varepsilon}} X^{r + {\varepsilon}}$ for all ${\varepsilon}> 0$.
If this did hold for a particular value of $r$ then a straightforward modification of our arguments (using exponents $p = 2r/(2r-1)$ and $q = 2r$ in Hölder’s inequality in the proof of Proposition \[prop3.1\]) would lead to a bound $|A| \ll N^{\frac{1}{r+1} + o_r(1)}$ in Theorem \[middle-half\]. By bounding the number of solutions to using a $2r$-power moment of exponential sums as in [@robert-sargos] one may confirm that the conjecture would follow if we had a bound $$\label{conjectured-bound} |\sum_{X {\leqslant}x < 2X} e(\xi/x)| \ll X^{1/2 + o_r(1)}$$ for $X^2 {\leqslant}|\xi| {\leqslant}X^{r+1}$. Such a bound is a consequence of the so-called *exponent pairs hypothesis,* stated on p.214 of [@iwaniec-kowalski]. An excellent source of information on exponent pairs is the book [@graham-kolesnik], though the exponent pairs hypothesis itself is conspicuously absent from that book. Nonetheless it seems to be fairly widely believed, and in any case the bound accords with the commonly-held belief that exponential sums should exhibit square-root cancellation unless there is a “good” reason for them not to.
Improving the bounds for $\sup_{\xi} |S(\xi)|$ seems closely related to the Lindelöf hypothesis, which is equivalent to proving that $$|\sum_{X {\leqslant}x < 2X} e(\xi \log x)| \ll X^{1/2 + o_r(1)}$$ for $|\xi| \ll X^r$, for all $r$. We do not intend this remark to be taken too seriously: it stems from the observation that the derivatives of the phase $\log x$ are the same as those of $1/x$, and the derivative structure of a phase is often important in the estimation of exponential sums. Nevertheless, it would be very surprising if anything close to were proved tomorrow. Perhaps better evidence for this is that an affirmative solution to the Dirichlet divisor problem and the Gauss circle problem would follow from for $r = 3$. See [@graham-kolesnik Chapter 4] for more information.
We note that is not known for $r = 2$; Roberts and Sargos bound the 4th moment of their exponential sums directly, without obtaining a bound for the supremum of those sums.
Acknowledgements
================
I would like to thank Roger Heath-Brown for drawing my attention to the reference [@robert-sargos] and Christian Elsholtz for helpful remarks.
[10]{}
J. Bourgain, *Remarks on Montgomery’s Conjectures on Dirichlet sums,* Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics **1469** (1991), 153–165.
E. Croot and V. Lev, *Open problems in additive combinatorics,* in Additive combinatorics, CRM Proc. Lecture Notes **43**, 207–233, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007.
C. Elsholtz, *Additive decomposability of multiplicatively defined sets,* Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. **35** (2006), 61–77.
C. Fefferman, *The multiplier problem for the ball,* Ann. Math. **94** (1971), 330–336.
S. W. Graham and G. Kolesnik, *Van der Corput’s method of exponential sums,* LMS Lecture Note Series **126**, Cambridge University Press 1991.
A. Granville and O. Ramaré, *Explicit bounds on exponential sums and the scarcity of squarefree binomial coefficients,* Mathematika **43** (1996), 73–107.
H. A. Helfgott and A. Venkatesh, *How small must ill-distributed sets be?* to appear in Analytic Number Theory: Essays in honour of Klaus Roth.
H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski, *Analytic number theory,* American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications **53**, AMS 2004.
M. Jutila, *On numbers with a large prime factor. II,* J. Indian Math. Soc. (N.S.) **38** (1974), no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 125–130 (1975).
H. L. Montgomery, *A note on the large sieve,* J. London Math. Soc. **43** (1968) 93–98.
[to3em]{}, *Ten lectures on the interface between analytic number theory and harmonic analysis,* CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, **84**, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1994.
H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan, *The large sieve,* Mathematika **20** (1973), 119–134.
O. Robert and P. Sargos, *Three-dimensional exponential sums with monomials,* J. Reine Angew. Math. **591** (2006), 1–20.
T. C. Tao, *Some recent progress on the restriction conjecture,* in Fourier analysis and convexity, 217-243, Appl. Numer. Harmon. Anal., Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 2004.
J. D. Vaaler, *Some extremal functions in Fourier analysis,* Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., **42** (2) (1985), pp. 183-216.
[^1]: The author holds a Leverhulme Prize and is grateful to the Leverhulme Trust for their support.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The rich experiences of an intentional, goal-oriented life emerge, in an unpredictable fashion, from the basic laws of physics. Here I argue that this unpredictability is no mirage: there are true gaps between life and non-life, mind and mindlessness, and even between functional societies and groups of Hobbesian individuals. These gaps, I suggest, emerge from the mathematics of self-reference, and the logical barriers to prediction that self-referring systems present. Still, a mathematical truth does not imply a physical one: the universe need not have made self-reference possible. It did, and the question then is how. In the second half of this essay, I show how a basic move in physics, known as renormalization, transforms the “forgetful” second-order equations of fundamental physics into a rich, self-referential world that makes possible the major transitions we care so much about. While the universe runs in assembly code, the coarse-grained version runs in LISP, and it is from that the world of aim and intention grows.'
author:
- 'Simon DeDeo[^1]'
title: '[Origin Gaps and the Eternal Sunshine of the Second-Order Pendulum]{}'
---
> [*How happy is the blameless vestal’s lot!\
> The world forgetting, by the world forgot.\
> Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!\
> Each pray’r accepted, and each wish resign’d*]{}\
> — Alexander Pope, “Eloisa to Abelard”[^2]
The world we see, and the worlds we infer from the laws of physics, seem completely distinct. At the blackboard, I infer that a thin skein of gas will coalesce into objects such as stars and galaxies. With a few more assumptions I predict the range of masses that those stars should have, beginning from an account of initial quantum fluctuations. Today, it’s considered a reasonable research goal to reduce even that story, of the wrinkles in spacetime that seeded Andromeda, to the first principles of basic physics: Hawking radiation at a horizon, the quantum statistics of a multiverse.
If, however, I try to infer the existence of the blackboard itself, and the existence of people who write on it and themselves infer, I am stuck. I find myself unable to predict the spectrum of desires and goals that evolution can produce, let alone the ones that arise, apparently spontaneously, from the depths of my own mind. The utter failure of otherwise reliable tools to generalize to this new domain is one that many scientists experience when they cross between fields. Not just scientists: as Sherry Turkle pointed out, even young children experience it, when confronted by electronic toys. There is something about the experience of life (or life’s substrate, computation) that goes beyond purely physical mechanisms they’re used to seeing in other toys. A child faced with an apparently living machine looks in the battery compartment to see what powers it [@turkle2011life]. Whether it is felt by an adult scientist at the blackboard, or a child with a toy robot, it is at heart an experience of the gap between the purposeful world of human life and the aimless one of stars. Our tools can not make the leap.
Our tools do, of course, work if we are allowed to assume the existence of meaning-making beings to begin with. Fluid dynamics can describe the flow of traffic through my city, while variants on the Ising model allows me to predict the racial segregation I see as I pass through it, and further generalizations get us off on the right foot for thinking about how my messily-wired brain might learn and remember and experience at all.
Yet no matter how well we do once meaning-making beings are taken as a given, we stumble when we are asked to predict their very being at all. It is *this* gap, the inability to leap from one side to the other, that begs explanation, and I refer to it as the Origin Gap because it is familiar to those working in the “origin” fields: the origin of society, the origin of consciousness and meaning, the origin of life. It is the gap that gives those fields a very different flavor from the sciences of their mature subjects. Origin of society looks very different from social science and anthropology; origin of consciousness looks very different from psychology; origin of life looks very different from biology.
The gap, I claim, is understandable, even (one might say) predictable. In this essay, I’ll first show that the existence of the gap is the consequence of a basic pair of facts in the theory of computation. Second, that particular aspects of the laws of physics make it very likely that in the evolution of the universe, such gap will naturally appear. Taken together, these facts explain how “mindless” laws lead to the emergence of new realms of intentional behavior. At the heart of this essay’s explanation of the gap will be that the kind of intention, aim, and meaning we really care about also has the capacity to refer to itself.
The Mathematics of the Gap
==========================
From the mathematical point of view, the origin gap begins with the fact that
1. it is easy to describe everything.
2. it is much harder to describe one thing.
This has a counterintuitive feel to it. We began, both as individuals and as a species, by describing particular things (that big mountain, this frozen river, that tall woman, this cold morning). It therefore feels as if this task must be easier than the more elaborate habits of generalization, abstraction, the tools of set theory, category theory...
Yet when we make this leap, we forget how many millions of years of evolution went into teaching us how to produce these descriptions. What it means to be one thing rather than two, the identification of useful boundaries or persistent patterns, what it means for an argument to be valid: each is a question subject to endless debate. We see this in the history of philosophy, but a more contemporary example comes from the history of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI gave a name to the feeling that rules of description could never be exhaustively specified. They called it the “frame problem”, and advanced societies across the globe dumped literally billions of dollars into solving it. Until, that is, they discovered that the quickest way to solve the problem of describing something was to avoid specifying the rules at all. Rather than define in computer code a beautiful sunset, or a valid argument, researchers now build learning machines that watch and copy human response. Don’t describe a cat to a computer; have it learn what a cat is from the pictures we take to celebrate them on the internet. In this way, the code can rely on the accumulated wisdom of evolution. Which is only natural, since (of course) a computer is build by evolved creatures to serve their needs.
In as much as our lives are dominated by artificial intelligence we have, for now, given up on describing things. But it turns out that to describe [*everything*]{}, by contrast, is simple. It only needs to occur to you to do something so trivial as to try. Borges did so in his short story [*The Library of Babel*]{}, where he imagined a series of interconnected hexagonal rooms, walled by shelves and stacked with books, and each book containing the letters of the alphabet, spaces, commas, and periods in different orders.
How much is contained in everything! Of course, in Borges’ library there are an overwhelming number of nonsensical books, cats typing on keyboards, but also (again, of course) the complete works of Shakespeare, as well as every variation on those works, and every possible edition with typographical errors, and (as Borges might have gone on) the plays that Shakespeare might have written were he really Francis Bacon, or Elizabeth the First, or an alien from Mars, as well as all the incorrect extrapolations of those conjectures, and so on to the limit of one’s imagination, and (then) beyond.
Imagine that we have instant access to the text of any book. It’s simple to find all the books that include the word “Shakespeare”: just send your robot out to search book by book and return the ones that contain that string of letters. Of course, it will also recover nonsense books, books full of jumbled letters that happen, once in awhile, to spell the name: “...casa,cWas,,,qwh g Shakespeare acqq CO...”
Here’s a harder problem: how to locate the books on Shakespeare that make sense? Give instructions to the robot to gather them together. Or, imagine the layout of the Borges library as a wireframe image on your computer screen, and the rules of shelving to hand. Outline, or click with a mouse, the shelves to pull.
Under some very basic assumptions (which we’ll address below), the strange thing about this more complicated query that it can imagined, but not actually made. Like the idea of squaring the circle, of producing using straight-edge and compass a square whose area is equal to a given circle, it seems that it should be possible. And yet it is not: the shape your mouse carves out, although imaginable in each fragment—“this book, not that”—is an impossible shape, a shape impossible to define and therefore to draw. In its infinitely detailed structure, it is at each scale completely unrelated to the scale above.
Computer scientists usually introduce these shapes in a very different fashion: by describing things that are capable of self-reference, and then by showing how questions about these self-referring things, though well-phrased, have no answers. Consider, for example, a game two mathematicians might play: name the number. “The smallest prime greater than twelve", for example, names the number thirteen. “Two to the power of fifty" names a much larger number, something just a bit bigger than 100 trillion. There are better and worse ways to name something (“one plus one plus one plus...” is a poor way to start naming a number larger than ten thousand, say), and you might imagine mathematicians competing to name something in the most efficient, the shortest, way.
A classic example of how the game goes wrong was provided, appropriately enough given our introduction of the Borgesian Babel Library, by an Oxford librarian, G.G. Berry, who asks us to consider the following sentence: $$\textrm{``The smallest number that can not be named in less than a thousand words."}$$ Such a sentence has a twisty logic to it: whatever it names, it certainly names in less than a thousand words. And yet whatever it purports to name must be something that actually requires the far larger sentence. The resolution of a paradox like this is not to reject the sentence, but to rule out the possibility of the efficient mathematician, a person (or machine) that finds the shortest description of any number. The problem that Berry’s paradox reveals is that problem with certain kinds of systems that can refer to themselves: Berry’s paradoxical sentence refers (implicitly) to the very practice it enacts, that of finding short descriptions. It’s an easy matter for the impossibilities implied by self-reference in the Berry case to lead to the problems of locating books on Shakespeare in the Borgesian library.
The existence of such shapes (or the non-existence of the rules of their construction) seems counter-intuitive at first, because it is the nature of human beings to ask for things that are possible. “Bring me all the sugar in the kitchen"; “Find me all the students in the engineering department". We are not used to asking questions that have no answer.
Yet for it to happen all we need is that any description of what it means to be a sensical book on Shakespeare requires more than just pattern-matching (*e.g.*, the presence or absence of the word “Shakespeare”). Impossible questions emerge when they become about pattern-processing, pattern manipulation, pattern computation. Something sophisticated enough, in particular to allow us to have something operate on a description of itself.
This is, of course, exactly what takes place. If we read a book on Shakespeare we do more than count words and match them to lists. We think about those words, the combinations they fall in, and what one combination means for another. We reason about a passage, follow its arguments and conjecture counterarguments. And when we give ourselves, or a machine, that power, we become fundamentally limited in the questions we can ask and answer about what we, or it, is going to do. It becomes impossible, even, to draw outlines around the behaviors we do, or do not, expect. In contrast to the condensation of gas into stars, we can not derive, ahead of time, the space of books that scholars will write about Shakespeare.
This is why the origin problems are hard. The things whose origins most intrigue us are also the points at which systems gain new powers of self-reference. And these moments lead to new categories, new phenomena, that we can literally not predict ahead of time. Once we have an example, we can ask questions about it, do science on it, just as we can take any particular volume from the Borgesian library and read it. But to begin with the space of all possible things that can happen, and then to draw the outlines of what we expect to see on the basis of a self-referential process, is something else altogether.
I’m hardly the first to draw attention to the importance of self-reference for the problems of life. Sara Walker and Paul Davies have pointed to the self-referential features at the heart of the origin of life problem [@walker2013algorithmic]. Stuart Kauffman puts self-reference at the heart of both biological and social evolution, and in places conjectures explicitly G[ö]{}delian arguments [@kauffman2016humanity]. My own work, and that of my collaborators, on social behavior suggests that social feedback, the most primitive form of self-reference and something we see in the birds just as much as the primates [@hobson2015social], is at the origin of major transitions in political order [@major].
The gap between physics and the meaningful experiences we associate with life thus turns out to have an unexpectedly mathematical feel. The emergence of meaningful experiences is associated with the emerge of new forms of self-reference, but questions about the basic properties of self-referential systems are (on pain of logical inconsistency) impossible to answer in the complete and general fashion we expect from derivations in the physical sciences.
Asked to sketch out the consequences of a new self-referential phenomenon—say, an organic polymer than can refer to, modify, and reproduce itself—we stumble, because the very question is unanswerable. Given a particular example (the replication machinery of the bacteria [*E. coli*]{}) we can do a great deal of science. But to delineate all the life this makes possible is equivalent to picking books of Borges’ library.
Before moving to the next part of this essay’s argument, the physics of self-reference, it’s worth pointing to the leap that’s implicitly being made here. The Earth, and everything on it, is finite in nature: only so many things will ever happen. If the holographic principle is true, we may even be able to compute the total entropy contained within the boundary of our planet’s world line. This enables purists to object to the arguments I’ve made here, because G[ö]{}delian impossibility theorems usually require an infinity somewhere. Explicitly, the things that self-reference makes impossible are those that are required to apply to everything in the domain in question: every number in the set of integers, every program that could be written and how it behaves on every set of inputs. All the numbers involved (the size of the Borgesian library, whose books are of limited size; indeed, the number of behaviorally-distinguishable possible configurations of the human mind) are not infinite, but rather simply very, very, very large. This means it is possible to tell your assistant what to do: you could, for example, go out yourself, read all the books shorter than a certain length, and give him a list. Irritating as these list-based solutions are, it’s rather hard to rule them out. They’re clearly unsatisfactory, because they somehow presume the answers are already to hand, a little like giving someone a grammar of the English language that simply lists all sentences shorter than ten thousand words. We want something that summarizes, compresses, or otherwise gives us rule-based insight.
When infinities go away, however, it can become possible to approximate the things we want without falling victim to paradox. We often want to talk about “shortest descriptions”, for example, even when their kind of twisty self-reference puts us in the cross-hairs of Berry’s paradox. In a 2014 paper Scott Aaronson, Sean Carroll, and Lauren Ouellette squeezed around it by using the file compression program [gzip]{} [@aaronson2014quantifying]! It’s a clever idea, and (in my opinion) an excellent way to probe the problem they have at hand, but it’s not going to work in all situations: I shouldn’t try to judge the complexity of a student’s reasoning by looking at the filesize of a [gzip]{}ped version of her text. While we have heuristics and good ideas in some situations, we don’t yet have a good handle on how an impossible problem “degrades” into a solvable one more generally. It’s likely that the theory of computational complexity will play a role (see Ref. [@aaronson2013philosophers] for a philosophical overview).
Noam Chomsky confronted this problem head on in *Aspects of the Theory of Syntax* [@chomsky2014aspects], where he distinguished performance (what we say) and competence (grasping the rules of what we say), and introduced to linguistics the idea that good rules, the kind of rules we want, are “generative”. Something like Chomsky’s competence-performance distinction, and insistence on the creation of generalizable rules rather than the creation of endless descriptive categories, is part of the story.
The Physics of the Gap
======================
It is one thing to ascribe the gap to the emergence of new systems of self-reference. But why should self-reference come into being at all? At the heart of self-reference is the existence of a memory device, and something that can navigate it in a “sufficiently sophisticated” fashion. Smith and Száthmary’s famous 1997 piece [@smith1997major], on the major transitions in the biological record, recognizes this implicitly, placing the discovery of new information processing and recording mechanisms at the center of each transition. Social scientists [@fukuyama2011origins], scholars of “deep history” [@smail2007deep], and cognitive scientists [@bellah2012axial_merlin] each draw attention to new institutions, like cities, or new cultural practices, such as writing or social hierarchy, or even new abilities from physiology itself, such as genes for speech and syntactic processing, that enhance the ways in which we can remember and transform what we remember. Major leaps occur when something previously forgettable, lost to noise, finds a means to be recorded, translated into a referential form, processed and combined with others. When social debts become stories told around a campfire—or transform into money and markets [@graeber2014debt]—we see not just an augmentation of life as it was known, but the unpredictable creation of entirely new forms of being.
Each of these moments is a shift in the nature of the world, and a clear topic of scientific study. Whether we study the details of its emergence, or the patterns it displays that generalize beyond its historical context, any one of them is the task of a lifetime. But what makes memory, and self-reference, possible at all?
Strangely enough, it’s not baked in to the fundamental laws of physics, a fact that was driven home to me early in my career, at the University of Chicago, when I worked with Dimitrios Psaltis, and Alan Cooney, physicists at the University of Arizona. We were puzzling over a strange class of models in fundamental physics. Despite their mathematical coherence, they were, at heart, unstable: any universe that obeyed their laws would sooner or later explode, everywhere and instantaneously, into fountains of energy with no apparent end, as if slipping off the top of a hill that had no bottom.
What made them unstable was how they handled time. In the physics you encounter in high-school it’s crucial that Newton’s laws of motion talk about the relationship between force and acceleration: $F=ma$, force is mass times acceleration, or perhaps more easily, $a=F/m$, the acceleration you experience is the force applied to you, divided by your mass. Acceleration is connected to the passage of time; it’s how fast your velocity is changing, or, more formally, the “second derivative of position with time”. Newton’s laws then connect forces you might experience to a phenomenon we call gravity: objects create a gravitational field, and at each point that field subjects objects to a certain amount of force. Other laws talk about other sources of force: electrical, or magnetic, for example. All connect back to acceleration, the change of velocity with time.
This is all awesome and highly addictive to talk about if you have a certain bent of mind, but one of the basic facts about these laws is that you never see anything with more than two derivatives in the fundamental equations. When you write them down, you only ever talk about (1) a basic set of quantities, say, position, gravitational field, etc.; (2) how these quantities change with time; and (3) sometimes, how these changes in time change with time. If you have a theory where higher derivatives enter in, where you talk about changes in changes in changes, then the theory becomes unstable in some really uncomfortable ways, leading to things like spontaneous infinite accelerations which you never observe (or really could imagine observing) and that would really ruin your day if you did. This has been known since the 1850s, when the Russian physicist Mikhail Vasilevich Ostrogradsky published what is now called “Ostrogradsky’s Theorem” in the journal of the Academy of St. Petersburg. At the end of this essay I provide an afterword that gives the underlying physical intuition for why this is true, through an economic analogy to a shift in marginal costs. A technical introduction can be found in the account by physicist R.P. Woodard [@woodard2015theorem], while Dimitrios, Alan, and I were working on how to “cure” these instabilities in certain limited regimes; you can find our answers (and further references) in a series of papers we wrote together [@dedeo2008stable; @cooney2009gravity].
Ostrogradsky’s theorem sounded just fine to me, until I remembered something from my high school physics teacher. The change in acceleration, the *third* time derivative of position, has its own name—“jerk”. Jerk is what you experience when an elevator starts up. When it’s moving at a constant velocity, you feel nothing. When it’s accelerating, you feel heavier (if you’re going up), or lighter (if you’re going down). But when it switches from not accelerating to accelerating, or vice versa, you experience a sudden change in your weight. You’re experiencing the elevator jerking you up, or the pit of your stomach dropping out when it descends.
The fact that I experience jerk is very strange. Am I not a creature that lives in the physical world? Am I not forced to obey the laws of physics? And don’t I know, from a bit of mathematics, that the laws of physics only deal with quantities with two time derivatives or fewer, or risk being violently unstable if they don’t? But if all that’s true, how can jerk, a third-order quantity, play any causal role in my life, such as causing me to say “oof”, or making me feel queasy, when the elevator moves? How can my psychological laws obey equations that are ruled out as physical laws?
I remember a spooky feeling when I put this argument together, and for a brief moment wondering if this proved the existence of a separate set of psychological laws beyond or parallel to physics. The answer turns out to be a bit simpler, if no less intriguing. The instabilities that emerge for theories with higher-order derivatives are real, and barriers to them being basic laws of the universe are real as well. But there’s nothing that prevents them holding for a while, in limited ways, so that the instabilities don’t have time to emerge.
And that’s the reason I can feel the jerk. I have a brain that senses acceleration. It’s possible for that sense to rely directly on fundamental laws (it doesn’t, actually, but it could). But in order to report the sensation of jerk to my higher-order reason, my brain has to go beyond fundamental physics. It has to use memory to store one sensation at one time and compare it, through some wetware neural comparison device, to a sensation at a later time. Similarly, I can measure the acceleration that my car undergoes by hanging a pendulum from the ceiling and seeing where it points, leveraging a little bit of fundamental physics. But to measure jerk, I have to videotape the pendulum, and compare its location at two different times. There’s no “jerk pendulum” I can build that relies directly on the basic laws of physics that apply everywhere and for all time. The fundamental laws are forgetful, the “blameless vestals” of the Alexander Pope quotation that begins this essay.
It’s strange to think that a visceral and immediate feeling, like the drop you feel in the pit of your stomach when the elevator descends, is an experience filtered through a skein of memories. These memories present what is actually a processed and interpreted feature of the world as if it were a brute physical fact. Yet it so turns out that some things, like “force”, are truly fundamental constituents of our universe, while others, like “jerk”, are derived and emergent.
Jerk gets into the physical world through memory, but it’s hardly the most impressive feat of memory we do. A man descending a New York City skyscraper is in the presence of far greater feats of memory and processing than just what travels down his vagus nerve. Yet jerk also gives us a clue to how those far more sophisticated memories might have gotten going. The experience of jerk is an atavism of a far more primal event, one that began well before there were brains to feel it.
This is because, while (to the best of our knowledge) higher order “memory terms” like jerk are forbidden from playing a role in fundamental laws, they do emerge in an unexpected fashion. We rarely perceive the world at its finest grain, in all of its fluctuating detail, at the assembly code level, you might say as a computer programmer. We see, instead, averages: not everything that happens in a single patch, but a coarse-grained summary of it, a blurring of details as if the lens was smeared with vaseline. To give a full account of the role of that averaging, or coarse-graining, in the physical sciences would take us very far afield, but also (many now believe) into some of the best mysteries we have to hand, including an explanation of the second law of thermodynamics and the decoherence, or collapse, of the quantum-mechanical wavefunction.
Here we care about coarse-graining because, by averaging together nearby points, it introduces the possibility of inducing physical laws that (in contrast to their forgetful fundamental cousins) do have memory. When we smooth out the world, when we average out some of the small-scale bumps and fluctuations, we produce a new description of it. The laws that govern those coarse-grained descriptions, in contrast to the ones that applied at the shorter distances and for the finer details, can have memories, can include higher derivatives. They may, in certain cases, be unstable, but this is no longer an existential threat: it just means that, occasionally, the coarse-grained description will fail. The fine-grained details will emerge with a vengeance, ruining the predictive power of the theory. You’ll be reminded of the limits of your knowledge, but the universe will not catch fire.
The technical term that physicists use for this is renormalization. Physicists use it for all sorts of problems, and call the theories that emerge for coarse-grained systems “effective theories”. My colleagues and I have thought about them for a long time, as both a fact of life for deriving one scale from another (social behavior, say, from individual cognition), and a metaphor to help explain why biology differs so much from biochemistry, and why averaging-out might not just be a good idea, but might make new forms of society possible [@dedeo2011effective; @flack2012multiple; @hobson2015social; @major; @Flack20160338].
If you’re a computer scientist, you might say that while the universe runs in assembly code, the coarse-grained version runs in LISP. Here, coarse graining gives the possibility of memory and—with some interesting dynamics for how those memories inter-relate—the self-reference that makes certain features of the future logically unpredictable based on what came before. The memories we have now, biochemical, electronic, on pen and paper and in the cloud, are far more complex than the ones than appear in a physicist’s coarse-graining prescription.
You get a great deal from the averaging-out a cell wall allows you to do, another boost from the ways in which neurons average out the data from your eye, and another from how a story you tell summarizes the history of your tribe. No essay can derive the biochemical story, or the cognitive one, or the social one. Here we point to a crucial moment where they all begin: not in the perception of detail, but in its selective destruction and lossy compression. The arguments of this essay suggest that averaging-out may have been the first source of memory, and thus self-reference, in the history of the universe. Perhaps that happened first in biochemistry; perhaps it had an even earlier start.
Learning from the gaps
======================
The leaps the universe has made, from non-life to life, chemical reaction to mind, individualism to society, aimless to aim-ful depend in a basic way on how new features of the world—physical features, biological features, social features—become available for feedback and self-reference. If this essay is correct, then it is those self-referential features that, in creating predictive gaps, attract our curiosity. And it is those features that, at the same time, make the problems so hard. You might say we’re constantly nerd-swiped by the origin gaps [@xkcd].
Though I’ve focused on the primordial scene, the origin of memory, and located it in the coarse-graining of fundamental theories, I’ve also suggested that this coarse-graining process might be something worth attending to at later stages as well. This suggests an intriguing possibility: that there are more stages yet to come, new accelerations and ways for us to reflect upon ourselves, and (in doing so) to create new forms of life. It’s natural, at this cultural moment, to look to the world of artificial intelligence and to ask what our machines will do for—or to—us. As we create machines with inconceivably greater powers to reflect, we may be setting in motion a process that will leave behind, for future millennia, a new origin problem to solve.
Afterword: the Economics of Physical Law
========================================
In the classical world, *i.e.*, the world before we consider quantum effects, we describe the behavior of everything from planets to beachballs by talking about how they respond to the forces placed on them, and how they might create forces that others respond to in their turn. A basic feature of these laws, as far as we understand them, is that the only things we need to know are the positions of the particles, their velocities, and how their velocities change in time (their accelerations). A planet’s gravitational field tugs on a beachball, causing it to descend; the effect of the planet on the ball can be summarized, without loss, by talking about how the ball accelerates in time. The position of the beachball (how far away it is from the center of the each) dictates its change in velocity with time (acceleration). In more complicated situations, such as magnetism, the acceleration of a particle might depend on its velocity as well as its position. But none of the laws we know of tell us, for example, give an independent role to (say) jerk, the change in acceleration with time.
A higher-derivative theory, by contrast, is one where facts about these more derived changes do have an independent causal power over the system’s evolution. We can write them down, if we like, but when we examine the predictions they make, we find that they not only do not describe the world we know, but in important senses they can not describe anything that remotely looks like the world we know. We’ve known this since Mikhail Vasilevich Ostrogradsky published what is now called “Ostrogradsky’s Theorem” in the journal of the Academy of St. Petersburg, in 1850. Richard Woodard has an excellent, technical introduction to Ostrogradsky’s theorem on Scholarpedia [@scholar].
Here, I’ll try to give an intuitive introduction to the physics behind it, by drawing a parallel to economics. Physics and economics have long travelled in parallel. Students of the great physicist, and modern interpreter of thermodynamics, Josiah Willard Gibbs, went on to define 20th Century economics, at least for the Americans: Paul Samuelson was a direct descendent, who not only won the Nobel Prize in economics, but trained generations of policy-makers to come through his 1948 textbook Economics: An Introductory Analysis. But the parallels go back further in time, and in previous centuries yet it was not uncommon for someone today known for contributions to physics to have also been intrigued by, and often an originator of, basic concepts in economics. Let’s go back to that tradition to see what happens.
Since the late 18th Century, physicists have defined theories by describing how particles move and arrange themselves in space so as to minimize a particular quantity. The quantity, called the *Lagrangian*, attaches a value to every possible arrangement of particles in space and (crucially) to their velocities as well. Think of the Lagrangian as defining a cost that the particles pay for being in a certain place with a certain velocity. As these particles move through space, passing from one arrangement to another (or staying in the same configuration for a while) they run up a bill. Some configurations of course, are more costly than others; some are costly, but enable the particle to get to less costly configurations later.
To figure out how particles set in motion at one time (say, 9 am) will move and interact with each other, ending up in a new configuration at (say) 10 am, we consider all possible paths the particles might have taken to get from the arrangement at 9 am to the arrangement in question at 10 am. Each path runs up a bill, and the actual path that particle takes is that which runs up the smallest Lagrangian bill. Some paths are absurd, with particles stopping and starting at random, accelerating to vast speeds and just as quickly coming to a halt; these end up running up very large bills. The ones that rack up smaller bills are close to the paths the particles actually take, and the very smallest bill is the path the particles do take. (Hidden in here is the secret for generalizing to quantum mechanics: we now allow particles to stray from the optimal paths, penalizing them the further they stray, and indeed, all the arguments we’re about to make remain valid for the quantum world.)
One of the puzzles of the Lagrangian formulation is that it’s hard to think of this path selection as a causal story, in the usual sense: as a particle moves in space, it may be able to achieve a minimal bill by temporarily paying large costs “in anticipation” of reduced costs later in time—somewhat like a young financier living in New York City in his early twenties, only to move to Connecticut in mid-life. But in another sense, causality is preserved: only facts about the Lagrangian bill matter, and the only way to manipulate the particle is to alter, or add, terms in the Lagrangian. The particle doesn’t really anticipate and think through the consequences of its behavior, although in the quantum mechanical formulation, you can think about it as trying a bunch of different paths in parallel universes.
In any case, ordinary Lagrangians only bill particles in terms of their positions and velocities: informally, it costs something to climb a hill, and it costs something to be fast. All paths can be defined in terms of their position and velocity alone; you can measure the implied acceleration, of course, at any point, but accelerations only matter to the extent to which they end up affecting the particle’s velocity or position. Nothing else is billed: it comes for free, like the bread before the appetizer.
We can ask how much *more* it costs to be fast, given a little boost in speed (*i.e.*, when we take the derivative of the Lagrangian with respect to the velocity). If I’m already going 50 miles/hour, how much more does it cost to go to 51? If you’re an economist, you can think of this as the *marginal cost*: if I’m already making fifty thousand widgets, how much more does it cost to make the next?
Let’s persist with the economic analogy. In general, the cost of an additional unit is different from the unit-by-unity costs you accumulated so far. Consider a drug company introducing a new drug to market: the cost to make the first tablet is enormous (the costs of researching, testing, and getting approval for the drug), while the cost to make the second tablet is much less: just leave the machine on for ten seconds longer. A similar example is the case of Amazon, who finds it cheaper to ship the millionth book than it did the first.[^3] Conversely, consider asking a friend who works as a consultant for increasingly complex help: you might be able to get some brief advice for the cost of a cup of coffee, but if you want more than few minutes of thinking, you’ll find that you’ll start getting charged—indeed, more and more as the complexity of your problem becomes apparent. Another example is the declining marginal productivity of land: it’s easier to feed the first fifty people in your village because you can farm the richest plots. As the population increases, you have to move to increasingly barren soil.[^4]
For any marginal cost, you can ask: how much am I saving (or losing) compared to the cost I *would* have paid if that marginal cost applied at all levels? You can think of this as the foolish startup’s price: if Amazon can find, pack, and ship a book for less than a dollar, my foolish friend reasons he can do the same with the books in his house. Or (if the curve goes the other way, with increments becoming more expensive) you can think of it as the freeloader’s price; what happens when she notices that she only paid for an hour of advice, but actually got an hour and a half’s worth once you count that free conversation over coffee. In the physical world, usually (but watch out!), it costs more to go from 50 to 51 miles/hour than it does from zero to one—so we can think of this as a freeloader’s price; I got up to 51 miles/hour more cheaply on my Lagrange bill than I’d have expected given what I was charged for the last increment.
Now, remarkably, the freeloader’s gain—the difference between the freeloader’s price and the actual price—has an interpretation in terms of the underlying physics. It’s the energy!
Don’t ask me *why* it’s the energy. It does all the sorts of things we want energy to do, like total your car if you get too much of it too quickly. If you stick in a theory that you can solve some other way, where you’ve previously been able to identify the quantity you think is the energy, it always comes out the same. But why it should pop out of a crazy argument about linear extrapolations of marginal costs, I can’t say in any simple, efficient way. You might as well say that there’s a hidden economic structure to the Universe that we didn’t expect, and it turns out that energy is just some quantity derived from that more fundamental structure.
In any case, and as long as the cost function doesn’t change with time, you can prove that the total freeloader’s gain in the system is constant—that’s conservation of energy. Some people might get a few fewer hours of free consulting time, which lowers their freeloader’s gain, but others, in turn, will get more. Something that we tend to think of as an essential quantity, neither created nor destroyed, ends up popping out of the Lagrangian formalism.
This story, about minimizing Lagrangian bills and freeloader’s prices, may seem like an overly complicated way to talk about how particles move about in space. Famously, when the physicist Richard Feynman encountered it as an undergraduate during his physics education at MIT he rejected it entirely at first, coming up with increasingly ingenious ways to reason about physical systems using the standard set of Newton’s laws. Why bother rephrasing the laws we already know in terms of a cost function? One answer is that it does provide a recipe for handling extremely complicated systems that you can’t keep track of all at once. Even Feynman had, at some point, to switch over.
Another answer is that it provides a very general way to think about physical laws. All you need to do is specify that cost: a single equation, for example, can replace all three of Newton’s laws of motion. Today, when inventing a new quantum field theory, all the physicist has to do is write down a Lagrangian. (Solving it, of course, is another problem altogether.) Most germane to our discussion, the Lagrangian formalism allows us to speculate on physical laws that have higher-derivative terms, providing a recipe book for how to interpret the equations in terms of physically real quantities like energy and momentum.
The effect of adding in these new terms is dramatic. This is because once you allow the Lagrangian to depend on more than just the velocity, but also the acceleration, you have multiple terms to consider. The Lagrangian depends on not just the cost of going from 50 miles/hour to 51, but also the cost of going from (say) zero acceleration to 1 mile/hour/second.
To continue the economic analogy, there are more goods to produce, and by adjusting the mixture of goods one produces, unexpected cost savings become possible. Following the standard recipes shows that it’s now possible to find economies of scale: as one speeds up, for example, it becomes easier and easier to speed up more. We move from the village farm to the Amazon warehouse. These unexpected gains correspond to negative energies: rather than costing energy to get there, you actually release a little.
This sounds harmless at first. But there are still positive energy paths. And, although energy can neither be created nor destroyed, we’re now in a system where particles can charge arbitrarily large gains to other particles, as long as they can match foolish startup prices to freeloader’s gains. A car can accelerate to an arbitrarily high speed and high energy, from nothing, as long as it can find another car who can produce negative energy to keep the totals constant. You might say we’ve invented debt, and given the particles, like Lehman Brothers, no constraints on how much they can leverage.
A conversation with John Bova, Dresden Craig, and Paul Livingston
=================================================================
The “Undecidables” [@undec] met on 5 July 2017 in Santa Fe to discuss a draft of this essay. John Bova, Dresden Craig, Paul Livingston and I participated, in a meeting that also touched on papers by John [@bova] and Simon Saunders [@simon]. In the following weeks, the group proposed a series of questions based on that conversation, which I’ve attempted to answer here.
[**Dresden Craig**]{}. In the abstract for this paper, you write that “the universe need not have made self-reference possible.” Could you say a little more precisely what you mean by that? Do you mean “the universe” there to indicate a universe with the same fundamental laws of physics as our own, or are you also thinking about other possible universes? (If the latter, “possible” in what sense?) In either case, can we say anything meaningful about what a universe in which self-reference was impossible would be like?
[**SD**]{}. My main concern here was with universes that had laws, physical laws, that differed from ours but nonetheless could be expressed in the formalisms and mathematics we have to hand in our own. The story of modern physics is in part the story of how we’ve come to learn that—if we value mathematical coherence—this space is much more restricted than we used to think, and that’s a lot of fun. There are certainly strange universes well beyond that, that philosophers have considered, but to include all of those as well is a bit cheating. It’s trivial to consider, say, a universe consisting only of a perfect sphere, hanging unaided in an infinite space. There’s not a lot going on there.
What you do need for self-reference are structures sufficiently densely-interlocked that they support an effectively unbounded memory. The natural way for this to happen, in our universe, is through the sticking together of stuff in increasingly complex ways, with memories being spread out over increasingly large distances. Consider the leap from a protocell, with a simple membrane to separate in from out, to the human brain. You don’t even need a Lagrangian in your fundamental theory for that to happen: all sorts of crazy theories could do that, including whatever M-Theory turns out to be. But, conversely, it’s possible to write down universes where this stuff would not happen: *e.g.*, a billiard-ball universe without gravity.
It’s worth noting that there are many ways to get this interlocking, some of which would seem very strange to us. Imagine, for example, things clustering together not in space, but in “momentum space”—nearby by virtue of having similar values of momentum, like cars grouped not by where they were on the highway, but by their speeds. You could imagine physical laws tuned in such a way that particles with particular momenta were able to preferentially interact even if widely separated (or delocalized) in space. Memory could emerge.
[**Paul Livingston**]{}. My first question is about physics, memory, and time. As you note in your paper, fundamental physics doesn’t appear to allow for memory to be a basic (or even a real) phenomenon: since the time parameter in statements of physical law is always just given as a simple, single value increasing over time, there doesn’t seem any warrant for introducing as physically real any operations of comparison between states of systems at distinct times. Things seem (at least at first) rather different from the perspective of computer science, where of course we constantly appeal to data being stored “in memory”, and even Turing’s basic architecture essentially includes an (ideally infinitely extended) symbolic memory.
At this level, we have memory in the sense of the ability to store syntactic symbols, and for the machine’s functioning at one time to depend on what has previously been stored; but we don’t yet seem to have a basis for at least some of the further emergent phenomena you discuss in your paper—for instance meaningful experience—until these symbols and comparisons are in fact “interpreted" by some kind of conscious subject or agent. If this is right, it would seem to make the presence of such an agent (who lives in experienced time) essential for these phenomena themselves, as if in an important sense it is us who are constituting or making up time (beyond just the single, linear time-parameter of basic physics).
In the history of philosophy, there’s a long legacy of arguments that say that time is not basically real, or is illusory at the basic level of reality and is rather constituted by us as human subjects. These arguments perhaps begin with Zeno, who held, for example, that an arrow in flight cannot really be moving, since at each discrete moment (each discrete value of t) it is at rest. Others such as Kant and Husserl have seen time and the meaningful phenomena of change, motion, and causality as imposed by the form of our minds or our understanding upon the world, while still others (such as Bergson) have tried to re-introduce “memory" into matter by thinking of universal time, including physical time, as constituted in part by a kind of universal cosmic “evolution" toward progressively higher forms.
My question then is whether and how the dynamics of self-reference can allow us to see time and memory as really “there" (at the basic physical and/or computational levels) and not just constituted or produced by us. And can we maintain this kind of realism about time and memory without thinking that all of the progressive developments that you’ve invoked (life from non-life, mind from non-mind, and society from individuals) were “pre-inscribed," that is, already built in to the basic physics of the universe, somehow?
[**SD**]{}. Modulo some minor translations between our two languages, I’d agree with your account of time plays here, and your extension to the experience of conscious agents. It certainly feels like it’s impossible to experience the passage of time without some kind of reference to past and future, and such comparisons become impossible for an agent without the memory to do so, or a subject without access to those memories.
Once we phrase it this way, I come down squarely on the side you attribute to Kant and Husserl. We can knock off Zeno right away, if with a cannonball from the 19th Century. The Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted showed that an electrical current—meaning the flow of electrons through a wire—could move the needle on a compass sitting a little distance away by inducing a magnetic field. We now believe that effect doesn’t depend in any fundamental way on the inhomogeneity of the flow. If you pushed a perfectly uniform, charged rod, infinitely long, past the compass, a similar thing would happen, but now the set of discrete moments for that moving rod are identical to the case where it’s stationary. The only thing you’re doing to is altering the velocity, and yet that difference causes a needle to twitch. So velocity is real, since anything that plays a causal role has to be real, and since position is also real and velocity is the derivative of position with time, there is some non-trivial sense in which time is a physical thing that just exists, does something in the world. Position and velocity are two legs of a tripod, and the whole thing can only stand with time.
But at the same time, we do want to say that what *we* mean by time—the feeling of time flowing up towards a deadline, say, or away into the past after a parting from someone you love—is more than just a component of physical law. It essentially involves the awareness of change, internal or external, the ability to compare one moment to the next, and to consider its meaning. We can’t understand the world, make sense of it, without grasping these more complex objects—objects that, by Ostrogradsky’s theorem, are banned from being fundamental constituents of our world. They emerge. I’d be happy to claim Bergson as a fellow-traveller here, since I want to say that memory and the possibility of self-reference can emerge prior to a subject; they can become available, we can have them to hand.
Now, I can’t quite parse the Subject from the computation. I wish I could. But we can split the physical and computational apart, and say that you need the computational bit to gain awareness of time, and that computational bit can’t be “baked in” like the time that Ørsted discovered.
[**DC**]{}. You write that “the fundamental laws \[of physics\] are forgetfulÓ, referring to how third (or higher) time derivatives cannot correspond to physical realities; then, you write that “coarse graining gives the possibility of memoryÓ and later you “point to a crucial moment where they \[*i.e.*, each new level of complexity\] all begin: not in the perception of detail, but in its selective destruction and lossy compression.” Is this a fair paraphrase? Memory is made possible by a kind of coarse graining, and coarse graining is a throwing away of details; memory is, therefore, a particular form of forgetting. If so, then can we say the inability to derive certain key thresholds of complexity from fundamental physical laws is tantamount to an inability of physics to predict what about itself is forgettable? Can we generalize to say that any theory which works for a given level will be unable to predict which coarse grainings of itself will make sense?
[**SD**]{}. This is a lovely question—and a lovely suggestion. One has a feeling that (for example) humans are constantly surprised by the coarse grainings society places on them: categories of race and sex, class, and so forth. “I wouldn’t have ever imagined you’d do that to us,” you can hear people say at critical points in history, referring not to a particular other person, but rather to a system that they find themselves caught up in. The understanding we have of our own inner lives can’t work out what society will do with collections of them.
It may well be the case that we recognize the emergence of new things only in retrospect, when we have the examples before us; and even then, only imperfectly. And of course we can disagree about which coarse-grainings are appropriate. Historians generate multiple accounts of the same events, which you can think of as incompatible coarse-grainings, and they find the clashes between these accounts to be sources of fertile discussion, rather than signs that something is seriously wrong with the project.
[**PM**]{}. Throughout your paper, I was interested in the way that issues about how we describe the phenomena theoretically interact with issues about how these phenomena actually are in themselves. For example, one can argue that a computer’s memory register is only actually its memory as described from a certain (functional) perspective: from another perspective, it is just a physical configuration of matter. We might distinguish here between the first and second of Marr’s levels of analysis for systems.[^5] If we draw the distinctions this way, it seems that a system can only be “self-referential" (if it is) as described in a certain way: that is, for us to see it as self-referential we must describe it from a perspective that portrays some of its physical changes and quantities as “references“ to things, and also draws some line around just that system as ”itself."
This might seem to suggest that while the idea of self-reference can change the way we view some of these systems, it doesn’t play a role in the basic, physical-level behavior of the system itself. Yet all of the phenomena you describe (life, mind, and society, etc.) do certainly—once they are there—make a difference to the actual physical behavior of the relevant systems: for example, given a functioning society, matter will be moved to places it would not be if there were just the individuals acting without any conception of the larger whole. How should we understand, then, the actual reality of these features of self-reference and self-organization, at the most basic physical level? Or does acknowledging them require us to hold that a total explanation of the world written only in the vocabulary of the basic physical level (without terminology such as “reference" and “self-") could never capture all that goes on there?
[**SD**]{}. I think the Marr account is the correct one. We can get these terrific, efficient descriptions of how a pile of mail got from one side of the Atlantic to the other by referring to emergent properties. We could re-write everything in a more fundamental language, but why? We do so much better if we don’t. You might say that we know the reality of reference and self from the epistemic resistance we encounter when we try to get rid of them.
[**John Bova**]{}. Is it possible to take us a little farther into the discussion of renormalization? And how do the considerations about renormalization relate to the simpler reasons that we might expect the fundamental laws of medium-sized nature (at least) to work on the order of second derivatives? For instance, it seems as though there ought to be a connection to how a conservative field can be understood as throwing away path-dependent information.
[**SD**]{}. There are many different ways things can become ignorable. When we write down a theory, we encounter quantities that are “truly” irrelevant: for example, in classical electrodynamics, the zero point of the electric potential. You can move those quantities around as much as you like, and the predictions of the model don’t change. We call the gauge invariances. They were never there in the real world in the first place, but were rather ghosts born of our limitations. The structures in the world that we want to describe don’t map perfectly onto the mathematical objects we know how to manipulate. There’s an excess, though sometimes we find better notation that kills them off once and for all.
In other cases, we have facts about the world that are real, but causally irrelevant. The motion of a particle in a conservative field, as you note, can be both predicted and explained without reference to the entire path it took. It’s not that the path doesn’t have some kind of reality. You and I can watch the Space Shuttle launch, in a way that we can’t, for example, observe the zero point of the electric potential. It’s just that the path is irrelevant from the point of view of the physics of the phenomenon itself. A similar thing happens for jerk, in fundamental physics: it’s not that you can’t take the third derivative of position, it’s just that it doesn’t matter.
Renormalization is a third, distinct, way of ignoring things. In this case, you actually end up ignoring things that matter! You pick and choose carefully so that what you’re ignoring is (for example) the least-damaging, least problematic stuff. If you’re interested in building a road, you don’t need to have the positions of the quarks, but they’re really there and they matter causally to what’s going to happen to your road. Renormalization does a huge number of things in physics, beyond just the production of efficient descriptions and (as we use it in this paper) the discovery of higher-order, non-local interactions. One of the first reasons we created it was to handle some problems with a theory that we thought was fundamental (quantum electrodynamics, QED) but had all sorts of problems when we tried to treat it that way. In the end, we had to create the Higgs boson—but we were able to do QED calculations before we knew what the Higgs was, because we could treat QED as a theory that came out of some mysterious mystery theory deeper down.
I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the Santa Fe Institute MOOC we did on this [@renorm]; one of the papers on renormalization in complex, computational systems that we talk about there comes from Israeli and Goldenfeld [@israeli].
[**JB**]{}. Will a human sorter faced with the Shakespearean task produce a locally sharp but globally indefinable shape, or will they produce a hopelessly vague shape even at the level of local decisions? What does the answer tell us about how to apply theorems on formal systems to human intentional states and acts without conflating or merely analogizing the two? What does it tell us about where intentional states are located in conceptual space relative to consistency and completeness?
[**SD**]{}. You’re asking a crucial question. Paul asks it from a slightly different angle, making a distinction between the computation and the subject, while you distinguish formal system from human reason. How do we, as subjects, differ from our computational states? Or (a more restricted question) where are *we* located, if we are at all, on the Marrian levels? The purpose of this essay is to give a story about how a certain set of objects (memory, self-reference) that are necessary (but not sufficient) for meaning, come to be, and it’s tempting to punt the rest to biology, tying the intentionality and meaning of human states to evolution. But let’s try a bit harder before we punt.
What fails when we think that formal systems are identical to human states of mind, thoughts a subject thinks? An obvious answer is the latter are subject to continuous revision. I may hold in mind the same object, person, thought, at two different times, and have them mean, or imply, completely different things. We develop, over time, in ways that I think can’t be simply reduced down to computational talk about changing variables, or even LISP-like metaprogramming stories. We’re not substituting, we’re returning.
Let answer this synthesis of your question and Paul’s with an answer suggested by Dresden. What if we take seriously the revisability of our our mind’s meanings, the ways in which we can return to the same states, the same thoughts, and have them mean completely different things to us? Here let me include our emotional responses, our feelings, as well as our more conceptual, intellectual states.
We could say, well, it’s just the valence that’s changed, the thing is the same but it’s stuck in a different place of our affective network. The context is different. But I think it’s more than this: there’s something unsatisfying about postulating a world of atomic thoughts that we combine together like Lego bricks, even if we made those bricks ourselves. At the very least, we experience a shift in emotional gestalt, where we might in some way be able to say the object is identical, but not in any way that actually matters. We feel love for a person, but where this was originally a pleasure, it has now become a pain, because that person is gone from us in some way. And it becomes a pleasure or a pain in a very different way from how we perceive food differently depending on how hungry we are.
Put these pieces together and we have a problem. How can we have a simple object (love, say—but if you like, one of the components of love) that persists in time (the love now is the love then), but also changes in some essential quantities (it was a pleasure, now it’s bittersweet)? One answer is if the coarse-graining of the fundamental constituents is changing. At the level you’re experiencing love, it’s a simple object, whose complexity is hidden from you by the coarse-graining process. Events shock you, knock you about, and that coarse-graining has shifted in scale. The nature of that shift allows you to track the object over time, as its properties change, or at least to rediscover it after a shock. Perhaps it zooms out, so that the difficult parts of that love become invisible; perhaps it zooms in a bit, magnifying feelings you didn’t know you had; most likely, some combination of the two. The shapes of our minds, and how they map to some computational or formal-language account, are not just vague. They’re shifting. That makes formal systems inadequate not just as descriptions of our actual function (we already knew we weren’t perfect reasoners), but also as normative accounts of our emotional lives.
[10]{}
Sherry Turkle. . Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, USA, 2011.
Sara Imari Walker and Paul CW Davies. The algorithmic origins of life. , 10(79):20120869, 2013.
Stuart A Kauffman. . Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2016.
Elizabeth A Hobson and Simon DeDeo. Social feedback and the emergence of rank in animal society. , 11(9):e1004411, 2015.
Simon DeDeo. Major transitions in political order. In S.I. Walker, P.C.W. Davies, and G.F.R. Ellis, editors, [*From Matter to Life: Information and Causality*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2017. Available at <https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03419>.
Scott Aaronson, Sean M Carroll, and Lauren Ouellette. Quantifying the rise and fall of complexity in closed systems: The coffee automaton. , 2014. Available at <https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6903>.
Scott Aaronson. Why philosophers should care about computational complexity. In [*Computability: Turing, G[ö]{}del, Church, and Beyond*]{}, pages 261–328. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013.
Noam Chomsky. . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014 \[1964\].
John Maynard Smith and Eörs Száthmary. . Oxford University Press, 1997.
F. Fukuyama. . Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
Daniel Lord Smail. . University of California Press, 2007.
Merlin Donald. An evolutionary approach to culture. In Robert N Bellah and Hans Joas, editors, [*[The Axial Age and its consequences]{}*]{}. Harvard University Press, 2012.
David Graeber. . Melville House, New York, NY, USA, 2014. Updated and expanded.
Richard P. Woodard. The theorem of [O]{}strogradsky. , 2015. Available at <https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.02210>.
Simon DeDeo and Dimitrios Psaltis. Stable, accelerating universes in modified-gravity theories. , 78(6):064013, 2008.
Alan Cooney, Simon DeDeo, and Dimitrios Psaltis. Gravity with perturbative constraints: Dark energy without new degrees of freedom. , 79(4):044033, 2009.
Simon DeDeo. Effective theories for circuits and automata. , 21(3):037106, 2011.
Jessica C Flack. Multiple time-scales and the developmental dynamics of social systems. , 367(1597):1802–1810, 2012.
Jessica C. Flack. Coarse-graining as a downward causation mechanism. , 375(2109), 2017.
Randall Munroe. Nerd-swiping. Available at <http://xkcd.com/356>.
R. P Woodard. strogradsky’s theorem on [H]{}amiltonian instability. , 10(8):32243, 2015. revision \#151184.
John Bova, Dresden Craig, Simon DeDeo, and Paul Livingston. The [U]{}ndecidables, 2013—. Archive available at <http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~simon/undecidables.txt>.
John Bova. Groups as eide? toward a [P]{}latonic response to [M]{}etaphysics [M]{} on unity, structure, and number, 2017. Unpublished manuscript.
Simon Saunders. Physics and leibniz’s principles. In K. Brading and E. Castellani, editors, [*Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2003.
David Marr. . Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1982.
Simon DeDeo. Introduction to renormalization, 2017. Complexity Explorer MOOC, Santa Fe Institute. <http://renorm.complexityexplorer.org>.
Navot Israeli and Nigel Goldenfeld. Coarse-graining of cellular automata, emergence, and the predictability of complex systems. , 73:026203, Feb 2006.
[^1]: Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University & the Santa Fe Institute. [[email protected]]{}; [http://santafe.edu/\~ simon](http://santafe.edu/~ simon). FQXI Prize Essay 2017.
[^2]: <http://bit.ly/2BQganC>
[^3]: Making this article completely self-referential, the first book shipped from Amazon was by Douglas Hofstadter and the Fluid Analogies group at Indiana.
[^4]: A more complicated relationship might obtain when hiring a taxi: the first mile is more expensive compared to the second mile, because you’re usually charged a flat rate, or “flag drop”. But if you try to get a taxi to take you from, say, Pittsburgh to Chicago, you’ll find that you end up negotiating a much higher per-mile fee than you’d expect, since the driver won’t be able to get a return fare. We’ll focus here on the cases where every marginal cost specifies a unique unit amount—these also obtain for sensible physical laws, and our toy example of the drug firm. The technical term is that the Lagrangian is “non-degenerate”.
[^5]: Marr, a neuroscientist, described three levels for the analysis of human visual processing: the “computational” (what purpose is the system achieving—recognizing faces, say), “algorithmic” (how does the system break that task into subtasks that fit together? can you write down the psuedocode of that process?), and “implementation” (how the brain actually gets things done, with Potassium ions and depolarization waves) [@marr1982computational].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We give an example of an orthogonal bundle where the Harder-Narasimhan filtration, with respect to Gieseker semistability, of its underlying vector bundle does not correspond to any parabolic reduction of the orthogonal bundle. A similar example is given for the symplectic case.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India'
- 'Departamento de Matemática, Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal'
author:
- Indranil Biswas
- Alfonso Zamora
title: 'On the Gieseker Harder-Narasimhan filtration for principal bundles'
---
Introduction
============
Mumford and Takemoto (c.f. [@GIT] and [@Ta]) constructed a moduli space for semistable holomorphic vector bundles over Riemann surfaces, by defining a vector bundle $E$ to be semistable if for every non trivial proper subbundle $F\subset E$ we have $$\frac{\deg F}{{\operatorname{rk}}F}\leq \frac{\deg E}{{\operatorname{rk}}E}\; .$$ Later on, Gieseker and Maruyama (c.f. [@Gi] and [@Ma]) extended the construction to higher dimensional varieties, by modifying the definition of stability and using Hilbert polynomials instead of degrees.
In [@HN], Harder and Narasimhan proved that a holomorphic vector bundle over a Riemann surface which is not stable admits a unique canonical filtration $$0\subset E_{1} \subset E_{2} \subset \cdots \subset E_{t} \subset
E_{t+1}=E\; ,$$ which verifies that the quotients $E^{i}:=E_{i}/E_{i-1}$ are semistable and the slopes of the quotients are decreasing: $$\frac{\deg E^{1}}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{1}}>\frac{\deg E^{2}}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{2}}>\cdots>\frac{\deg E^{t+1}}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{t+1}}\; .$$ This fact can be extended to torsion free sheaves over projective varieties by using Gieseker stability (c.f. [@Gi] and [@HL Theorem 1.3.6]).
Ramanathan, in [@Ra], constructed a moduli space for semistable principal $G$-bundle over Riemann surfaces, where $G$ is a connected reductive complex algebraic group, by declaring that a $G$-bundle $E\rightarrow X$ is semistable if for any reduction of structure group $\sigma :X\rightarrow E/P$ to any maximal parabolic subgroup $P\subset G$, we have $$\deg \sigma^{\ast}(T_{(E/P)/X})\geq 0$$ where $T_{(E/P)/X}\rightarrow E/P$ is the tangent bundle along the fibers of the projection $E/P\rightarrow X$.
To generalize Ramanathan’s construction to higher dimension, a Gieseker-like definition of stability has to be given for principal bundles. It turns out that this definition depends on the choice of a representation $\rho:G\to {\rm SL}(V)$. For the classical groups, we can choose the standard representation (c.f. [@GS1]). For a connected reductive group, we can take the adjoint representation into the semisimple part of the Lie algebra (c.f. [@GS2; @GS3]), and if $G$ is semisimple we can take any faithful representation (c.f. [@Sch1; @Sch2]). See [@GLSS1] and [@GLSS2] for other cases.
A one parameter subgroup $\lambda:\mathbb{C}^* \to G$ of $G$ defines a parabolic subgroup $$P(\lambda)=\{ g\in G \,\mid\, \lim_{z\to \infty} \lambda(t)g\lambda(t)^{-1}
~\text{exists in $G$} \}$$ We remark that all parabolic subgroups are of this form.
Using the representation $\rho:G \to {\rm SL}(V)$ chosen above, the one parameter subgroup $\lambda$ gives a filtration of $V$ as follows. Let $$\gamma_1 < \gamma_2 <\cdots < \gamma_l$$ be the different weights of the action of $\lambda$ on $V$. Let $V^{i}$ be the subspace where $\lambda$ acts as $t^{\gamma_i}$, and let $V_i=\bigoplus_{j=1}^{i}$. Therefore, we obtain a filtration $$\label{filtV}
0\subset V_1 \subset V_2 \subset \cdots \subset V_l=V$$ This filtration is preserved by the action of the parabolic group $P(\lambda)$ on $V$ given by the representation.
We say that an open subset $U\subset X$ is big if the dimension of its complement has codimension at least 2. Consider a reduction of structure group of the principal $G$-bundle $E$ to $P(\lambda)$ over a big open set $\iota:U\subset X$. This reduction, together with the filtration of $V$ produces a filtration of vector bundles on $U$ $$0\subset F^U_1 \subset F^U_2 \subset \cdots \subset F^U_l = E(V)|_U$$ Extending each vector bundle to a torsion free sheaf on $X$ as $F_i = \iota_* F^U_i \cap E(V)$, we obtain a filtration by torsion free sheaves on $X$ $$\label{filtF}
0\subset F_1 \subset F_2 \subset \cdots \subset F_l = E(V)$$
We say that $E$ is semistable if for any one parameter subgroup which factors through the derived subgroup $[G,G]$ of $G$ $$\rho:\mathbb{C}^* \to [G,G] \to G$$ and for any reduction of structure group of $E$ to the parabolic subgroup $P(\lambda)$ over a big open set $U\subset X$, the associated filtration of torsion free sheaves satisfies $$\sum_{i=1}^{l-1} (\gamma_{i+1}-\gamma_{i})
\big({\operatorname{rk}}F\cdot P_{F_i}(m) -{\operatorname{rk}}F_i\cdot P_F(m)\big) \leq 0$$ for $m\gg 0$. We say that it is stable if the inequality is strict.
In the case of principal $G$-bundles over Riemann surfaces, this notion of stability coincides with the one in [@Ra] (c.f. [@GS3 Corollary 5.8], [@Sch2 Proposition 5.4] , [@GLSS1 Lemma 3.2.3]), [@GLSS2 Lemma 2.5.4]) and therefore does not depend on the choice the representation $\rho$.
In the case of the adjoint representation into the semisimple part of the Lie algebra, the filtrations (\[filtF\]) that we obtain can be simplified as follows ([@GS2; @GS3]).
Let $E$ be a principal $G$-bundle over $X$, let $F=E(\frak{g}')$ be the vector bundle associated to the adjoint representation in the semisimple part $\frak{g}'$ of the Lie algebra $\frak{g}=\frak{g}'\bigoplus Z(\frak{g})$. Let $$[\; , \; ]: F\otimes F\rightarrow F$$ be the Lie algebra structure and let $$\kappa: F\otimes F\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}$$ be the Killing form, inducing an isomorphism $F\cong F^{\vee}$ and assigning an orthogonal $$F'{}^{\bot}= \ker(F\hookrightarrow F^{\vee}\twoheadrightarrow F'{}^{\vee})$$ to each subsheaf $F'\subset F$. An orthogonal algebra filtration of $F$ is a filtration $$\label{orthogonalfiltration}
0\subset F_{-t}\subset F_{-t+1}\subset \cdots \subset F_{0}\subset \cdots \subset F_{t-1}\subset F_{t}=F$$ verifying $F_{i}^{\bot}=F_{-i-1}$ and $[F_{i},F_{j}]\subset F_{i+j}$. Define $$P_{F_{\bullet}}:=\sum_{i} ({\operatorname{rk}}F \cdot P_{F_{i}}-{\operatorname{rk}}F_{i}\cdot P_{F})$$ to be the Hilbert polynomial of a filtration and declare $E$ to be semistable if for every orthogonal algebra filtration $F_{\bullet}\subset F$ we have $$P_{F_{\bullet}}\leq 0\; .$$
The case of the orthogonal group with the standard representation will be described in more detail in Section \[sec:constructing\].
We will now describe in more detail the case of the adjoint representation.
Ramanathan states in [@Ra] that every unstable principal $G$-bundle admits a unique canonical reduction $\sigma$ to a parabolic $P\subset G$ satisfying the following two conditions:
1. \[can1\] for every non-trivial character $\chi$ of $P$ given by a nonnegative linear combination of simple roots (with respect to some fixed Borel subgroup of $P$), the associated line bundle $\chi_{\ast}\sigma^{\ast}E$ has positive degree,
2. \[can2\] for the Levi quotient $P\twoheadrightarrow L$, the associated principal $L$-bundle is semistable.
In [@AB], Atiyah and Bott showed that the Harder-Narasimhan filtration in for the adjoint vector bundle is indeed an orthogonal algebra filtration as in (\[orthogonalfiltration\]) and the middle term $E_{0}$ gives a reduction of structure group of the principal $G$-bundle to a parabolic subgroup. In particular, when $G={\rm GL}(n,\mathbb{C})$, the canonical reduction corresponds to the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of the associated vector bundle of rank $n$. In [@Be] and [@BH] the assertion of Ramanathan is proved and also shown that the reduction in [@AB] coincides with the one in [@Ra]. Finally, [@AAB] generalizes the notion of the canonical reduction to principal $G$-bundles over compact Kähler manifolds $X$ by considering reductions to parabolics over a big open set $U\subset X$ which satisfy properties (\[can1\]) and (\[can2\]); the reduction in [@AAB] is constructed by following the method in [@AB].
Given an orthogonal or symplectic bundle over a projective variety $X$, we can construct the Gieseker Harder-Narasimhan filtration of its underlying vector bundle. On the other hand, we can construct the canonical reduction of the principal bundle. When $X$ is of complex dimension $1$, both notions coincide, however they differ for higher dimensional varieties. Here we show an example of this.
In [@GSZ], the authors explore the connections between the maximal $1$-parameter subgroup giving maximal unstability from the GIT point of view in a GIT construction of a moduli space (c.f. [@Ke]), and the Harder-Narasimhan filtration. These ideas give a method to construct the Harder-Narasimhan filtration in cases where we do not know it a priori. The paper [@Za1] applies this to rank $2$ tensors and the method does not work in more general situations (c.f. [@Za2 Section 2.5]). It is natural to ask whether there exists a Harder-Narasimhan filtration for principal bundles coming from the construction of the moduli space in [@GS3] through tensors, where a Gieseker type stability is used. The present work was motivated by this question.
Definitions
===========
Let $X$ be a polarized smooth complex projective variety of dimension $n$ and let $\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)$ denote the polarization. Denote by ${\operatorname{rk}}E$ and $\deg E$ the rank and degree of a torsion free coherent sheaf $E$. Recall that we define the *degree* of a vector bundle $E$ over the polarized variety $(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(1))$ as $$\deg E=\int_{X} c_{1}(E)\cdot
c_{1}(\mathcal{O}_{X}(1))^{n-1}=\int_{X} c_{1}(E)\cdot H^{n-1}\; ,$$ where $H$ is a hyperplane divisor of the polarizing line bundle.
A torsion free coherent sheaf $E$ over a smooth projective variety is *Mumford-Takemoto semistable* if for every nontrivial subsheaf $F\subset E$, with ${\operatorname{rk}}F < {\operatorname{rk}}E$, we have $$\frac{\deg F}{{\operatorname{rk}}F}\leq \frac{\deg E}{{\operatorname{rk}}E}\; .$$ Moreover, if the above inequality is strict, we say $E$ is *Mumford-Takemoto stable*. We say that $F$ *Mumford-Takemoto destabilizes* $E$ if $$\frac{\deg F}{{\operatorname{rk}}F}>\frac{\deg E}{{\operatorname{rk}}E}\; .$$
We call $\deg E/{\operatorname{rk}}E$ the [*Mumford-Takemoto slope*]{} of $E$. Let $\chi(E)$ be the Euler characteristic of a sheaf $E$. Given a torsionfree coherent sheaf $E$ over a polarized variety $(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}(1))$, we define the *Hilbert polynomial* of $E$ as $$P_{E}(m)=\chi(E\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(m))\; ,$$ which is a polynomial on $m$. Given two polynomials $P(m)$ and $Q(m)$ we say that $P(m)\leq Q(m)$ if the inequality holds for $m\gg 0$.
A torsion free coherent sheaf $E$ over a smooth projective variety is *Gieseker semistable* if for every nontrivial subsheaf $F\subset E$, with ${\operatorname{rk}}F < {\operatorname{rk}}E$, we have $$\frac{P_{F}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}F}\leq \frac{P_{E}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E}\; .$$ Moreover, if the above inequality is strict, we say $E$ is *Gieseker stable*. We say that $F$ *Gieseker destabilizes* $E$ if $$\frac{P_{F}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}F}>\frac{P_{E}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E}\; .$$
The above polynomial $P_{E}(m)/{\operatorname{rk}}E$ is called the [*Gieseker slope*]{} of $E$.
Note that $F$ Mumford-Takemoto destabilizes $E$ implies $F$ Gieseker destabilizes $E$ but not the other way around.
Given a torsion free sheaf $E$, there exists a unique filtration $$\label{HNeq}
0\subset E_{1} \subset E_{2} \subset \cdots \subset E_{t} \subset
E_{t+1}=E\; ,$$ which satisfies the following properties, where $E^{i}:=E_{i}/E_{i-1}$:
1. Every $E^{i}$ is Gieseker semistable
2. The Hilbert polynomials verify $$\frac{P_{E^{1}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{1}}>\frac{P_{E^{2}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{2}}>\ldots>\frac{P_{E^{t+1}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{t+1}}$$
This filtration is called the *Harder-Narasimhan filtration* of $E$ (c.f. [@HN] or [@HL Theorem 1.3.6]).
A Gieseker unstable bundle which is Mumford-Takemoto semistable
===============================================================
Let $X$ be a $K3$ surface, which means that $X$ is a smooth complex projective surface with irregularity $q(X)=h^{1}(\mathcal{O}_{X})=0$ and trivial canonical bundle. Since $X$ is Kähler, there exists a Kähler-Einstein metric on $X$ (c.f. [@Ya]), hence $TX$ is polystable (c.f. [@Ko]). Moreover, $TX$ is indecomposable, therefore $TX$ is Mumford-Takemoto stable. The first Chern class of $TX$ vanishes, so $\deg (TX)=0$.
We consider the sheaves $TX$ and $\mathcal{O}_{X}$ and calculate their Hilbert polynomials.
Let us calculate $\chi(TX\bigotimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(m))$ by using the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem: $$\chi(TX\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=\deg({\operatorname{ch}}(TX\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(m))\cdot {\operatorname{td}}(TX))_{2}\; ,$$ where the subscript $2$ refers to the component of the cohomology in $H^4(X,{\mathbb Q})$.
The Chern character of a vector bundle is (c.f. [@Ha Appendiz A.4]) ${\operatorname{ch}}(E)=\sum_{i=1}^{r}e^{a_{i}}$, with $c_{t}(E)=\Pi_{i=1}^{r}(1+a_{i}t)$ being the Chern polynomial, while ${\operatorname{td}}(TX)$ denotes the Todd character of the tangent bundle. Given that ${\operatorname{ch}}(E\bigotimes F)={\operatorname{ch}}(E)\cdot {\operatorname{ch}}(F)$, and $\mathcal{O}_{X}(m)$ is a line bundle, $${\operatorname{ch}}(\mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=e^{[\mathcal{O}_{X}(m)]}=e^{(mH)}=1+mH+\frac{(mH)^{2}}{2!}+\frac{(mH)^{3}}{3!}+\cdots
\; ,$$ where $H$ is the class of a hyperplane divisor of $\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)$. Therefore, in our case, $$\chi(TX\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=\deg({\operatorname{ch}}(TX\otimes
\mathcal{O}_{X}(m))\cdot {\operatorname{td}}(TX))_{2}= \deg({\operatorname{ch}}(TX)\cdot {\operatorname{td}}(TX)\cdot
{\operatorname{ch}}(\mathcal{O}_{X}(m)))_{2}\; .$$
The Chern and Todd classes of a vector bundle $E$ are given by $${\operatorname{ch}}(E)={\operatorname{rk}}E+c_{1}+\frac{1}{2}(c_{1}^{2}-2c_{2})+\ldots$$ $${\operatorname{td}}(E)=1+\frac{1}{2}c_{1}+\frac{1}{12}(c_{1}^{2}+c_{2})+\ldots\; ,$$ then, in our case, $${\operatorname{ch}}(TX)={\operatorname{rk}}(TX)+c_{1}(TX)+\frac{1}{2}(c_{1}(TX)^{2}-2c_{2}(TX))=2-c_{2}(TX)$$ $${\operatorname{td}}(TX)=1+\frac{1}{2}c_{1}(TX)+\frac{1}{12}(c_{1}(TX)^{2}+c_{2}(TX))=1+\frac{c_{2}(TX)}{12}$$ $${\operatorname{ch}}(\mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=1+mH+\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}\; .$$ Hence we have, $$\chi(TX\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=$$ $$[(2-c_{2}(TX))\cdot (1+\frac{1}{12}c_{2}(TX))\cdot (1+mH+\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2})]_{2}=$$ $$[(2-\frac{5}{6}c_{2}(TX))\cdot (1+mH+\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2})]_{2}=$$ $$m^{2}H^{2}-\frac{5}{6}c_{2}(TX)\; .$$
Using the same arguments, let us calculate $\chi(\mathcal{O}_{X}(m))$, $$\chi(\mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=\deg({\operatorname{ch}}(\mathcal{O}_{X}(m))\cdot {\operatorname{td}}(TX))_{2}=$$ $$[(1+mH+\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2})\cdot (1+\frac{c_{2}(TX)}{12})=$$ $$\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}+\frac{c_{2}(TX)}{12}\; .$$
The Euler characteristic of $\mathcal{O}_{X}$ is also given by $$\chi(\mathcal{O}_{X})=h^{0}(\mathcal{O}_{X})-h^{1}(\mathcal{O}_{X})+h^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{X})=$$ $$2h^{0}(\mathcal{O}_{X})=2$$ because on a $K3$ surface we have $h^{1}(\mathcal{O}_{X})=0$ and, by Serre duality and triviality of the canonical bundle, $h^{2}(\mathcal{O}_{X})=h^{0}(\mathcal{O}_{X})$. On the other hand, Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem gives $$\chi(\mathcal{O}_{X})=\frac{1}{12}c_{2}(TX)\; ,$$ from which we get $c_{2}(TX)=24$.
Therefore, we can write the Hilbert polynomials of $TX\bigotimes \mathcal{O}_{X}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{X}$: $$P_{TX}(m)=\chi(TX\otimes \mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=$$ $$m^{2}H^{2}-\frac{5}{6}c_{2}(TX)=m^{2}H^{2}-20\; ,$$ $$P_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}(m)=\chi(\mathcal{O}_{X}(m))=$$ $$\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}+\frac{c_{2}(TX)}{12}=\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}+2\; .$$
\[prop1\] The Gieseker slope of the line bundle $\mathcal{O}_{X}$ is strictly bigger than the Gieseker slope of $TX$.
From the above calculations we have $$\frac{P_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}\mathcal{O}_{X}}=\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}+2> \frac{P_{TX}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}TX}=\frac{m^{2}H^{2}-20}{2}=m^{2}H^{2}-10\; ,$$ proving the proposition.
Extensions and Harder-Narasimhan filtration
===========================================
First, we construct a stable bundle as an extension of $\mathcal{O}_{X}$ by $TX$.
\[prop2\] Let $V$ be a nontrivial extension $$0\rightarrow TX\rightarrow V\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}\rightarrow 0\; .$$ Then $V$ is Gieseker semistable.
First, we see that there exists such a nontrivial extension. Indeed, $$\dim {\operatorname{Ext}}^{1}(\mathcal{O}_{X}, TX)=h^{1}(\mathcal{O}_{X}^{\vee}\otimes TX)=h^{1}(TX)\; ,$$ and $$\chi(TX)=h^{0}(TX)-h^{1}(TX)+h^{2}(TX)=-20$$ as calculated before. Hence $h^{1}(TX)>0$, so and there exist nontrivial extensions.
Suppose $V$ is not Gieseker semistable. Let $W\subset V$ be the maximal Gieseker destabilizer (first nonzero term of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (see )) of $V$. Consider the short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow W_0:= W\cap TX \rightarrow W\rightarrow W_1:= W/W_0 \rightarrow 0\, .$$ Note that $W_1\subset V/TX = \mathcal{O}_{X}$.
First assume that $W_1 =0$. This implies that $W\subset TX$. But $TX$ is Gieseker stable and the Gieseker slope of $TX$ is strictly smaller than the Gieseker slope of $\mathcal{O}_{X}$ (Proposition \[prop1\]), so the Gieseker slope of $W$ is not bigger than the Gieseker slope of $V$. This contradicts the assumption that $W$ is destabilizes $V$.
Now assume that $W_1 \not= 0$. So ${\operatorname{rk}}W_1 > 0$. Since ${\operatorname{rk}}W < 3$, this implies that ${\operatorname{rk}}W_0 < 2$. As $TX$ is Gieseker stable (because it is Mumford-Takemoto stable), if $W_0\neq 0$ the Gieseker slope of $W_0$ is strictly smaller than the Gieseker slope of $TX$. Also, The Gieseker slope of $W_1$ is not bigger than the Gieseker slope of $\mathcal{O}_{X}$. Therefore, the Gieseker slope of $W$ is not bigger than the Gieseker slope of $V$. This again contradicts the assumption that $W$ is destabilizes $V$. Therefore, $W_0=0$ and $W$ would split the extension, hence, $V$ is semistable.
Let $V$ be a non split extension $$0\rightarrow TX\rightarrow V\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}\rightarrow 0\; .$$ Dualizing the above sequence we obtain $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}\rightarrow V^{\vee}\rightarrow TX\rightarrow 0$$ because $\Omega^{1}(X)=(TX)^{\vee}\simeq TX$ with the isomorphism given by a trivialization of the canonical line bundle on the $K3$ surface $X$.
The above vector bundle $V^{\vee}$ is not Gieseker semistable.
From Proposition \[prop1\] it follows that the subbundle $\mathcal{O}_{X}$ of $V^{\vee}$ destabilizes it.
\[HN\] The Gieseker Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$ is $$\label{f1}
0\subset \mathcal{O}_{X}\subset V\oplus\mathcal{O}_{X}\subset V\oplus V^{\vee}\; .$$
Let us check that the filtration in satisfies the two properties which characterize the Harder-Narasimhan filtration in . The successive quotients for the filtration in are: $\mathcal{O}_{X}$, $(V\bigoplus \mathcal{O}_{X})/\mathcal{O}_{X}=V$, and $(V\bigoplus V^{\vee})/(V\bigoplus
\mathcal{O}_{X})=TX$. All these three vector bundles $\mathcal{O}_{X}$, $V$ and $TX$ are Gieseker semistable; $V$ is semistable by Proposition \[prop2\] and $TX$ is semistable because it is Mumford-Takemoto stable.
Concerning the Hilbert polynomials of the above three vector bundles, $$\frac{P_{E^{1}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{1}}=\frac{P_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}\mathcal{O}_{X}}=\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}+2$$ $$\frac{P_{E^{2}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{2}}=\frac{P_{V}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}V}=\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}-6$$ $$\frac{P_{E^{3}}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}E^{3}}=\frac{P_{TX}(m)}{{\operatorname{rk}}TX}=\frac{m^{2}H^{2}}{2}-10\; ,$$ which are, clearly, decreasing.
Constructing a principal bundle {#sec:constructing}
===============================
Consider the vector bundle $V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$ in Proposition \[HN\] which is self dual. The duality gives an orthogonal structure on $V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$, i.e., a symmetric nondegenerate homomorphism $$\varphi: (V\oplus V^{\vee})\otimes (V\oplus V^{\vee})\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}\, ;$$ nondegeneracy means that $\varphi$ induces an isomorphism between $(V\bigoplus V^{\vee})$ and its dual. In other words, we get a reduction of the structure group of the ${\rm GL}(6,\mathbb{C})$-bundle to ${\rm O}(6,\mathbb{C})$.
Given $(E,\varphi)$ an orthogonal bundle, we say that $F\subset E$ is *isotropic* if $\varphi|_{F\otimes F}=0$. For a subsheaf $F\subset E$, by using $\varphi$ we can associate the *annihilator* subsheaf $$F^{\bot}:=\ker
(E\stackrel{\varphi}\rightarrow E^{\vee}\rightarrow F^{\vee})\; .$$
If we apply the general definition of stability in the introduction to the case of the orthogonal bundle and the standard representation, we obtain the following definition.
An orthogonal bundle $(E,\varphi)$ is called *semistable* (as an orthogonal bundle) if for every isotropic subbundle $F\subset E$, $$P_{F}(m)+P_{F^{\bot}}(m)\leq P_{E}(m)\; .$$ We say that $(E,\varphi)$ is *stable* if the above inequality is strict.
The Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$ in Proposition \[HN\] does not correspond to any parabolic reduction of the principal ${\rm O}(6,
\mathbb{C})$-bundle.
The annihilator of the subbundle ${\mathcal O}_X\subset V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$ in is $TX\bigoplus V^{\vee}$. The lemma follows immediately from this.
Symplectic case
---------------
The natural duality pairing between $V$ and $V^{\vee}$ also gives a symplectic structure on $V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$. The annihilator of the subbundle ${\mathcal O}_X\subset V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$ in for the symplectic structure on $V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$ is again $TX\bigoplus V^{\vee}$. Therefore, the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $V\bigoplus V^{\vee}$ in Proposition \[HN\] does not correspond to any parabolic reduction of this principal ${\rm Sp}(6,
\mathbb{C})$-bundle.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Tomás Gómez for helpful comments. The first-named author thanks the Instituto Superior Técnico for hospitality whilst the work was carried out. The second-named author is supported by project Comunidade Portuguesa de Geometría Algebrica RD0302 funded by Portuguese FCT and project MTM2010-17389 granted by Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, and the first-named author is supported by J. C. Bose Fellowship.
[EMG]{}
*Harder-Narasimhan reduction for principal bundles over a compact Kähler manifold,* Math. Ann. **323** (2002), 693–712.
*The Yang Mills equations over Riemann surfaces,* Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A **308** (1982), 523–615.
*Semistability of reductive group schemes over curves,* Math. Ann. **301** (1995), 281–305.
*Harder-Narasimhan reduction of a principal bundle,* Nagoya Math. J. **174** (2004), 201–223.
*Geometric invariant theory and the moduli of bundles,* Lecture Publication Series, IAS/Park City Mathematics Series v.00, (1994).
*Stable tensors and moduli space of orthogonal sheaves,* Preprint 2001, math.AG/0103150.
*Projective moduli space of semistable principal sheaves for a reductive group,* Le Matematiche **15** (2000), 437–446, conference in honor of Silvio Greco (April 2001)
*Moduli space of principal sheaves over projective varieties,* Ann. of Math. **161** (2005), 1033–1088.
*Moduli spaces for principal bundles in arbitrary characteristic.* Adv. Math. **219** (2008), no. 4, 1177–1245.
*Moduli spaces for principal bundles in large characteristic.* Teichmüller theory and moduli problem, 281–371, Ramanujan Math. Soc. Lect. Notes Ser., 10, Ramanujan Math. Soc., Mysore, 2010.
*A GIT characterization of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration,* arxiv:1112.1886v4, To appear in Rev. Mat. Complutense, DOI 10.1007/s13163-014-0149-3.
Algebraic Geometry, Grad. Texts in Math. 52, Springer Verlag, 1977.
The geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves, Aspects of Mathematics E31, Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden 1997.
*On the Cohomology Groups of Moduli Spaces of Vector Bundles on Curves,* Math. Ann. **212** (1975), 215–248.
*Instability in invariant theory,* Ann. of Math. **108** (1978), 299–316.
*Differential Geometry of Complez Vector Bundles, Publications of the Math. Sociaty of Japan,* vol. 15, Iwanami Shoten Publishers and Princeton University PRess, Tokyo and NJ, 1987.
*Moduli of stable sheaves, I and II.* J. Math. Kyoto Univ. **17** (1977), 91–126. **18** (1978), 557–614.
Geometric invariant theory. Third edition. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (2), 34. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
*Moduli for principal bundles over algebraic curves: I and II,* Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Math. Sci.) **106** (1996), 301–328, and 421–449.
*Singular principal bundles over higher–dimensional manifolds and their moduli spaces,* Int. Math. Res. Not. **23** (2002) 1183–1209.
*A closer look at semistability for singular principal bundles,* Int. Math. Res. Not. 2004, no. 62, 3327–3366.
*Stable vector bundles on algebraic surfaces,* Nagoya Math. J. **47** (1972), 29–48.
*On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge-Ampère equation, I,* Commun. Pure Appl. Math. **31** (1978), 339–411.
*Harder-Narasimhan filtration for rank $2$ tensors and stable coverings,* arxiv:1306.5651 (2013).
*GIT characterizations of Harder-Narasimhan filtrations,* Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2013.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The health outcomes of high-need patients can be substantially influenced by the degree of patient engagement in their own care. The role of care managers includes that of enrolling patients into care programs and keeping them sufficiently engaged in the program, so that patients can attain various goals. The attainment of these goals is expected to improve the patients’ health outcomes. In this paper, we present a real world data-driven method and the behavioral engagement scoring pipeline for scoring the engagement level of a patient in two regards: (1) Their interest in enrolling into a relevant care program, and (2) their interest and commitment to program goals. We use this score to predict a patient’s propensity to respond (i.e., to a call for enrollment into a program, or to an assigned program goal). Using real-world care management data, we show that our scoring method successfully predicts patient engagement. We also show that we are able to provide interpretable insights to care managers, using prototypical patients as a point of reference, without sacrificing prediction performance.'
author:
- Subhro Das
- Chandramouli Maduri
- 'Ching-Hua Chen'
- 'Pei-Yun S. Hsueh'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Learning Patient Engagement in Care Management: Performance vs. Interpretability'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Care management is a patient-centered approach to population health that is “designed to assist patients and their support systems in managing medical conditions more effectively.” [@chcs2007] The aims of care management decision support (CMDS) may include: (a) identifying populations with modifiable risks, (b) aligning care management services to population needs, and (c) identifying and training personnel to deliver care management services [@ahrq2015]. The focus of our paper is on the first of these three aims. To improve the identification of populations with modifiable risks, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) summarized a set of recommendations [@ahrq2015]. Among the recommendations was that researchers should investigate (a) the benefit of care management services to different patient segments and (b) the parameters that affect modifiable risks. With respect to the AHRQ recommendation for achieving the benefits of CMDS, understanding patient segments to drive patient engagement is an inextricable part of the equation for success. By patient engagement, we refer to “the actions individuals take to obtain the greatest benefit from the health care services available to them.” [@micmrc] In addition, it is also essential to develop methods that can identify segment-differentiating parameters that affect modifiable risk factors. These risk factors contributed to a significant portion of global disease burden, especially those with chronic conditions and those who are transitioning from one care setting to another [@tuomilehto2001prevention; @west1997comprehensive; @brown2012six]. The return on investment of care management depends not only on how much the patient stands to gain from a clinical perspective, but also on how likely the patient is to actively engage in care management interventions.
At the same time, we recognize that, despite its high potential, the adoption of machine learning methods in CMDS scenarios has been slow. This is partly due to the gap between how humans and machines make decisions – the “black-box” nature of high-performing ML methods. To bridge the gap, there is a recent push for more studies in model explainability in AI/ML to help human decision makers understand how the insights were derived and how they can act on the data-driven insights [@xai; @Caruana2015].
As these real-world applications need to work in production environments that often do not come with clearly defined data schema, we will further discuss how to incorporate the developed methods in a Behavioral Engagement Scoring (BES) pipeline (including dynamic feature engineering and API) to enable its applications on care management transaction records in a schema-agnostic fashion. The pipeline developed is expected to enhance decision support for care managers, by helping them prioritize their efforts based on eventual outcomes/success, but not just clinical health risk. Our methods are informed and validated using real-world care management records for patients who are either transitioning from “hospital to home” or are eligible for a chronic disease management program.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We will first discuss how the current study is positioned in the related work in CMDS application and model interpretability. Then, we will introduce the CMDS dataset used in this study, as well as the data-driven methods developed for two CMDS tasks: program enrollment and goal attainment. We will discuss the trade-off between model interpretability and performance observed in the development of machine learning models for identifying explainable engagement behavioral profiles and for personalized engagement scoring from real-world care management data.
Related Work {#sec:RelWork}
============
In this paper, we focus our investigation on implementing quantitative, data-driven ML methods to identify patient segments who are most likely to engage in care management, and on care manager decision support for explaining for why they may or may not engage. While a few quantitative survey-based methods for measuring patient engagement exist , no prior studies have successfully measured patient engagement from real-world data. Moreover, although prior studies have attempted to identify risk stratification and disease progression parameters that differentiate clinical risk and longer-term outcomes [@Luo2017; @Liu2018], to our knowledge, this is the first study that has proposed to learn engagement strategies from data, based on the understanding of quantifiable difference of patient engagement levels and segment-differentiating parameters that affect modifiable risk factors.
To bridge the gap between human and machine understanding in the context of CMDS, this study has also explored the potential effect of providing explainable insights on the performance of our models. Recent reviews [@Hsueh2017; @Lakkaraju2016] have shown that a majority of studies in model interpretability are tied to the optimization of certain model properties that are presumed to be beneficial for improving human understanding of the models. Among them, many studies focused on reducing model complexity. Examples include applying regularization operators to reduce the number of parameters [@Feldman2000], restricting policy search to a subspace of simpler forms [@Sridharan2002; @Hu2017], bringing semantically similar items together [@Dey2012], re-training easier-to-understand models to classify on the results obtained by black-box models for model-agnostic explanation [@Ribeiro2016].
To make AI/ML more “actionable” for health decision makers (either health professionals or patients themselves), human-computer interaction researchers have been conducting qualitative studies to identify interpretability-impeding confounders and understand individual differences [@Robins1994]. With the emergence of deep learning approaches in AI/ML, more studies are now learning patterns that can be represented in explicitly presentable formats (e.g., temporal visualization [@Choi2016], natural language rationalization explanations [@Lei2016]), as well as developing interactive tools to untangle models learned in a high-dimensional space [@googleexp].
To further differentiate engagement strategies from CMDS data, in this paper we particularly focus on methods that account for case-based reasoning to improve the interpretability of clustering models, e.g., selecting prototypical cases to represent the learned clusters [@Kim2014]. In particular, we incorporate locally supervised metric learning [@sun2010localized] and prototypical case-based reasoning in a machine learning model to identify explainable engagement behavioral profiles and to produce personalized engagement scores.
The main contributions of our paper are as follows: First, we present a quantitative and personalized approach to identifying patients who are more likely to engage in care management, and demonstrate empirically, using real-world data, that our methods provide more accurate engagement behavior predictions compared to a ”one-size-fits-all” population approach; Second, these insights are made explainable by identifying prototypical patients within a personalized patient segment; we show that, in our case, explainability does not come at the expense of model performance.
Data {#sec:data}
====
Care Management Decision Support {#subsec:DecSuppApp}
--------------------------------
For patients with complex care needs, it is important to coordinate across the patients’ care givers and providers to account for the differing advice received from clinicians, the varying medications, and the adverse drug events [@long2017effective]. In practice, this is often achieved by implementing structured care programs, in which a predetermined set of rules are given to care managers to coordinate with patients and bridge care gaps between hospital and home. Care management history, therefore, captures the important transactions between care managers and patients during the care coordination process, and is an important and growing source of data for behavioral understanding.
The CMDS workflow from which this dataset was derived is depicted in Fig. \[fig:CareMgmnt\]. At the center of this figure is the Care Manager (e.g., a licensed nurse, social worker or other certified specialist), who attempts to engage the patient, typically via the telephone, and whose primary objective is to influence modifiable and prioritized risk factors, as identified by the Patient’s engagement strategy. The Care Manager receives her assigned pool of patients from the Quality Director, whose primary objective is to align care manager skills with patient needs, and to determine the appropriate care strategies. Finally, the Patient responds to the Care Manager’s feedback and coaching and may provide his/her own input on the goals to be set and how to achieve them. The interactions between the care manager and patient are captured in both structure and unstructured format. In the current study, we use only the structured data contained in the care management transaction records.
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:CareMgmnt\]
![Goal attainment timeline.[]{data-label="fig:GoalTimeline"}](images/timeline_program.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
![Goal attainment timeline.[]{data-label="fig:GoalTimeline"}](images/timeline_goal.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Care Management Records {#subsec:CareMgmtRec}
-----------------------
We apply our method to care program logs of a private, not-for-profit healthcare network, including 4,504 transition of care and 440 chronic care patient interactions over a 22-month period. Those program engagement records were collected between December 2015 and October 2017. For each patient engagement timeline, we extracted 53 features ranging from the basic demographic information (e.g., age, gender), to the patients’ care program context (e.g., program experience, whether the patient enrolled in the program, days in the program, number of days until completion of the program) and the interactions between care managers and patients (e.g., the date when the recorded call occurred).
We then prepared datasets with respect to the two realworld tasks we aim to apply the BES pipeline for decision support: program enrollment (“ENROLL”) and goal attainment (“GOAL”).
Program Enrollment {#subsec:dataProgram}
------------------
Table \[table:enroll\] summarizes the CM records used to generate the ENROLL dataset from all patients with different enrollment status for each assigned care program. The type of assigned care programs include those transitioning from hospital to home after being discharged from the hospital (“Transition”) and those programs involving chronic disease management process (“Involve”).
[ | l | c | c | ]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status & Involve (Chronic Care) & Transition\
\[1ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed Program & 30.00% & 67.30%\
DidNotEnroll & 4.09% & 5.71%\
Disenrolled & 42.27% & 25.95%\
Enrolled & 23.64% & 1.04%\
\[1ex\]
The structural CM transaction records capture the dates when a care program is assigned, started and ended. These records also contain the indicators of whether the care program is completed with its goals attained, or ended pre-maturely. The assigned program takes 16 days to complete on average and 279 days to complete at the maximum. The structural CM records of program enrollment also show that enrolling into the programs on average takes one day and a maximum of 15 days. Fig \[fig:EnrollWeek\] summarizes the program enrollment status based on the day of making the recorded call to the target patient. We observed most of the decisions are made in the calls made in the starting of the week.
![Enrollment distribution over the week.[]{data-label="fig:EnrollWeek"}](images/enroll_week.png){width="0.75\linewidth"}
Goal Attainment {#subsec:dataGoal}
---------------
The GOAL dataset is composed of 28 different goals which we classified into six focus areas: Educational (e.g., demonstrates understanding of post discharge, diabetes education), Implementation (e.g., adequate functional, transportation , support for healthy coping), Medications (e.g., adherence with medication regimen), Reducing Risks (e.g., resolving care gaps), Self Care (e.g., understands benefits of/demonstrates being physically active, healthy diet needs, failure of symptoms management), and Other (e.g., effective care transition and management plans). Fig \[fig:goalFocusAreas\] summarize the goals assigned based on the age category.
![Goal assignment across different focus areas.[]{data-label="fig:goalFocusAreas"}](images/goalFocusAreas.png){width="\linewidth"}
Every patient has multiple goals to achieve: 90% of the patients have fewer than 3 goals, and 65% patients have fewer than 2 goals. The goal attainment status is indicated by a binary flag (i.e., 1 for meeting the goal and 0 for otherwise). Table \[table:goalIntervention\] summarizes the goal attainment percentage (as indicated by the status shown in the CM records) for each goal focus area, i.e., the number of goals whose status has been shown as ’met’ divided by the total number of goals assigned for each key area.
[ l | c c c c c c c | c | c ]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Areas & Coaching & Coordination & Education & Referral & Screening & Tracking & Other & Total & Status Met\
\[1ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educational & 138 & 18 & 277 & 100 & 65 & 0 & 23 & 621 & 81.62%\
Implementation & 3 & 192 & 4 & 7 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 206 & 98.54%\
Medications & 7 & 96 & 30 & 7 & 90 & 0 & 10 & 240 & 84.91%\
Reducing Risks & 0 & 1 & 0 & 545 & 53 & 0 & 1 & 600 & 97.00%\
Self-care & 130 & 0 & 189 & 12 & 116 & 0 & 49 & 496 & 78.69%\
Other & 29 & 0 & 2561 & 14 & 29 & 12 & 19 & 2644 & 99.19%\
\[1ex\] Total & 307 & 307 & 3061 & 685 & 353 & 12 & 102 & 4827 &
The interventions of each goal area are grouped into seven categories: Referral (e.g., referral to see a nutritionist for diabetes diet education), Education (e.g., educate patients on the importance of physical activity), Coordination (e.g., follow up with providers on refills), Screening (e.g., assess breathing symptoms), Coaching (e.g., provide a log for side effect recording), and Other (including following up with provider treatment).
Behavioral Engagement Scoring Pipeline {#sec:methods}
======================================
In this paper, we aim to address two key questions: (1) What are the patient segments that lead to the difference of engagement benefits of CM services? (2) What drive differential behavioral responses in CMDS? To answer these questions, we develop a Behavioral Engagement Scoring (BES) pipeline to identify the engagement outcome-differentiating factors in care management. The task of engagement scoring serves as a key step in the pipeline to quantify patient engagement tendency for care plan personalization and downstream decision support. Specifically, the BES pipeline is composed with four components: 1) dynamically extract behavioral features and outcomes based on care management transaction records, 2) apply engagement outcome-driven feature transformation through locally supervised distance metric learning, 3) uncover distinctive patient segments and their behavioral profiles (including prototypical users) based on hierarchical clustering, and 4) learn a BES scorer for each behavioral profile based on a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) to estimate the propensity to respond, e.g., whether a patient is inclined to enroll in a certain program, or complete a goal, given the intervention assigned by his/her care manager.
Dynamic Feature Engineering {#subsec:features}
---------------------------
In addition to the main research goal of answering the two key questions, another developmental goal of BES is to enable scalable and flexible engagement scoring over incoming provider data so as to assist in the devising of engagement strategies for real-life CMDS tasks in a production environment. To support this developmental goal, the component of dynamic feature engineering provides a common data model and standard run-time that supports a standards-based analytics environment so as to allow feature generation rules to be written once and used repeatedly with different provider data sources.
Feature engineering is the process that converts raw data into explanatory factors. These factors are used in the BES pipeline to train engagement scoring models. A multitude of knowledge-based and data-driven approaches are available for feature generation. On one hand, knowledge-based features can be generated from the literature on related topics. On the other hand, data-driven approaches are applied to convert elements of the raw data into features, and then to train models for understanding which features are the most important in gauging patient engagement level.
In this study, we adopt a hybrid knowledge-augmented, data-driven approach to perform feature engineering. To save time of manual feature generation process and enable better model generalizability across CM data from different providers, we further automate the BES pipeline to generate features in a provider-agnostic fashion, through implementing a back-end logic module with embedded rules that contain knowledge-based rules for converting features from data based on a universal schema coded in configuration files.
The dynamic feature generation process has further resulted over 700 features. This component has also employed an automatic feature selection procedure based on L1 and L2-based regularization.
Engagement Outcome-driven Distance Learning {#subsec:lsml}
-------------------------------------------
The primary motivation to learn an engagement outcome-driven distance metric is to project patient feature-based vectors onto a subspace wherein patients with similar engagement outcomes are closer to each other, whereas those with opposite engagement outcomes are far away from each other. In this transformed vector subspace, we could then further identify cohesive behavioral profiles (using clustering) that drive differential patient responses.
In this study, we adapt Locally Supervised Metric Learner (LSML) [@sun2010localized; @sun2012supervised], which helped estimate the engagement outcome-adjusted distances among patients in the newly transformed vector subspace. The patient features extracted using the protocols mentioned in Subsection \[subsec:features\] are represented as $\bf{X} \in \Omega$, where $\bf{\Omega}$ is the vector space, and the class labels $Y \in \{0,1\}$. For the task of program enrollment, the outcome variable is $y=1$, if the status is ”Enrolled” or ”Completed”, and, $y=0$, if the status is “DidNotEnroll” or “Disenrolled”. Similarly, for the task of goal attainment, the outcome variable is $y=1$, if the status is ”Met”, and, $y=0$, otherwise. Considering there are $n$ program enrollment records and $d$-dimensional features, then the feature matrix is ${\bf{X}} = \left[ x_1, \cdots, x_i, \cdots, x_n \right] \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$. A similar operational definition is also applicable to goal attainment.
Here, we consider a generalized Mahalanobis distance, $d_{\Sigma} \left( x_i, x_j \right)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:distance}
d_{\Sigma} \left( x_i, x_j \right)= \left( (x_i - x_j)^T \Sigma (x_i - x_j) \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{aligned}$$ where, $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is a positive semi-definite matrix. We aim to minimize the following distance $\mathcal{J}$ over the matrix $\Sigma$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:dist_min}
\mathcal{J} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \sum_{j:x_j \in \mathcal{N}_i^o} d^2_{\Sigma}\left( x_i, x_j \right) - \sum_{k:x_k \in \mathcal{N}_i^e} d^2_{\Sigma}\left( x_i, x_x \right) \right)\end{aligned}$$ where, $\mathcal{N}_i^o$, the homogeneous neighborhood of $x_i$, is the $|\mathcal{N}_i^o|$ nearest data points of $x_i$ with same outcome, and, $\mathcal{N}_i^e$, the heterogeneous neighborhood of $x_i$, is the $|\mathcal{N}_i^e|$ nearest data points of $x_i$ with opposite outcomes. Since $\Sigma$ is positive semi-definite and symmetric, it can be decomposed as $\Sigma = W^T W$. The $W^*$ that minimizes , renders the data into the desired space, where records with similar outcomes are compact and those with opposite outcome are distant, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:W}
W^* = \arg \min_{W : \Sigma = W^T W} \mathcal{J}.\end{aligned}$$ Refer to [@sun2012supervised] for the complete LSML algorithm that derives $W^* \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, the feature transformation matrix. We employed $W^*$ to obtain the projected feature set, $\tilde{\bf{X}} \in \tilde{\Omega}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:projX}
\tilde{x_i} = W^*x_i, \quad \forall i.\end{aligned}$$ For the rest of the pipeline, we leverage the outcome-adjusted projection of features and the corresponding Mahalanobis distance between patient-based vectors to learn patient segments and to estimate each patient’s propensity to respond to care managers’ interventions.
Learning Patient Segment-based Behavioral Profiles {#subsec:clustering}
--------------------------------------------------
Because we hypothesize that their exists patient segments where within each segment they tend to exhibit certain levels of similarity, we aim to capture that similarity into behavioral profiles and understand engagement-indicative patterns with respect to the profiles they fit in. However, it is not known “a priori” what is the optimal number of patient segments to be clustered into. With that objective and constraint in mind, hierarchical clustering [@friedman2001elements] is employed to identify patient segments on the outcome-adjusted distances in the newly projected vector subspace and learn the key factors that drive the differential engagement outcomes.
Among a variety of linkage methods for hierarchical clustering, we choose Complete Linkage to compute inter-segment similarity $d_{\text{CL}} \left( G_1, G_2 \right)$ of the furthest pair from segments, say $G_1$ and $G_2$, as, $$\begin{aligned}
d_{\text{CL}} \left( G_1, G_2 \right) &= \max_{x_i \in G_1, x_j \in G_2 } d_{\Sigma^*} \left( x_i, x_j \right), \qquad \Sigma^* = W^{*T} W^* \\
&= \max_{\tilde{x}_i \in G_1, \tilde{x}_j \in G_2 } d_{\text{euclidean}} \left(\tilde{x}_i, \tilde{x}_j \right).\end{aligned}$$ Experimentation with other linkage methods, e.g., Ward’s method, further confirms that the Complete Linkage method uncovers patient segmentation leading to the highest engagement outcome-differentiating power (as measured by ANOVA scores across segments). The remaining challenge is thus to determine the number of segments. As such, an automatic tuning algorithm, Elbow method [@ketchen1996application], is applied to compute the optimal number of segments. The Elbow method tracks the acceleration of distance growth among segments and thresholds the agglomeration at the point where the acceleration is the highest. Hence, our population is clustered into $k^*$ segments, $\mathcal{C} = \{ \mathcal{C}_1, \cdots, \mathcal{C}_{k^*}\}$, each capturing distinctive patterns that drive differential patient responses in engagement. In addition, as we expect it to be easier to interpret patient need from behavior profiles by examples, we propose to identify prototypical patients in each of the patient segments. The prototypical patient cases in each segment is expected to serve as examples to showcase the distinctive patterns in their behavioral profile. This will help interpret the engagement scores output by the BES pipeline. The prototypical patient cases, $pU_k$, are defined as the $p = |pU_k|$ subjects with positive engagement outcome, i.e., $y=1$, who are closest to the centroid of each patient segment $\mathcal{C}_k$ in the engagement outcome-adjusted vector subspace, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:protoUsers}
pU_k & = \arg \min_{S \; : \; S \subset C_k, |S| = p, \{ i : y_i = 1 \forall y_i \in S\} } \sum_{\tilde{x}_i \in S} \left( \tilde{x}_i - \mu_{\mathcal{C}_k} \right)^T \left( \tilde{x}_i - \mu_{\mathcal{C}_k} \right), \nonumber \\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad \forall k = \{ 1, \cdots, k^* \}, \end{aligned}$$ where, $\mu_{\mathcal{C}_k}$ is the centroid of the patient segment $\mathcal{C}_k$. In our analysis, we have chosen $p=20$. The advantages of having a prototypical case-based component in the pipeline is illustrated in Figure \[fig:protoUsers\] using a synthetic set of 2-D data.
The advantages of using prototypical patient cases include: (a) removing model training noise due to the ambiguous cases near the segment borders, and (b) improving computation efficiency as it takes significantly less run-time to update the models learned on a significantly reduced set of data.
Estimating propensity to respond {#subsec:propensity}
--------------------------------
For each of the patient segments projected on the transformed vector subspace, we learn a separate generalized linear model (GLM) to compute engagement scores for each patient in that segment who has been assigned a program to enroll or a goal to attain. The engagement scores are the estimation of each patient’s propensity to respond to his/her care manager’s engagement calls or interventions. The GLM for each segment $k$ is represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:GLM}
y_i = \beta^k_0 + \beta^k_1 \tilde{x}_{1i} + \cdots + \beta^k_d \tilde{x}_{di}, \quad \forall \tilde{x}_i \in \mathcal{C}_k,\end{aligned}$$ where the feature weights $\overline{\beta}^k = [\beta^k_0, \cdots, \beta^k_d]$ are computed by minimizing the least squared errors over all the data points from the segment $k$. Using the optimized feature weights for each segment, the propensity to respond is estimated for each patient based on his/her features. We then use the computed engagement scores to train a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier to predict the engagement outcome of each patient. The feature weights of the GLM also provide us more explainable insights specific to each patient segment and to the patients belonging to that segment.
Results & Discussion {#sec:results}
====================
In this study, we introduce the Behavioral Engagement Scoring pipeline to gauge patient engagement level based on patient segmentation and identify distinctive patterns driving differential responses to engagement. The pipeline is designed to (1) uncover patient segments that lead to the difference of engagement benefits of care management services, (2) identify behavioral profiles that drive differential engagement responses, and (3) enable scalable and flexible engagement scoring in a production environment for real-life care management tasks at each touch point.
The BES pipeline first segment patients based on the patterns exhibited during patient-CM interactions and engagement outcomes. Our hypothesis is that although each feature contains only weak signals to differentiate overall engagement outcomes, when considered collectively in a segment, the combined feature sets can explain rich engagement behaviors for care planning.
Take the task of program enrollment for example. The BES pipeline first identifies a group of five patient segments from the ENROLL dataset, each of which is found to associate with one behavioral profile of distinctive engagement characteristics. Each segment is then exemplified by incorporating information about the prototypical patient cases (as defined as a subset of top 20 patient cases that are the most representative of the identified segment). The BES pipeline also identifies segment-specific interaction patterns that are specific to program enrollment behaviors for further interpretation and trains GLM models for predicting engagement outcomes. The same is then repeated for training the BES pipeline for the task of goal attainment from the GOAL dataset.
Performance evaluation on engagement outcome prediction {#subsec:performance}
-------------------------------------------------------
[ | l | l | c | c | l | ]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Method** & **Prediction** & & **Goal**\
\[1ex\] & **Performance** & & **Attai**\
\[1ex\] & **Metrics**& & **nment**\
\[1ex\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& & **Involve** & **Transition** &\
& & **(Chronic** & &\
& & **Care)** & &\
& **Accuracy** & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.89\
& **Precision** & & &\
& **Recall** & 0.99 & 1 & 0.95\
& **F1** & 0.97 & 0.97 & 0.94\
& **Accuracy** & 0.93 & 0.74 & 0.79\
& **Precision** & & &\
& **Recall** & 0.96 & 0.65 & 0.83\
& **F1** & 0.95 & 0.76 & 0.87\
& **Accuracy** & 0.93 & 0.74 & 0.95\
& **Precision** & & &\
& **Recall** & 0.96 & 0.65 & 0.96\
& **F1** & 0.95 & 0.76 & 0.97\
-20pt
To evaluate the performance of the BES pipeline, the predicted engagement outcome of each patient task is compared with what actually happened as indicated in the care management transaction records. The results across all patient tasks are then aggregated to evaluate the overall performance of models in terms of precision, recall, accuracy and F1-score.
Two versions of the BES pipeline are evaluated to understand the trade-off between model performance and interpretability. The first “Behavioral Profile-Driven” version trains engagement scoring models for each of the patient segments using all available data belonging to patients in that segment. The second “Prototypical User-Driven” version trains models using only the prototypical patient cases. The performance of the two BES pipelines are also compared with the baseline condition, wherein the “Population-Based” version trains a SVM classification model for engagement outcome prediction using all available data without differentiating patient segments.
Performance evaluation with 5-fold cross validation is shown in Table \[table:performance\]. Results show that the BES pipeline yields engagement response prediction models of high precision, which implies a high percentage of successful engagements if following the BES recommendations for prioritization. It helps predict patient responses (“whether to engage") for each type of engagement tasks with high precision (>90%).
We also explore the potential effect of providing explainable insights on the performance of our models. The precision-based performance metrics of both the Behavioral Profile-Driven and Prototypical User-Driven version are comparatively similar or better than the BASELINE, e.g., training engagement scoring models from the entire population data. The results are encouraging as our proposed BES solution produces more explainable insights based on patient segments and prototypical patient cases, without sacrificing on model performance.
Drivers of Differential Patient Response {#subsec:HBIdrivers}
----------------------------------------
![Interpretable engagement insights for Care Managers for shared decision making.[]{data-label="fig:BES_demo"}](images/BES_demo.png){width="\linewidth"}
For each of the two care management tasks, we identify five behavioral profiles for tailoring care management strategies of patient engagement and surface insights for each target patient based on the behavioral profile of his/her closely related patient segment. To achieve this, we analyze feature weights of the model trained for each segment to pinpoint drivers that contribute the most to engagement outcome prediction. This is for generating interpretations for Care Managers to understand the rationale of the predictions offered by the behavioral engagement scorer in the pipeline.
{width="\linewidth"}
Fig \[fig:featureWts\] demonstrates the variability of differential patient response drivers across the different behavioral profiles for goal attainment. The feature rankings are significantly different when compared the population-level feature rankings with those among patient segments (as indicated by Spearman’s coefficient $\rho$; $p<0.01$). Most of the patient segments exhibit a complex pattern of behavioral response than the population-level ones. In some patient segments, we observe strong indicators of care manager influence, e.g., how long the care manager (CM) been trying to help this patient obtain this goal, the number of attempts before goal attainment or before the CM decided to close a goal. In some other patient segments, we observe that certain goals yield more positive engagement responses than the others. For example, in the first and 3rd segment, Self-care and Educational goals are more likely to be attained. The opposite has also been observed in some segments. For example, in the second segment, Medication-related goals are less likely to engage patients in this segment to attain. Moreover, call context does matter in some segment. For example, for patients in the 4th segment, calling on Tuesday would be more likely to help yield better engagement responses.
It is worthy to note that although we do include age and gender as a part of the features in the analysis. Results show that patient demographics matter less than expected, yielding only neutral contribution to the modeling of engagement response prediction.
Interface and API for Shared Decision Making based on Engagement Insights {#subsec:API}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BES pipeline also includes a web-based user interface that provides access to explainable insights about the gauged engagement level and the predicted response. In addition, the pipeline derives best practice insights using the example illustrated by the prototypical patient cases in each segment. Care managers can use the interface to learn about the target patients and their related patient segments for prioritization and best practice learning.
Fig \[fig:BES\_demo\] shows the interactive tooling based on a demo API customized for care managers to make their decisions before the call regarding which patients to call first for program enrollment and for goal attainment, and what are the reasons that they might or might not be engaged.
{width="\linewidth"}
Conclusion & Future Work {#sec:discussion}
========================
The main contributions of our paper are as follows: First, we present a quantitative and personalized approach to identifying patients who are more likely to engage in care management, and demonstrate empirically, using real-world data, that our methods provide more accurate engagement behavior predictions compared to a “one-size-fits-all” population-based approach; Second, these insights are made explainable by identifying prototypical patient cases within a personalized patient segment. Performance evaluation results show that, in our case, explainability does not come at the expense of model performance.
Analyzing observational transaction data of care management interaction logs regarding to clinical factors only overlooks an important part of equation leading to better outcomes. It is expected that segment-level incidence rates might result in biased estimates of the effect of interventions. Applying the BES pipeline, which properly adjusts for individual and patient segment information, enables a more accurate estimate of engagement effect and support care management decision-making and in a shared decision-making scenario. The quantification of heterogeneous engagement effects in patient segments goes beyond the existing care quality metrics to add another perspective of behavioral understanding to providers using care management programs.
As for the issue of bridging the gap between human and machine decision making, simply optimizing model properties is not sufficient to warrant actions from health decision makers [@Chen2017]. More research is needed to identify additional evaluation metrics that can serve as a proxy measure of the performance in real-life user tasks [@Karkar2015]. This line of research can help evaluate how to make sense of the models and analytical results in order to support decision makers’ actions, as well as how to validate the derived insights directly to automate decisions. Doing this is a truly interdisciplinary work and expected to enhance future milestones to develop tools for creating deployment and feedback process and aligning with the need of generating real-world evidence on best practice.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The effect of the Hall force on the pinning of vortices in type II superconductors is considered. A field theoretic formulation of the pinning problem allows a non-perturbative treatment of the influence of quenched disorder. A self-consistent theory is constructed using the diagrammatic functional method for the effective action, and an expression for the pinning force for independent vortices as well as vortex lattices is obtained. We find that the pinning force for a single vortex is suppressed by the Hall force at low temperatures while it is increased at high temperatures. The effect of the Hall force is more pronounced on a single vortex than on a vortex lattice. The results of the self-consistent theory are shown to be in good agreement with numerical simulations.'
address: 'Department of Theoretical Physics, Ume[å]{} University, S-901 87 Ume[å]{}, Sweden'
author:
- 'Staffan Grundberg and J[ø]{}rgen Rammer'
title: The influence of the Hall force on the vortex dynamics in type II superconductors
---
The advent of high temperature superconductors has led to a renewed interest in vortex dynamics. We shall consider the influence of quenched disorder on the vortex dynamics in type II superconductors in the presence of a Hall force. The description of the vortex dynamics will be based on the phenomenological Langevin equation [@Vinokur; @Blatter] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:langevin}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-5mm} m \ddot{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} + \eta
\dot{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} + \sum_{{\bf R}'}
\Phi_{{\bf R}{\bf R}'} {\bf u}_{{\bf R}'t}} \nonumber \\
&=& \alpha \dot{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} \times \hat{\bf n} - \nabla
V({\bf R}+{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t}) + {\bf F}_{{\bf R}t} +
\xi_{{\bf R}t},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf u}_{{\bf R}t}$ is the displacement at time $t$ of the vortex which initially has equilibrium position ${\bf R}$, $\eta$ is the friction coefficient, and $m$ is a possible mass (per unit length) of the vortex. The dynamic matrix, $\Phi_{{\bf R}{\bf R}'}$, of the hexagonal Abrikosov vortex lattice describes the interaction between the vortices in the harmonic approximation. Having a thin superconducting film in mind the system is two-dimensional (normal to $\hat{\bf n}$) and the dynamic matrix is specified within the continuum theory of elastic media [@Brandt] by the compression modulus, $c_{11}$, and the shear modulus, $c_{66}$, $$\Phi_{\bf q} = \frac{\phi_0}{B} \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
c_{11} q_x^2 + c_{66} q_y^2 & (c_{11} - c_{66}) q_xq_y \\
(c_{11} - c_{66}) q_xq_y & c_{66} q_x^2 + c_{11} q_y^2
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\phi_0/B$ is equal to the area of the unit cell of the vortex lattice, and $\phi_0 = h/2e$ is the flux quantum. The force (per unit length) on the right hand side of eq. (\[eq:langevin\]) consists of the Hall force characterized by the parameter $\alpha$, and ${\bf
F}_{{\bf R}t} = \phi_0 \, {\bf j}({\bf R},t) \times \hat{\bf n}$ is the Lorentz force due to the transport current density $ {\bf j}$, and the thermal white noise stochastic force, $\xi_{{\bf
R}t}$, is specified according to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem $\langle \xi_{{\bf R}t}^{\alpha} \xi_{{\bf R}'t'}^{\beta} \rangle = 2
\eta k_B T \delta(t-t') \delta_{\alpha\beta} \delta_{{\bf R}{\bf
R}'}$, and $V$ is the pinning potential due to quenched disorder. The pinning is described by a Gaussian distributed stochastic potential with zero mean, and thus characterized by its correlation function (where now the brackets denote averaging with respect to the quenched disorder) $\langle V({\bf x}) V({\bf x}') \rangle = \nu({\bf
x} - {\bf x}') = \nu_0/(4\pi a^2) \exp(-|{\bf x} - {\bf
x}'|^2/(4a^2))$, taken to be a Gaussian function with range $a$ and strength $\nu_0$.
Upon averaging with respect to the quenched disorder the average restoring force, ${\bf F}_R = - \sum_{{\bf R}'} \Phi_{{\bf R}{\bf R}'}
\langle \langle {\bf u}_{{\bf R}'t} \rangle \rangle$, of the lattice vanishes. On the average, corresponding to the lattice reaching a steady state velocity ${\bf v} = \langle\langle \dot{\bf u}
\rangle\rangle$, there will be a balance, ${\bf F} + {\bf F}_f + {\bf
F}_H + {\bf F}_p = {\bf 0}$, between the Lorentz force, ${\bf F}$, the friction force, ${\bf F}_f = -\eta {\bf v}$, the Hall force, ${\bf
F}_H = \alpha {\bf v} \times \hat{\bf n}$, and the pinning force, ${\bf F}_p = - \langle\langle \nabla V \rangle \rangle$. The pinning force is due to time-reversal symmetry invariant under reversal of the direction of the magnetic field, and is therefore antiparallel to the velocity. [@Vinokur] Thus, the pinning yields a renormalization of the friction coefficient in terms of a velocity dependent effective friction coefficient, ${\bf F}_f + {\bf F}_p \equiv - \eta_{\rm
eff}(v) {\bf v}$, which reduces in the absence of disorder to the bare friction coefficient $\eta$, and has previously only been determined to lowest order in the disorder.[@Liu] The relationship between the average vortex velocity and the induced electric field, ${\bf E} = {\bf v} \times {\bf B}$, leads to the expressions for the resistivity tensor and Hall angle $$\label{eq:resistivity_tensor}
\rho = \frac{\phi_0 B}{\eta_{\rm eff}^2 + \alpha^2} \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\eta_{\rm eff} & \alpha \\
-\alpha & \eta_{\rm eff}
\end{array}
\right),
\ \theta = \arctan \frac{\alpha}{\eta_{\rm eff}}.$$
The average vortex motion is conveniently described by reformulating the stochastic Langevin problem in terms of a path integral. The probability functional for a realization $\{{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t}\}_{{\bf
R}}$ of the motion of the vortex lattice may be expressed, using the equation of motion, through a functional integral over a set of auxiliary variables $\{\tilde{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t}\}_{{\bf R}} $, and we are led to consider the generating functional [@Janssen; @QLE] $${\cal Z}[{\bf F},{\bf J}] = \int \! \prod_{\bf R} {\cal D}{\bf
u}_{{\bf R}t} \! \int \! \prod_{\bf R'} {\cal D} \tilde{\bf u}_{{\bf
R}'t'}\, {\cal J} e^{iS[{\bf u},\tilde{\bf u}]},$$ where in the action, $S[{\bf u},\tilde{\bf u}] = \tilde{\bf u}
((D^R)^{-1} {\bf u} + {\bf F} - \nabla V + \xi) + {\bf
J}{\bf u}$, we have introduced a source field ${\bf J}$ coupling to the vortex positions ${\bf u}$, and used matrix notation in order to suppress the integrations over time and summations over vortex positions and Cartesian indices. The retarded Green’s operator is given by $
- (D^R)^{-1} {\bf u} \equiv m \ddot{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} + \eta \dot{\bf
u}_{{\bf R}t} + \sum_{\bf R'} {\Phi}_{\bf RR'} {\bf u}_{{\bf R}'t} +
\alpha \hat{\bf n} \times \dot{\bf u}_{{\bf R}t}$, and its Fourier transform is $$(D^R)^{-1}_{{\bf q}\omega} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m \omega^2 + i\eta \omega & -i\alpha \omega \\
i\alpha \omega & m \omega^2 + i\eta \omega
\end{array}
\right) - {\Phi}_{\bf q}.$$ In order to immediately be able to perform the average with respect to both the Langevin noise and the disorder, we have chosen a non-zero mass, $m \neq 0$, leaving the Jacobian, ${\cal J}$, an irrelevant constant [@QLE; @Eckern] (in final expressions the mass can be set to zero, and will in fact for the values chosen not affect the obtained numerical results) and we obtain the averaged functional $$\label{eq:genfunc}
Z[f] \equiv \langle\langle {\cal Z} \rangle \rangle
= \int \! {\cal D}\phi \, e^{ iS[\phi] + if \phi }$$ which generates, for example, the average position and correlations $$i \langle\langle {\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} \rangle\rangle =
\left. \frac{\delta Z}{\delta
{\bf J}_{{\bf R}t}} \right|_{{\bf J} = {\bf 0}},
\langle\langle {\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} {\bf u}_{{\bf R}'t'} \rangle\rangle = \left.
\frac{i^2 \delta^2 Z}{\delta {\bf J}_{{\bf R}t} \delta {\bf J}_{{\bf R}'t'}}
\right|_{{\bf J} = {\bf 0}} \hspace{-2mm}.$$ We have introduced the notation $\phi = (\tilde{\bf u}, {\bf u})$ and $f=({\bf F},{\bf J})$, and the action, $S = S_0 + S_V$, consists of a quadratic term, $S_0[\phi] = \phi D^{-1} \phi/2$, where the matrix $D^{-1}$ in addition is a matrix in Cartesian indices, and time and vortex positions ($\delta_{{\bf R}{\bf R}'}^{tt'} \equiv \delta_{{\bf R}{\bf
R}'}\, \delta(t-t')$) $$D^{-1} = \left(
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
2i\eta T \delta_{\alpha\beta} \delta_{{\bf R}{\bf
R}'}^{tt'} & (D^R)^{-1} \\
(D^A)^{-1} & 0
\end{array}
\right),$$ and a term originating from the disorder $$\begin{aligned}
iS_V[\phi] & = & \frac{1}{2} \sum_{{\bf R}{\bf R}'\alpha\beta}
\int \!\!\! dt \!\! \int \!\!\! dt' \,\tilde{u}_{{\bf R}t}^{\alpha}
\partial_{\alpha} \partial_{\beta} \nu({\bf
u}_{{\bf R}t} - {\bf u}_{{\bf R}'t'}) \tilde{u}_{{\bf
R}'t'}^{\beta}. \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ This reformulation of the stochastic problem in terms of a field theory is equivalent to the formalism of Martin, Siggia and Rose, [@MSR] as noted previously. [@Muellers]
Our aim is to express the effective action in terms of all two-particle irreducible vacuum diagrams, and we therefore add a two-particle source term to the generating functional $$Z[f,K] = \int \! {\cal D}\phi \, e^{ iS[\phi] + if
\phi + \frac{i}{2} \phi K \phi} .$$ The generator of connected Green’s functions, $
W[f,K] \equiv -i \ln Z[f,K]$, has accordingly derivatives given by (the bar consequently denotes the average with respect to the action $S[\phi] + f \phi + \phi K \phi/2$) $$\frac{\delta W}{\delta f^{\alpha}_{{\bf R}t}} =
\overline{\phi}^{\alpha}_{{\bf R}t}, \ \
\frac{\delta W}{\delta K^{\alpha\beta}_{{\bf R}t{\bf R}'t'}} =
\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\phi}^{\alpha}_{{\bf R}t}
\,\overline{\phi}^{\beta}_{{\bf R}'t'} +
i G_{\alpha\beta}({\bf R}t,{\bf R}'t')),$$ where $G$ is the full connected Green’s function of the theory. The quantity of interest is the effective action $
\Gamma[\overline{\phi},G] = W[f,K] - f\overline{\phi} -
\overline{\phi} K \overline{\phi}/2 - i GK/2,
$ the Legendre transform which satisfies the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:motion}
\frac{\delta \Gamma}{\delta \overline{\phi}} = -f - K
\overline{\phi}, \ \ \
\frac{\delta \Gamma}{\delta G} = - \frac{i}{2} K.\end{aligned}$$
In the physical problem of interest the sources $K$ and ${\bf J}$ are absent, $K=0$ and $ {\bf J} = {\bf 0}$, and the full matrix Green’s function has, due to the normalization of the generating functional, $Z[{\bf F},{\bf J}={\bf 0}, K={\bf 0}]
= 1$, the structure $$G_{ij} = \left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
0 & G^A \\
G^R & G^K
\end{array}
\!\!\right)
= -i \left( \!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
0 & \langle\!\langle \delta \tilde{u}^{\alpha} \, \delta {u}^{\beta}
\rangle\!\rangle\\
\langle\!\langle \delta {u}^{\alpha} \, \delta \tilde{u}^{\beta} \rangle\!\rangle
& \langle\!\langle \delta {u}^{\alpha} \, \delta {u}^{\beta}
\rangle \! \rangle
\end{array}
\!\! \right),$$ where $\delta {\bf u} = {\bf u} - \langle\langle {\bf
u}\rangle\rangle$ and $\delta \tilde{\bf u} = \tilde{\bf u} -
\langle\langle \tilde{\bf u}\rangle\rangle$. The retarded Green’s function $G^R_{\alpha\beta}$ gives the linear response to the force $
F_{ \beta }$, and $G^K_{\alpha\beta}$ is the correlation function (both matrices in Cartesian indices as indicated).
According to Cornwall [*et al.*]{}, [@CJT] the effective action can be written on the form $ \Gamma[\overline{\phi},G] = S[\bar{\phi}]
+ \frac{i}{2} {\rm Tr} ((D_S^{-1} - \ln D^{-1})G - 1) - i \ln \langle
e^{i S_{\rm int}} \rangle_G^{\rm 2PI} $, where $D_S^{-1} = \delta^2
S[\bar{\phi}] / \delta \bar{\phi} \delta \bar{\phi}$, and $S_{\rm
int}[\psi,\bar{\phi}]$ is the part of $S[\overline{\phi}+\psi]$ which is higher than second order in $\psi$ in the expansion around $\overline{\phi}$, and Tr denotes the trace over all variables. The superscript “2PI” on the last term indicates that only the two-particle irreducible vacuum diagrams should be included in the interaction part of the effective action, and the subscript that propagator lines represent $G$, i.e., the brackets with subscript $G$ denote the average $ \langle F[\psi] \rangle_G = (\det G)^{-1/2} \int
{\cal D}\psi\; e^{i\psi G^{-1} \psi/2} F[\psi]$, for an arbitrary functional $F$. We now expand the exponential and keep only the first order term in $S_{\rm int}$ and obtain $$\label{eq:hartree}
- i \ln \langle e^{i S_{\rm int}[\psi,\bar{\phi}]} \rangle_G^{\rm
2PI} = \langle S_V[\bar{\phi}+\psi] \rangle_G^{\rm 2PI}.$$ For the physical problem of interest the two particle source, $K$, vanishes, and the last of the equations in (\[eq:motion\]) therefore yields the Dyson equation, $G^{-1} = D^{-1} - \Sigma[\bar{\phi},G]$, with the matrix self-energy given by $$\label{eq:selfenergy}
\Sigma_{ij}
= \left(
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
\Sigma^K & \Sigma^R \\
\Sigma^A & 0
\end{array}
\right)
= 2i \left. \frac{\delta \langle S_V
[\bar{\phi}+\psi] \rangle_G^{\rm 2PI}}{\delta G_{ij}}
\right|_{K=0, {\bf J} = {\bf 0}}.$$ The Dyson equation and eq.(\[eq:selfenergy\]) constitute a set of self-consistent equations for the Green’s functions and the self-energies. The average field occurring in eq.(\[eq:selfenergy\]) is given by $\bar{\phi} = (\langle\langle \tilde{\bf u}
\rangle\rangle, \langle\langle {\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} \rangle\rangle) =
({\bf 0},{\bf v}t)$, as the expectation value of the auxiliary field vanishes, $\langle \langle \tilde{\bf u} \rangle\rangle = -i \left.
Z^{-1} \delta Z / \delta {\bf F} \right|_{{\bf J} = {\bf 0},K={\bf 0}}
= {\bf 0}$, due to the normalization of the generating functional. The matrix self-energy has two independent components, $\Sigma^R$ and $\Sigma^K$ (as $\Sigma_{ \beta \alpha }^A ({\bf R}t,{\bf R}'t') =
[\Sigma_{ \alpha \beta}^R({\bf R}'t',{\bf R}t)]^{\ast}$), and for $N$ vortices we have according to eq. (\[eq:selfenergy\]) $
\Sigma^R_{{\bf q}\omega} = \sigma^R_{{\bf q}\omega} - \sigma^R_{{\bf
q} = {\bf 0}, \omega = 0}, $ where $ \sigma^R_{\alpha\beta} ({\bf
R}t{\bf R}'t') = 1/N \sum_{\bf k} \nu({\bf k}) k_{\alpha} k_{\beta}
({\bf k} G^R({\bf R}t{\bf R}'t') {\bf k}) e^{i\varphi_{\bf k}}$, and $\Sigma^K_{\alpha\beta}({\bf R}t,{\bf R}'t') = - i/N \sum_{\bf k}
\nu({\bf k}) k_{\alpha} k_{\beta} e^{i\varphi_{\bf k}}. $ The influence of thermal and disorder induced fluctuations is described by the phase, $ \varphi_{\bf k} = i{\bf k}M{\bf k} + {\bf k} \cdot ({\bf
R} - {\bf R}' + {\bf u}_{{\bf R}t} - {\bf u}_{{\bf R}'t'}), $ specified by the Cartesian matrix $ M_{ \alpha \beta}({\bf R}t,{\bf
R}'t') = i(G_{ \alpha \beta}^K({\bf R}t,{\bf R}t) - G_{ \alpha
\beta}^K({\bf R}t,{\bf R}'t')). $ Using the Langevin equation and the first equation in (\[eq:motion\]) we obtain for the pinning force $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pinningforce}
{\bf F}_{p} &=& \frac{i}{N} \sum_{{\bf R}'} \int \! dt' \, \sum_{\bf k}
{\bf k} \, \nu({\bf k}) ({\bf k} {G^R}({\bf R}t{\bf R}'t') {\bf k})
e^{i\varphi_{\bf k}}.\end{aligned}$$
We first consider the case of non-interacting vortices. This is appropriate for low magnetic fields where the vortices are so widely separated that the interaction between them can be neglected. We have solved the above set of self-consistent equations by numerical iteration. In fig. \[fig:pinning\_force\] the resulting pinning force as a function of the velocity is shown for a set of different strengths of the Hall force in the low temperature regime, i.e., $T
\ll \nu_0^{1/2} /(k_B a)$. The Hall force is seen to reduce the pinning force in this temperature regime except, of course, at low velocities. The high velocity behavior, $v \gg \sqrt{\nu_0} /(\eta
a^2)$, can be compared with the second order perturbation expression, which is obtained by replacing the full Green’s function in eq. (\[eq:pinningforce\]) by the free Green’s function, and omitting $M$ in the exponent (the mass term can be neglected assuming $m \ll \eta^2 a^3/ \sqrt{\nu_0}$) $${\bf F}_{p} = - \frac{\eta \nu_0}{4\pi (\eta^2 + \alpha^2) a^4
v^2}\ {\bf v}.
\label{eq:secondorder}$$ According to fig. \[fig:selfsim\] there is good agreement between the self-consistent and perturbation theory in the reduction of the pinning force due to the Hall force at high velocities.
At high temperatures, $T \gg \nu_0^{1/2} /(k_B a)$, and moderate velocities, $v < \sqrt{\nu_0} /(\eta a^2)$, the Hall force has the opposite effect on the pinning force. According to eq. (\[eq:pinningforce\]) we obtain (for $m \ll \eta^2 a^3/
\sqrt{\nu_0}$) $${\bf F}_p = - \frac{\nu_0 (\eta^2 + \alpha^2)}{8\pi \eta (k_BT)^2
a^2}\ {\bf v}.$$ In this high-temperature limit (which can be realized in high temperature superconductors) we observe that the self-consistent theory yields a pinning force that has a linear velocity dependence and that the Hall force yields an increase of the pinning force, as shown in the inset in fig. \[fig:pinning\_force\].
In order to fully test the validity of the self-consistent theory its results are also compared to numerical simulations as shown in fig. \[fig:selfsim\]. The agreement between the self-consistent theory and the simulations is good except around the maximum of the pinning force. In this region the relative velocity fluctuations are large and the self-consistent theory predicts that the relative fluctuations are diverging at zero velocity even at $T=0$. The self-consistent equations (as well as the numerical simulations) can therefore be expected to yield the largest errors at low velocities.
The Hall angle is from the self-consistent theory found to increase monotonically from zero at low velocities to the disorder independent value $\theta_0 = \arctan (\alpha/\eta)$ at high velocities, as shown in fig. \[fig:angle\] for the single vortex case. The agreement between the self-consistent theory and the numerical simulations is seen to be good, testifying to the validity of the approximation made in eq. (\[eq:hartree\]). As shown in fig. \[fig:angle\] we find that increasing the temperature increases the Hall angle at low velocities and that this feature vanishes at high velocities.
Finally we consider a vortex lattice treating the interaction between the vortices in the harmonic approximation. The pinning force obtained from the self-consistent theory for the case of zero temperature is shown in fig. \[fig:lattice\]. As expected there is no influence of the Hall force on the pinning force at low velocities, but we find a suppression at intermediate velocities, and at high velocities, $v \gg
c_{11} a /\eta$, we recover the high velocity limit of the single vortex result, i.e., eq. (\[eq:secondorder\]). By comparison of fig. \[fig:pinning\_force\] and fig. \[fig:lattice\], we find that the Hall force has a much weaker influence at intermediate velocities on the pinning of an interacting vortex lattice than on a system of non-interacting vortices. The influence of the Hall force on the pinning force is more pronounced for a stiff than a soft lattice as seen from the inset in fig. \[fig:lattice\], and is similarly reflected in the Hall angle dependence on the stiffness of the lattice as seen from the inset in fig. \[fig:angle\]; the stiffest lattice has the greatest Hall angle.
A possible experimental verification of the obtained results would be to measure the Hall angle and pinning force of a type II superconductor, and thereby obtain the value of $\alpha$ of the particular material according to eq. (\[eq:resistivity\_tensor\]). The parameters characterizing the disorder, $a$ and $\nu_0$, may, e.g., be determined by both measuring the velocity dependence of the pinning force at high vortex velocities and at high temperature at moderate velocities. The self-consistent theory can then be compared to the experimental results for pinning forces and Hall angles using the experimentally obtained parameters as input.
In conclusion, we have studied analytically as well as through simulations the vortex dynamics in type II superconductors in the presence of a Hall force and quenched disorder. For the case of a single vortex we find that the Hall force reduces the pinning force in the high-velocity regime where the influence of fluctuations is negligible and the only effect of the Hall force is through the response function. The situation at high temperatures is the opposite since then the thermal fluctuations are dominating over the influence through the response function, and the Hall force thus increases the pinning force because it suppresses the fluctuations. The influence of the Hall force on a vortex lattice is found to be weaker than on a single vortex.
[99]{} V. M. Vinokur, V. B. Geskenbein, M. V. Feigel’man and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 1242 (1993). G. Blatter, M. V. Feigel’man, V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin and V. M. Vinokur, Rev. Mod. Phys. **66**, 1125 (1994). E. H. Brandt, Rep. Prog. Phys. **58**, 1465 (1995). Wu Liu, T. W. Clinton and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. B, **52**, 7482 (1995). H. K. Janssen, Z. Physik B **23**, 377 (1976). A. Schmid, J. Low Temp. Phys. **49**, 609 (1982). U. Eckern, W. Lehr, A. Menzel-Dorwarth, F. Pelzer and A. Schmid, J. Stat. Phys. **59**, 885 (1990). P. C. Martin, E. D. Siggia and H. A. Rose, Phys. Rev. A **8**, 423 (1973). J. Müllers and A. Schmid, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 136 (1995). J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. D **10**, 2428 (1974).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that for a free noncyclic group $F$, $H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Q, \mathbb Q)$ is an uncountable $\mathbb Q$-vector space. Here $\hat F_\mathbb Q$ is the $\mathbb Q$-completion of $F$. This answers a problem of A.K. Bousfield for the case of rational coefficients. As a direct consequence of this result it follows that, a wedge of circles is $\mathbb Q$-bad in the sense of Bousfield-Kan. The same methods as used in the proof of the above results allow to show that, the homology $H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Z,\mathbb Z)$ is not divisible group, where $\hat F_\mathbb Z$ is the integral pronilpotent completion of $F$.'
address:
- 'Chebyshev Laboratory, St. Petersburg State University, 14th Line, 29b, Saint Petersburg, 199178 Russia'
- 'Chebyshev Laboratory, St. Petersburg State University, 14th Line, 29b, Saint Petersburg, 199178 Russia and St. Petersburg Department of Steklov Mathematical Institute'
author:
- 'Sergei O. Ivanov'
- Roman Mikhailov
title: 'A finite $\mathbb Q$-bad space'
---
Introduction
============
In the foundational work [@BK], A.K. Bousfield and D. Kan introduced the concept of $R$-completion of a space for a commutative ring $R$. For a space $X$, there is an $R$-completion functor $X\mapsto R_\infty X$, such that a map between two spaces $f: X\to Y$ induces an isomorphism of the reduced homology $\tilde H_*(X, R)=\tilde H_*(Y, R)$ if and only if it induces a homotopy equivalence $R_\infty X\simeq R_\infty Y$. Thus, $R$-completion can be viewed as an approximation of the $R$-homology localization of a space, defined in [@Bousfield75]. For certain classes of spaces, such as nilpotent spaces, $R$-completion and $R$-localization coincide.
The $R$-completion functor for spaces is closely related to the $R$-completion functor for groups. For a group $G$, denote by $\{\gamma_i(G)\}_{i\geq 1}$ the lower central series of $G$. We will consider the pronilpotent completion $\hat G_\ZZ$ of $G$ as well as the $\QQ$-completion $\hat G_\QQ$ defined as $$\hat G_\ZZ=\varprojlim G/\gamma_i(G), \hspace{1cm} \hat G_\QQ= \varprojlim\ G/\gamma_i(G) \otimes \QQ.$$ Here $G/\gamma_i(G)\otimes \mathbb Q$ is the Malcev $\mathbb Q$-localization of the nilpotent group $G/\gamma_i(G)$. One can find the definition of $\mathbb Z/p$-completion $\hat G_{\mathbb Z/p}$ in [@BK], [@Bousfield77]. In this paper we do not use $\ZZ/p$-completion and work only over $\mathbb Z$ or $\mathbb Q$. It is shown in ([@BK], Ch.4) that $R$-completion of a connected space $X$ can be constructed explicitly as $\bar W\widehat{(GX)}_R,$ where $G$ is the Kan loop simplicial group, $\widehat{(GX)}_R$ the $R$-completion of $GX$, $\bar W$ the classifying space functor.
A space $X$ is called $R$-good if the map $X\to R_\infty X$ induces an isomorphism of the reduced homology $\tilde
H_*(X,R)=\tilde H_*(R_\infty X,R)$, and called $R$-bad otherwise. In other words, for $R$-good spaces $R$-homology localization and $R$-completion coincide.
There are a lot of examples of $R$-good and $R$-bad spaces. The key example of [@BK] is the projective plane $\mathbb RP^2$, which is $\mathbb Z$-bad. This fact implies that some finite wedge of circles also is $\mathbb Z$-bad. It is shown in [@Bousfield77] that the wedge of two circles is $\mathbb Z$-bad. In [@Bousfield92], A.K. Bousfield proved that, for any prime $p$, the wedge of circles is $\mathbb Z/p$-bad, providing first example of a finite $\mathbb Z/p$-bad space. For $R$ a subring of the rationals or $\mathbb Z/n,\ n\geq 2$, and a free group $F$, there is a weak equivalence ([@BK], 5.3) $$R_\infty K(F,1)\simeq K(\hat F_R,1).$$ Therefore, the question of $R$-goodness of a wedge of circles is reduced to the question of nontriviality of higher $R$-homology of $R$-completion of a free group. The same question naturally appears in the theory of $HR$-localizations of groups. In ([@Bousfield77], Problem 4.11), A.K. Bousfield posed the following:\
\
[**Problem.**]{} [*(Bousfield)*]{} Does $H_2(\hat F_R, R)$ vanish when $F$ is a finitely generated free group and $R=\mathbb Q$ or $R=\mathbb Z/n$?\
In the resent paper [@IvanovMikhailovPreprint_pro-p], the authors show that, for $R=\mathbb Z/n,$ $H_2(\hat F_R,R)$ is an uncountable group, solving the above problem for the case $R=\mathbb Z/n$. The key step in [@IvanovMikhailovPreprint_pro-p] substantially uses theory of profinite groups, the method given in [@IvanovMikhailovPreprint_pro-p] can not be directly transferred to the case $R=\mathbb Q$.
In this paper we answer Bousfield’s problem over $\mathbb Q$. Our main results are the following theorems.
[**Theorem 1.**]{} For a finitely generated noncyclic free group $F$, $H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Q, \mathbb Q)$ is uncountable.
Moreover, we prove that the image of the map $H_2(\hat F_\ZZ,\ZZ)\to H_2(\hat F_\QQ,\QQ) $ is uncountable.
[**Theorem 2.**]{} For a finitely generated noncyclic free group $F$ and a prime $p\neq 2$, $H_2(\hat F, \mathbb Z/p)$ is uncountable. In particular, $H_2(\hat F)$ is not divisible.
Theorem 2 answers a problem posted in [@IvanovMikhailov16]. As mentioned above, $\mathbb Q_\infty K(F,1)=K(\hat F_{\mathbb Q},1)$ therefore, Theorem 1 implies
[**Corollary.**]{} The wedge of $\geq 2$ circles is $\mathbb Q$-bad.
As it is known to authors, this is the first example of a finite $\mathbb Q$-bad space.
The proof is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss technical results about power series. The main result of Section 2, Proposition 2.1, states that the kernel of the natural map between rational power series and coinvariants of the diagonal action of rationals on exterior square $\mathbb Q[[x]] \to \Lambda^2(\mathbb Q[[x]])_{\mathbb Q},$ given by $f\mapsto f\wedge 1,$ is countable. (In the proof of the proposition we sufficiently use that the group algebra $\QQ[\QQ]$ is countable. In the similar statement for the $\ZZ/p$-completion we should consider the mod-$p$ group algebra of the group of $p$-adic integers $\ZZ/p[\ZZ_p]$ which is uncountable. So this method fails for $\ZZ/p$-completions.) In Section 3, we consider the integral lamplighter group: $$\LG=\langle a,b \mid [a,a^{b^i}]=1, \ i\in \mathbb Z \rangle,$$ which is isomorphic to the wreath product of two infinite cyclic groups, as well as its $p$-analog $\mathbb Z/p\wr C$. The group $\LG$ is metabelian, therefore, its completions $\widehat{\LG}_\mathbb Z$ and $\widehat{\LG}_\mathbb Q$ can be easily described (see , ), the homology group $H_2(\widehat{LG}_\mathbb Q, \mathbb Q)$ is isomorphic to the natural coinvariant quotient of the exterior square $\Lambda^2(\mathbb Q[[x]])$. The key step of the proof of main results is done in Section 4, in Proposition 4.1. Let $F=F(a,b)$ be a free group of rank two with generators $a,b$. We construct (see Proposition 4.1) an uncountable collection of elements $r_q, s_q\in \hat F_\mathbb Z,$ such that $[r_q,a][s_q,b]=1$ in $\hat F_\mathbb Z$. One can consider the group homology $H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Z,\mathbb Z)$ as a kernel of the commutator map $\hat F_\mathbb Z\wedge \hat F_\mathbb Z\buildrel{[\ ,\ ]}\over\to \hat F_\mathbb Z,$ where $\hat F_\mathbb Z\wedge \hat F_\mathbb Z$ is the non-abelian exterior square of $\hat F_\mathbb Z$ [@BrownLoday]. Therefore, the pairs of elements $(r_q\wedge a)(s_q\wedge b)\in \hat F_\mathbb Z\wedge \hat F_\mathbb Z$ define certain elements of $H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Z,\mathbb Z)$. Next we consider the following natural maps between homology groups of different completions, which are induced by the standard projection $F\to \LG$: $$\xyma{H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Q,\mathbb Q)\ar@{->}[d] & H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Z,\mathbb Z)\ar@{->}[r]\ar@{->}[rd]\ar@{->}[ld] \ar@{->}[l] & H_2(\hat F_\mathbb Z, \mathbb Z/p)\ar@{->}[d]\\
H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\mathbb Q,\mathbb Q) & & H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\mathbb Z, \mathbb Z/p) }$$ \[for $p\neq 2$\], and show, in the final Section 5, that the sets of images of elements $(r_q\wedge a)(s_q\wedge b)$ in $H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\mathbb Q,\mathbb Q)$ and $H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\mathbb Z, \mathbb Z/p)$ are uncountable. Theorems 1 and 2 follow.
Technical results about power series
====================================
We denote by $C$ the infinite cyclic group written multiplicatively $C=\langle t\rangle.$ For a commutative ring $R$ we denote by $R[\![x]\!]$ the ring of formal power series over $R$ and by $R[C]$ the group algebra of $C$. Consider the multiplicative homomorphism $$\tau:C \longrightarrow R[\![x]\!], \hspace{1cm} \tau(t)=1+x.$$ The induced ring homomorphism is denoted by the same letter $$\tau:R[C] \longrightarrow R[\![x]\!].$$
\[lemma\_powerseries\] If we denote by $I$ the augmentation ideal of $R[C]$ and set $R[C]^\wedge=\varprojlim R[C]/I^i,$ then $\tau(I^n)\subseteq x^n\cdot R[\![x]\!]$ and $\tau$ induces isomorphisms $$R[C]/I^n\cong R[\![x]\!]/x^n$$ $$R[C]^\wedge\cong R[\![x]\!].$$
If we set $x=t-1,$ we obtain $R[C]=R[x,(1+x)^{-1}]$ and $I=x\cdot R[C].$ Observe that the image of the element $1+x$ in $R[x]/x^n$ is invertible. Since the localization at the element $1+x$ is an exact functor, the short exact sequence $x^n\cdot R[x] {\rightarrowtail}R[x]{\twoheadrightarrow}R[x]/x^n$ gives the short exact sequence $(x^n\cdot R[x])_{1+x} {\rightarrowtail}R[C]{\twoheadrightarrow}R[x]/x^n.$ It follows that $R[C]/x^n\cong R[x]/x^n.$ The assertion follows.
Denote by $\sigma$ the antipode of the group ring $R[C]:$ $$\sigma:R[C]\longrightarrow R[C],\hspace{1cm}\sigma(\sum a_it^i)=\sum a_it^{-i}.$$ Obviously $\sigma(I^n)=I^n,$ and hence it induces a continuous involution $$\hat \sigma: R[C]^\wedge \longrightarrow R[C]^\wedge.$$ Composing this involution with the isomorphism $R[C]^\wedge\cong R[\![x]\!]$ we obtain a continuous involution $$\tilde \sigma: R[\![x]\!] \longrightarrow R[\![x]\!].$$ such that $$\tilde \sigma(x)=-x+x^2-x^3+ x^4 -\dots\ .$$
Consider the case $R=\QQ.$ Note that the set $1+x\cdot \QQ[\![x]\!]$ is a group and there is a unique way to define $r$-power map $f\mapsto f^r$ for $r\in \QQ$ that extends the usual power map $f\mapsto f^n$ such that $f^{r_1r_2}=(f^{r_1})^{r_2}$ (see Lemma 4.4 of [@IvanovMikhailov16]). This map is defined by the formula $$f^r=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \binom{r}{n} (f-1)^n,$$ where $\binom{r}{n}=r(r-1)\dots (r-n+1)/n!.$ Denote by $C\otimes \QQ$ the group $\QQ$ written multiplicatively as powers of $t$: $C\otimes \QQ=\{t^r\mid r\in \QQ\}.$ Consider the multiplicative homomorphism $$\label{eq_tau}
\tau_\QQ:C\otimes \QQ \longrightarrow \QQ[\![ x ]\!].$$ that extends $\tau:C\to \QQ[\![x]\!]:$ $$\tau_\QQ(t^r)=(1+x)^r.$$ The induced ring homomorphism is denoted by the same letter $$\tau_\QQ:\QQ[C\otimes \QQ] \longrightarrow \QQ[\![x]\!].$$ This homomorphism allows to consider $\QQ[\![x]\!]$ as $\QQ[C\otimes \QQ]$-module.
\[prop\_kernel\_to\_exterior\]
1. Denote by $\Lambda^2 (\QQ[\![x]\!]) $ the exterior square of $\QQ[\![x]\!]$ considered as a $C\otimes \QQ$-module with the diagonal action. Consider the space of $C\otimes \QQ$-coinvariants $(\Lambda^2 (\QQ[\![x]\!]) )_{C\otimes \QQ}$. Then the kernel of the homomorphism $$\theta_\QQ: \QQ[\![x]\!] \longrightarrow (\Lambda^2 (\QQ[\![x]\!]))_{C\otimes \QQ}$$ $$\theta_\QQ(f)= f \wedge 1$$ is countable.
2. Let $p$ be an odd prime. Denote by $\Lambda^2 (\ZZ/p[\![x]\!]) $ the exterior square of $\ZZ/p[\![x]\!]$ considered as a $C$-module with the diagonal action. Consider the space of $C$-coinvariants $(\Lambda^2 (\ZZ/2[\![x]\!]) )_{C}$. Then the kernel of the homomorphism $$\theta_{\ZZ/p}:\ZZ/p[\![x]\!] \longrightarrow (\Lambda^2 (\ZZ/p[\![x]\!]))_{C}$$ $$\theta_{\ZZ/p}(f)= f \wedge 1$$ is countable.
In order to prove this proposition we need the following lemma.
\[lemma\_involution\] Let $K$ be a field of characteristic $\ne 2$ and $V$ be a vector space over $K.$ Assume that $\sigma_K:K\to K$ is a nontrivial involution (automorphism such that $\sigma_K^2={\sf id}$ and $\sigma_K\ne {\sf id}$) and $\sigma_V:V\to V$ is a $\ZZ$-linear involution such that $$\sigma_V(\alpha v)=\sigma_K(\alpha) \sigma_V(v)$$ for any $\alpha\in K$ and $v\in V.$ Set $$D={\sf span}_K\{v\otimes \sigma(v) \mid v\in V\}\ \ \leq V\otimes_K V.$$ Then for any $v_0\in V\setminus \{0\}$ such that $\sigma_V(v_0)=v_0$ the sequence $$0\longrightarrow K \xrightarrow{\ \cdot v_0\ } V \xrightarrow{\ -\otimes v_0\ } (V\otimes_K V)/D$$ is exact.
Set $$K^+=\{ \alpha\in K \mid \sigma_K(\alpha)=\alpha \}, \hspace{1cm} V^+=\{ v\in V \mid \sigma_V(v)=v \},$$ $$K^-=\{ \alpha\in K \mid \sigma_K(\alpha)=-\alpha \}, \hspace{1cm} V^-=\{ v\in V \mid \sigma_V(v)=-v \}.$$ For any element $\alpha\in K$ we set $\alpha^+=(\alpha+\sigma_K(\alpha))/2\in K^+$ and $\alpha^-=(\alpha-\sigma_K(\alpha))/2\in K^-. $ Similarly for $v\in V $ we have $v^+=(v+\sigma_V(v))/2 \in V^+$ and $v^-=(v-\sigma_V(v))/2\in V^-.$ The equations $\alpha=\alpha^++\alpha^-$ and $v=v^++v^-$ show that $K=K^+\oplus K^-$ and $V=V^+\oplus V^-$ (as $K^+$-vector spaces). It is easy to see that $K^+\cdot K^+=K^+,$ $K^- \cdot K^-\subseteq K^+$ and $K^+\cdot K^-\subseteq K^-,$ and similarly $K^\pm \cdot V^{\pm} \subseteq V^\pm.$ Then $$\sigma_K(\alpha)=\alpha^+-\alpha^-,\hspace{1cm} \sigma_V(v^++v^-)=v^+-v^-,$$ and $$(\alpha v)^+=\alpha^+v^++\alpha^-v^-, \hspace{1cm} (\alpha v)^-=\alpha^-v^++\alpha^+v^-.$$
We claim that there is a $K^+$-linear (but not $K$-linear) map $$\psi: (V\otimes_K V)/D \to \Lambda^2_{K}( V)$$ such that $$\psi( v \otimes u+D)=v^+\wedge u^++v^-\wedge u^-.$$ In order to prove this we consider the map $\psi'': V\otimes_\ZZ V \to \Lambda^2_{K}( V)$ defined by the same formula. Observe $$\psi''( (\alpha v)\otimes u)= (\alpha v)^+\wedge u^++(\alpha v)^- \wedge u^-=$$ $$=\alpha^+v^+\wedge u^++ \alpha^- v^-\wedge u^+ + \alpha^-v^+\wedge u^-+ \alpha^+v^- \wedge u^-=$$$$=\alpha^+(v^+\wedge u^+ +v^-\wedge u^-) +\alpha^-(v^-\wedge u^++v^+\wedge u^-).$$ Similarly $$\psi''( v\otimes(\alpha u))=\alpha^+(v^+\wedge u^+ +v^-\wedge u^-) +\alpha^-(v^-\wedge u^++v^+\wedge u^-).$$ It follows that the map $\psi''$ define a map $\psi':V\otimes_K V\to \Lambda^2_{K}( V).$ Note that if $v^+=u^+$ and $v^-=-u^-,$ then $ \psi'(v\otimes u)=0.$ Hence $\psi$ is well defined.
It is easy to see that $\alpha v_0\otimes v_0 +D=0.$ Assume that $v\otimes v_0+D=0$ for some $v\in V.$ Then $\psi(v\otimes v_0+D )=0.$ Thus $v^+\wedge v_0=0$ in $\Lambda_K^2 (V).$ It follows that $ v^+=\alpha v_0$ for some $\alpha\in K.$ Since $\sigma_K\ne {\sf id},$ there exists $\lambda\in K^-\setminus \{0\}.$ Then $ \lambda v \otimes v_0+D=0.$ Similarly this implies $\lambda v^-\wedge v_0=(\lambda v)^+\wedge v_0=0$ in $\Lambda_K^2 (V).$ It follows that $\lambda v^-=\beta v_0$ for some $\beta\in K.$ Therefore $v=(\alpha+\beta\lambda^{-1})v_0.$ The assertion follows.
\(1) Consider the short exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow D \longrightarrow \QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes \QQ[\![x]\!] \longrightarrow \Lambda^2 (\QQ[\![x]\!]) \longrightarrow 0,$$ where $D$ is the vector space generated by $\{f\otimes f\mid f\in \QQ[\![x]\!]\}.$ Note that $D$ is a $\QQ[C\otimes \QQ]$-submodule of $\QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes \QQ[\![x]\!].$ It follows that there is an exact sequence of ${C\otimes \QQ}$-convariants $$D_{C\otimes \QQ} \longrightarrow (\QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes \QQ[\![x]\!])_{C\otimes \QQ} \longrightarrow (\Lambda^2 (\QQ[\![x]\!]))_{C\otimes \QQ} \longrightarrow 0.$$ Denote by $D'$ the image of $D_{C\otimes \QQ}.$ Observe that $D'$ is equal to the vector subspace generated by $ f\otimes f $ in $(\QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes \QQ[\![x]\!])_{C\otimes \QQ}.$ Consider the map $$\theta'_\QQ:\QQ[\![x]\!] \longrightarrow (\QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes \QQ[\![x]\!])_{C\otimes \QQ}$$ given by $\theta'_\QQ(f)=f\otimes 1.$ Then it is sufficient to prove that $(\theta'_\QQ)^{-1}(D')$ is countable. Note that there is an isomorphism $$(\QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes \QQ[\![x]\!])_{C\otimes \QQ} \cong \QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes_{\QQ[C\otimes \QQ]} \QQ[\![x]\!]$$ $$f\otimes f' \mapsto f \otimes \tilde \sigma(f')$$ (see Lemma 4.2. of [@IvanovMikhailovPreprint_pro-p]). This isomorphism maps $D'$ to $$D''={\sf span}\{f\otimes \tilde \sigma(f) \mid f\in \QQ[\![x]\!] \}\ \ \subseteq \QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes_{\QQ[C\otimes \QQ]} \QQ[\![x]\!].$$ Denote by $\theta_\QQ''$ the composition of $\theta_\QQ'$ with this isomorphism $$\theta_\QQ'' : \QQ[\![x]\!] \longrightarrow \QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes_{\QQ[C\otimes \QQ]} \QQ[\![x]\!].$$ Then we need to prove that $(\theta_\QQ'')^{-1}(D'') $ is countable.
We denote by $ \QQ(\!(x)\!)$ the field of formal Laurent series. Since $\QQ(\!(x)\!)$ is a field of fractions of $\QQ[\![x]\!],$ we can extend the involution $\tilde \sigma: \QQ[\![x]\!] \to \QQ[\![x]\!]$ to an involution $$\sigma': \QQ(\!(x)\!) \longrightarrow \QQ(\!(x)\!).$$
Denote by $K$ the subfield of $ \QQ(\!(x)\!)$ generated by the image of $\tau_\QQ.$ Since $\QQ[C\otimes \QQ]$ is countable, $K$ is countable as well. Consider the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{\QQ[\![x]\!] \ar[rr]^{\theta''_\QQ\ \ \ \ } \ar[d] & & \QQ[\![x]\!] \otimes_{\QQ[C\otimes \QQ]} \QQ[\![x]\!] \ar[d] \\
\QQ(\!(x)\!) \ar[rr]^{\theta'''_\QQ\ \ \ \ } && \QQ(\!(x)\!) \otimes_K \QQ(\!(x)\!),
}$$ where $\theta'''_\QQ(f)=f\otimes 1.$ Set $$D'''={\sf span}_K \{ f \otimes \sigma'(f) \mid f\in \QQ(\!(x)\!) \} \ \ \subseteq \QQ(\!(x)\!) \otimes_K \QQ(\!(x)\!).$$ It is sufficient to prove that $(\theta'''_\QQ)^{-1}(D''')$ is countable. Lemma \[lemma\_involution\] implies that $(\theta'''_\QQ)^{-1}(D''')=K.$ The assertion follows.
\(2) The proof is the same.
Completions of lamplighter groups $\LG$ and $\LG(p)$
====================================================
Recall the definition of the tensor square for a non-abelian group [@BrownLoday]. For a group $G$, the tensor square $G\otimes G$ is the group generated by the symbols $g\otimes h,\ g,h\in G,$ satisfying the following defining relations: $$\begin{aligned}
& fg\otimes h=(g^{f^{-1}}\otimes h^{f^{-1}})(f\otimes h),\\
& f\otimes gh=(f\otimes g)(f^{g^{-1}}\otimes h^{g^{-1}}),\end{aligned}$$ for all $f,g,h\in G$. The exterior square $G\wedge G$ is defined as $$G\wedge G:=G\otimes G/\langle g\otimes g,\ g\in G\rangle.$$ The images of the elements $g\otimes h$ in $G\wedge G$ we will denote $g\wedge h$. If $G=E/R$ for a free group $E$, there is a natural isomorphism $G\wedge G=\frac{[E,E]}{[R,E]}.$
For any group $G$, there is a natural short exact sequence $$0 \longrightarrow H_2(G) \longrightarrow G \wedge G \overset{[-,-]}\longrightarrow [G,G] \longrightarrow 1.$$ (see [@BrownLoday (2.8)] and [@Miller]). Let $g_1,\dots,g_n, h_1,\dots,h_n\in G$ be elements such that $ [g_1, h_1] \dots [g_n,h_n]=1.$ Then the element $(g_1\wedge h_1) \dots (g_n \wedge h_n) $ defines an element in $H_2(G).$ $$(g_1\wedge h_1) \dots (g_n \wedge h_n) \in H_2(G).$$ If $R$ is a commutative ring, then the image of $(g_1\wedge h_1) \dots (g_n \wedge h_n)$ in $H_2(G,R)$ is denoted by $$((g_1\wedge h_1) \dots (g_n \wedge h_n))\otimes R \in H_2(G,R).$$
We will consider two versions of the lamplighter group. The integral lamplighter group: $$\LG=\mathbb Z \wr C=\langle a,b \mid [a,a^{b^i}]=1, \ i\in \mathbb Z \rangle$$ and the $p$-lamplighter group for a prime $p$ $$\LG(p)=\mathbb Z/p \wr C=\langle a,b \mid [a,a^{b^i}]=a^p=1, \ i\in \mathbb Z \rangle.$$ Observe that $\LG=\mathbb Z[C]\rtimes C$ and $\LG(p)=\ZZ/p[C] \rtimes C.$ Using Lemma \[lemma\_powerseries\] and [@IvanovMikhailov16 Prop 4.7], we obtain $$\label{eq_LG_com1}
\widehat{\LG}_\ZZ=\ZZ[\![x]\!]\rtimes C$$ and $$\label{eq_LG_com2}
\widehat{\LG}_\QQ=\QQ[\![x]\!]\rtimes (C\otimes \QQ), \hspace{1cm} \widehat{\LG(p)}_\ZZ=\ZZ/p[\![x]\!] \rtimes C,$$ where $C$ acts on $\ZZ[\![x]\!]$ and $\ZZ/p[\![x]\!]$ via $\tau$ and $C\otimes \QQ$ acts on $\QQ[\![x]\!]$ via $\tau_\QQ$.
\[prop\_homology\_of\_lamplighter\] There are isomorphisms $$(\Lambda^2(\QQ[\![x]\!]))_{C\otimes \QQ}\cong H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\QQ,\QQ),$$ $$(\Lambda^2(\ZZ/p[\![x]\!]))_{C} \cong H_2(\widehat{\LG(p)}_\ZZ,\ZZ/p)$$ in both cases given by $$f \wedge f' \mapsto ((f,1)\wedge (f',1)) \otimes R ,$$ where $R=\QQ,\ZZ/p.$
Consider the short exact sequence $\QQ[\![x]\!] {\rightarrowtail}\widehat{\LG}_\QQ{\twoheadrightarrow}(C\otimes \QQ)$ and the associated spectral sequence $E.$ Since $\QQ=\varinjlim \frac{1}{n!}\ZZ$ and homology commute with direct limits, we have $H_n(C\otimes \QQ, -)=0$ for $n\geq 2$. It follows that $E^2_{i,j}=0 $ for $i\geq 2$, and hence, there is a short exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E^2_{0,2} \longrightarrow H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\QQ,\QQ) \longrightarrow E^2_{1,1} \longrightarrow 0.$$ Observe that the action of $C$ on $\QQ[\![x]\!]$ has no invariants. Then $$E^2_{1,1}=H_1(C\otimes \QQ, \QQ[\![x]\!])=\varinjlim H_1(C\otimes \frac{1}{n!}\ZZ, \QQ[\![x]\!])=\varinjlim \QQ[\![x]\!]^{C\otimes \frac{1}{n!}\ZZ}=0.$$ It follows that the map $$\label{eq_mapE_2}
H_2(\QQ[\![x]\!],\QQ)_{C\otimes \QQ}=E_{0,2}^2\longrightarrow H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\QQ,\QQ)$$ is an isomorphism. The map is induced by the map $\QQ[\![x]\!]{\rightarrowtail}\widehat\LG_\QQ$ that sends $f\in \QQ[\![x]\!]$ to $(f,1)\in \widehat\LG_\QQ.$ Then the isomorphism sends $f \wedge f'$ to $((f,1)\wedge (f',1)) \otimes \QQ.$ Then using the isomorphism $\Lambda^2(\QQ[\![x]\!])\cong H_2(\QQ[\![x]\!],\QQ)$ we obtain the assertion.
The second isomorphism can be proved similarly.
Completion of a free group
==========================
For elements of groups or Lie rings, we will use the left-normalized notation $[a_1,\dots,a_n]:=[[a_1,\dots,a_{n-1}],a_n]$ and the following notation for Engel commutators $$[a,_0b]:=a,\hspace{1cm} [a,_{i+1}b]=[[a,_ib],b]$$ for $i\geq 0.$
For any elements $a,b$ of a Lie ring the Jacobi identity implies $$[a,b,a,b]+[b,[a,b],a]+[[a,b],[a,b]]=0.$$ I follows that $$\label{lieident1}
[a,b,b,a]=[a,b,a,b].$$ The following lemma is a generalisation of this identity.
Let $L$ be a Lie ring, $a,b\in L$ and $n\geq 1.$ Then $$\label{lieident}
[[a,_{2n}b],a]=\left[\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}(-1)^{i}[a,_{2n-1-i}b],[a,_{i}b]]\ ,\ b\ \right].$$
The Jacobi identity implies $$[[a,_{2n-i}b], [a,_{i} b]]+[[a,_{2n-1-i},b],[a,_{i+1}b]]= [[a,_{2n-1-i}b],[a,_{i} b],b].$$ for $0\leq i\leq n-1.$ Taking the alternating sum of these identities and using $[[a,_nb],[a,_nb]]=0,$ we obtain the assertion.
\[corident\] Let $F=F(a,b)$ be a free group with generators $a,b$. For any $n\geq 1$, $$[[a,_{2n}b],a] \equiv
\left[\prod_{i=0}^{n-1} [[a,_{2n-1-i}b],[a,_{i}b]]^{(-1)^i}\ ,\ b\ \right]\mod \gamma_{2n+3}(F).$$
We denote by $F$ the free group on two variables $F=F(a,b)$ and denote by $\varphi:F\to \LG$ the obvious epimorphism to the integral lamplighter group. It induces a homomorphism between pronilpotent completions $$\hat \varphi:\hat F_\ZZ \to \widehat{\LG}_\ZZ.$$ Note that $$\varphi([u,v])=1 \text{ for }u, v \in \langle a \rangle^F.$$
\[proposition\_main\] For any sequence of integers $q=(q_1,q_2,\dots),$ there exists a pair of elements $r_q,s_q\in \gamma_3(\hat F_\ZZ)$, such that
1. $[r_q,a][s_q,b]=1$;
2. $\hat \varphi (s_q)=1;$
3. $ \hat \varphi(r_q)=\prod_{i=3}^{\infty} [a,_{i-1} b]^{n_i},
$ where $n_{2i+1}=q_i$ for $i\geq 1$ and $n_{2i}$ are some integers\
(we control only odd terms of the product).
We claim that there exist sequences of elements $
r_q^{(3)}, r_q^{(4)}, \dots \in F$ and $ s_q^{(3)}, s_q^{(4)}, \dots \in F
$ such that
1. $r_q^{(k)},s_q^{(k)}\in \gamma_k(F)$
2. $[\prod_{i=3}^kr_q^{(i)}, a][\prod_{i=3}^ks_q^{(i)},b]\in \gamma_{k+2}(F);$
3. $\varphi(s_q^{(k)})=1;$
4. $\varphi( \prod_{i=3}^{k} r^{(i)}_q )\equiv \prod_{i=3}^k [a,_{i-1} b]^{n_i} \mod \gamma_{k+1}(\LG),$ where $n_{2i+1}=q_i$ for $2i+1\leq k.$
Then we take $r_q=\prod_{i=3}^\infty r_q^{(i)}$ and $s_q=\prod_{i=3}^\infty s_q^{(i)}$ and the assertion follows. So it is sufficient to construct such elements $r_q^{(k)}, s_q^{(k)}$ inductively.
In order to prove the base case we set $$r_q^{(3)}:=[a,b,b]^{q_1},\ s_q^{(3)}:=[a,b,a]^{-q_1}.$$ Corollary \[corident\], the case $n=1,$ implies that $$[r_q^{(3)},a][s_q^{(3)},b]\in \gamma_5(F).$$ Clearly $s_q^{(3)},r_q^{(3)}\in\gamma_3(F),$ $\varphi(s_q^{(3)})=1$ and $\varphi(r_q^{(3)})=[a,_2b]^{q_1}.$
Prove the inductive step. Assume that we already constructed $$r_q^{(3)},\dots, r_q^{(k)},\ s_q^{(3)},\dots, s_q^{(k)},$$ with the properties (0)-(3). Construct $r_q^{(k+1)}$ and $s_q^{(k+1)}.$ Note that any element of $\gamma_{k+2}(F)/\gamma_{k+3}(F)$ can be presented as $[A,a][B,b] \cdot \gamma_{k+3}(F),$ where $A,B\in \gamma_{k+1}(F).$ Then $$\label{eq2222}
[\prod_{i=3}^kr_q^{(i)}, a][\prod_{i=3}^ks_q^{(i)},b]\equiv [A,a][B,b]\mod \gamma_{k+3}(F).$$ Using that the images of $[A^{-1},a],[B^{-1},b]$ are in the center of $F/\gamma_{k+3}(F),$ that $\prod_{i=3}^kr_q^{(i)}, \prod_{i=3}^ks_q^{(i)} \in \gamma_3(F)$ and the identity $[xy,z]=[x,z]^y\cdot [y,z]$ we obtain $$\label{eq2222'}
[ \prod_{i=3}^kr_q^{(i)}A^{-1}, a]\ \cdot \ [\prod_{i=3}^ks_q^{(i)}B^{-1},b]\in \gamma_{k+3}(F).$$
Prove that $$\varphi(B)=1.$$ Since $B\in \gamma_{k+1}(F)$ we have $$B \equiv [a,_kb]^{e}c \mod \gamma_{k+2}(F),$$ where $ e\in \mathbb Z$ and $c$ is a product of powers of other basic commutators of weight $k+1.$ All these other basic commutators contain at least two $a.$ It follows that $\varphi(c)=1.$ Since $A\in \gamma_3(F) \subseteq \langle a \rangle^F$, we have $\varphi([A,a])=1.$ Moreover, $ \varphi( [\prod_{i=3}^kr_q^{(i)}, a][\prod_{i=3}^ks_q^{(i)},b])=1.$ Then $$[a,_{k+1}b]^e\in \gamma_{k+3}(\LG).$$ This implies that $e=0$ and hence $\varphi(B)=1.$
If $k$ is odd, we do need to care about (3) and we just take $$r_q^{(k+1)}=A^{-1},\hspace{1cm} s_q^{(k+1)}=B^{-1}.$$ Indeed, it is easy to check that the properties (0)-(2) are satisfied and the property (3) automatically follows.
Suppose now that $k$ is even, say $k=2k'$. Consider the image of the element $\prod_{i=3}^k r_q^{(i)} \cdot A^{-1}$ in the quotient $\LG/\gamma_{k+2}(\LG)$. By the induction hypothesis $$\varphi (\prod_{i=3}^k r_q^{(i)}) \equiv \prod_{i=3}^k [a,_{i-1} b]^{n_i} \cdot c' \mod \gamma_{k+2}(\LG),$$ where $c'\in \gamma_{k+1}(\LG)$. Since the quotient $\gamma_{k+1}(\LG)/\gamma_{k+2}(\LG)$ is cyclic with generator $[a,_kb]\cdot \gamma_{k+2}(\LG)$, $$c'\equiv [a,_kb]^y \mod \gamma_{k+2}(\LG).$$ for some $y\in \mathbb Z$. For $n\geq 1,$ denote $$z_n:=\prod_{i=0}^{n-1} [[a,_{2n-1-i}b],[a,_{i}b]]^{(-1)^i}.$$ Corollary \[corident\] implies that $$[[a,_kb],a][z_{k'}^{-1},b]\in \gamma_{k+3}(F).$$ We set $$r^{(k+1)}_q:=A^{-1}[a,_kb]^{q_{k'}-e},\ s^{(k+1)}_q:=B^{-1}z_{k'}^{-({q_{k'}-e})}.$$ Now $$[\prod_{i=3}^{k+1}r_q^{(i)}, a][\prod_{i=3}^{k+1}s_q^{(i)},b]\in \gamma_{k+3}(F)$$ and $$\varphi(\prod_{i=3}^{k+1}r_q^{(i)})\equiv \prod_{i=3}^{k+1} [a,_{i-1} b]^{n_i}.$$ The properties (0) and (2) are obvious.
Proof of Theorems 1 and 2
=========================
Let $F$ be a free group of rank $\ \geq 2$ and $p$ be an odd prime. We will show that the image of the homomorphisms $H_2(\hat F_\ZZ) \to H_2(\hat F_\QQ,\QQ)$ is uncountable. The proof that the image of the map $H_2(\hat F_\ZZ) \to H_2(\hat F_\ZZ,\ZZ/p)$ is uncountable is similar.
Since the free group with two generators is a retract of a free group of higher rank, it is enough to prove this only for $F=F(a,b).$ The map $$\label{eq_map1}
H_2(\hat F_\ZZ) \to H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\QQ, \QQ)$$ factors through $H_2(\hat F_\QQ,\QQ)$. Then it is enough to prove that the image the map is uncountable.
For $q\in \{ 0,1\}^{\mathbb N}$ we denote by $r_q,s_q$ some fixed elements of $\hat F$ satisfying properties (1),(2),(3) of Proposition \[proposition\_main\]. Then $$\hat \varphi(r_q)=\prod_{i=3}^\infty [a,_{i-1} b]^{n_i(q)},$$ where $n(q)_{2i+1}=q_i$ and $$[r_q,a][s_q,b]=1, \hspace{1cm} \hat \varphi(s_q)=1.$$ Set $$f_q= \sum_{i=3}^\infty n_i(q) x^{i-1} \in \ZZ[\![x]\!].$$ If we consider $\widehat{\LG}_\ZZ$ as the semidirect product $\ZZ[\![x]\!] \rtimes C,$ we obtain that $[a,_{i-1} b]=(x^{i-1},1)$ and hence $$\hat \varphi(r_q)=(f_q,1).$$ If we denote by $\hat \varphi_\QQ$ the composition of $\hat \varphi$ with the map $\widehat{\LG}_\ZZ\to \widehat{\LG}_\QQ,$ we obtain $$\hat \varphi_\QQ(r_q)=(f_q^\QQ,1),$$ where $f_q^\QQ$ is the image of $f_q $ in $\QQ[\![x]\!].$ Consider the map $$\Theta_\QQ : \QQ[\![x]\!] \longrightarrow H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\QQ,\QQ)$$ given by $$f \mapsto ((f,1) \wedge 1)\otimes \QQ.$$ Observe that the map is the composition of the map from Proposition \[prop\_kernel\_to\_exterior\] and the isomorphism from Proposition \[prop\_homology\_of\_lamplighter\]. Therefore the kernel of $\Theta_\QQ$ is countable. Set $$A:=\{ f_q^\QQ \mid q\in \{0,1\}^{\mathbb N} \} \subseteq \QQ[\![x]\!] .$$ Using that $f^\QQ_q=\sum_{i=3}^\infty n_i(q) x^{i-1},$ where $n_{2i+1}(q)=q_i,$ we obtain that $A$ is uncountable. Using that the kernel of $\Theta_\QQ$ is countable, we obtain that its image $$\Theta_\QQ(A)=\{ ((f^\QQ_q,1) \wedge 1) \otimes \QQ \mid q\in \{0,1\}^{\mathbb N}\} \subseteq H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\QQ,\QQ)$$ is uncountable. Finally, observe that by any element $((f^\QQ_q,1) \wedge 1) \otimes \QQ$ of $\Theta_\QQ(A)$ has a preimage in $H_2(\hat F_\ZZ)$ given by $(r_q\wedge a)(s_q \wedge b),$ and then $\Theta_\QQ(A)$ lies in the image of $H_2(\hat F_\ZZ)\to H_2(\widehat{\LG}_\QQ,\QQ).$ This implies that the groups $H_2(\hat F_\QQ,\QQ)$ and $H_2(\hat F_\ZZ,\ZZ/p)=H_2(\hat F_\ZZ)\otimes \ZZ/p$ are uncountable and Theorems 1 and 2 follow.
[99]{}
A. K. Bousfield and D. Kan: [*Homotopy limits, completions and localizations*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**304**]{}, (1972).
A. K. Bousfield: The localization of spaces with respect to homology, [**14**]{}, [*Topology*]{} (1975), 133–150.
A. K. Bousfield: Homological localization towers for groups and $\pi$-modules, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc, no. 186, 1977.
A. K. Bousfield: On the $p$-adic completions of nonnilpotent spaces, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**331**]{} (1992), 335–359.
R. Brown, J.-L. Loday: Van Kampen theorems for diagrams of spaces, [*Topology*]{} [**26**]{} (1987), 311–-335.
S. O. Ivanov, R. Mikhailov: On a problem of Bousfield for metabelian groups, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**290**]{}, (2016), 552-–589.
S. O. Ivanov, R. Mikhailov: On discrete homology of a free pro-p-group, preprint [arXiv:1705.09131]{}
C. Miller: The second homology of a group, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**3**]{} (1952), 588–595.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[energy conservation; nonlocality; quantum measurement; Bell inequality; fractals; von Neumann entropy; Maxwell’s daemon]{} This paper analyses the mathematical properties of some unusual quantum states that are constructed by inserting an impenetrable barrier into a chamber confining a single particle. If the barrier is inserted at a fixed node of the wave function, then the energy of the system is conserved. After barrier insertion, a measurement is made on one side of the chamber to determine if the particle is physically present. The measurement causes the wave function to collapse, and the energy that was contained in the subchamber in which the particle is now absent transfers instantaneously to the other subchamber in which the particle now exists. This thought experiment constitutes an elementary example of an EPR experiment based on energy conservation rather than momentum or angular momentum conservation. A more interesting situation arises when one inserts the barrier at a point that is not a fixed node of the wave function because this process changes the energy of the system; the faster the barrier is inserted, the greater the change in the energy. At the point of a sudden insertion the energy density becomes infinite; this energy instantly propagates across the subchamber and causes the wave function to become fractal. If an energy measurement is carried out on such a fractal wave function, the resulting mixed state has finite nonzero entropy. Fractal mixed states having unbounded entropy are also constructed and their properties are discussed. For an adiabatic insertion of the barrier, Landauer’s principle is shown to be insufficient to resolve the apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics that arises when a Maxwell daemon is present. This problem is resolved by calculating the energy required to insert the barrier.'
author:
- 'Carl M. Bender[^1], Dorje C. Brody and Bernhard K. Meister'
title: 'Unusual quantum states: nonlocality, entropy, Maxwell’s daemon, and fractals'
---
Introduction {#s1}
============
The Hamiltonian describing a particle of mass $m$ trapped in a one-dimensional infinite square well of width $L$ is $$\begin{aligned}
H=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\frac{\rd^2}{\rd x^2} \label{eq:1.1}\end{aligned}$$ with the boundary conditions that the wave function $\psi(x)$ vanish at $x=0$ and $x=L$. The stationary states and the corresponding energy eigenvalues are $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}\sin\left(\frac{n\pi x}{L}\right)
\quad {\rm and}\quad E_n=\frac{\pi^2\hbar^2n^2}{2mL^2}.
\label{eq:1.2}\end{aligned}$$
The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of inserting an impenetrable barrier at a point $x_0=L-\delta$ inside the potential well. A related investigation for $x_0=L/2$ using high-temperature quantum states was done by Zurek (1986) in his study of Maxwell’s daemon. Our objective here is to provide a thorough analysis of the effects of barrier insertion for arbitrary $x_0$. Inserting an impenetrable barrier divides the chamber into two noninteracting subchambers. If there is a particle in the original undivided chamber, then after inserting the barrier, this particle can only be present in a classical sense in one of the two subchambers. Quantum mechanically, after the barrier is inserted, the wave function of the particle remains nonzero in [*both*]{} subchambers. We thus consider what happens if we perform a measurement that determines the presence or absence of the particle in a given subchamber. Such a measurement requires a probe, which we treat classically.[^2]
[*The probe:*]{} As a simple classical probe we use movable walls at the ends of each of the subchambers (these walls are treated as classical objects). A quantum particle in a subchamber exerts a force on the walls of the chamber (Bender [*et al*]{}. 2002). By pushing on a wall we either detect a force or not and thus we measure the presence or the absence of the particle.
For a given initial state $\psi(x,0)$ of the system, there are two possibilities for the insertion point $x_0$ of the barrier; namely, the fixed nodes of the wave function and all other locations. By a [*fixed node*]{} we mean a point $x_0$ for which the time-dependent wave function satisfies $\psi(x_0,t)=0$ for all $t\geq0$.
[*Case 1: Inserting an impenetrable barrier at a fixed node.*]{} Because the wave function vanishes at the insertion point, the system cannot detect and therefore does not resist the insertion of a barrier. Thus, inserting a barrier does not change the energy of the system. After the insertion, the initial energy is distributed between the two subchambers, one to the left and the other to the right of the barrier. We remark that the wave function cannot collapse to zero in either of the subchambers during the barrier insertion because, if it did, the entropy of the system would be reduced without doing any work.
[*Case 2: Inserting an impenetrable barrier at a point that is not a fixed node.*]{} In this case inserting a barrier changes the energy by an amount that depends on the rate at which the barrier is inserted. The time evolution of the system after the insertion of the barrier depends on how rapidly the barrier is inserted.
In §\[s2\] and \[s3\] we examine Case 1 and study the effect of a measurement that determines which side of the inserted barrier the particle is present. Based on the conventional collapse hypothesis of quantum mechanics, we argue that the energy in the subchamber where the particle is found to be absent transfers instantaneously to the other subchamber even if the two subchambers are first separated adiabatically by a great distance. This phenomenon of energy transfer is analogous to the instantaneous transfer of angular momentum in an EPR experiment.
When the barrier is not inserted at a fixed node (Case 2), the analysis becomes more elaborate. We consider in §\[s4\] what happens when the insertion is carried out instantaneously. After the insertion it is natural to expand the initial wave function $\psi(x,0)$ in the regions $[0,L-\delta)$ and $(L-\delta,L]$ separately as Fourier series. The orthonormal basis elements in each of the two regions are eigenstates of the Hamiltonians for each of the subchambers. It is shown that a naive calculation of the energy in terms of the expansion coefficients of the wave function gives a divergent expression. This happens because while the series expansion of the initial wave function is convergent, it is not uniformly convergent and thus the series exhibits the Gibbs phenomenon.
Calculating the expectation value of the Hamiltonian requires that the series representing the wave function be twice differentiated. However, one cannot differentiate a nonuniformly convergent Fourier series term by term. By introducing a simple renormalisation scheme we overcome the nonuniform convergence and obtain a finite answer for the expectation value of the Hamiltonian on each side of the barrier. When the resulting expectation values are added, we find that this agrees with the initial energy of the system. However, this calculation still does not determine the total energy because the result does not include the energy density at the insertion point $x_0$. At $x_0$ the wave function is discontinuous, and consequently the energy density at $x_0$ is infinite at the time $t=0^+$ immediately after the barrier is inserted. Evidently, it requires an infinite amount of work to insert an impenetrable barrier at a point where there is no fixed node. The effect of a measurement to determine which subchamber contains the particle after a rapid insertion of the barrier is considered in §\[s5\].
When an initial state created by the instantaneous insertion of a barrier evolves in time, the discontinuity at $x_0$ instantly disappears, and the wave function becomes continuous and square-integrable. However, an infinite amount of energy is stored inside the well and, as a result, the wave function becomes fractal. Thus, the wave function, expressed as a linear combination of the energy eigenstates, no longer belongs to the domain of the Hamiltonian although it remains in the domain of the unitary time evolution operator. In §\[s6\] we show that the quantum states encountered here resemble the fractal wave functions introduced by Berry (1996).
In §\[s7\] we consider an adiabatic insertion of the barrier. A slow insertion requires only a finite amount of energy, and in the adiabatic limit this energy can be calculated explicitly. In §\[s8\] we contrast our results on adiabatic insertion with the work of Zurek (1986) on Maxwell’s daemon. We show that the argument of Zurek about memory erasure of the daemon to support the second law of thermodynamics is insufficient when the barrier is not inserted at the centre of the well.
If we measure the energy of the particle described by a fractal wave function created by an instantaneous insertion of the barrier, the resulting mixed state has finite nonzero von Neumann entropy. We extend this analysis in §\[s9\] by constructing a new class of fractal wave functions for which the density matrix of the state has unbounded entropy. Such a state might be obtained by an instantaneous compression, as opposed to an instantaneous division, of the chamber.
In gravitational physics the black-hole surface area provides a bound on entropy. Thus, the existence of a quantum state having unbounded von Neumann entropy in a finite-size quantum well seems to imply that nonrelativistic quantum mechanics can violate the entropy bound of gravitational physics (which in itself would not be surprising). However, the infinite-entropy quantum state introduced in §\[s9\] also possesses infinite energy. More generally, we argue in §\[s10\] that for a broad class of potentials, any quantum state having infinite entropy must also have infinite energy and/or infinite characteristic size. In §\[s11\] we discuss the consequences of separating the two subchambers that are formed after a barrier is inserted. We conclude in §\[s12\] with some open issues.
Barrier insertion at a fixed node {#s2}
=================================
In this section we determine the effect of inserting an impenetrable barrier at a fixed node of the initial wave function. Any of the energy eigenstates other than the ground state has fixed nodes. Furthermore, a superposition of energy eigenstates can also have fixed nodes. As an example, let us choose the initial state $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x,0)={\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$}}[\phi_3(x)+ \phi_6(x)]. \label{eq:2.1}\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[eq:1.2\]) we see that the initial energy of the system described by (\[eq:2.1\]) is $\frac{45}{2}(\pi^2\hbar^2/2mL^2)$. As shown in Fig. \[F1\], this initial state has nodes at $x/L=0,\frac{2}{9}$, $\frac{1}{3}$, $\frac{4}{9}$, $\frac{2}{3}$, $\frac{8}{9}$, $1$. However, the nodes at $\frac{2}{9}$, $\frac{4}{9}$, $\frac{8}{9}$ are not fixed because the value of the time-dependent wave function $\psi(x,t)$ does not remain zero at these points.
Let us insert an impenetrable barrier at one of the fixed nodes, say $x_0=\frac{2}{3}L$, at time $t=0$. The value of $L$ is irrelevant to the discussion here, so we set $L=1$ in this section. Because the inserted barrier is impenetrable, the two subregions can be treated separately. In fact, these two regions can even be moved apart without affecting the states if the separation is done adiabatically. Nevertheless, the state of the system as a whole is described by a single entangled wave function.
The Hamiltonian describing each subregion is the same as that in (\[eq:1.1\]) with the new boundary conditions being that the wave functions must vanish at $x=0$ and at $x=2/3$ in the first subregion and at $x=2/3$ and at $x=1$ in the second subregion. The eigenstates $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_n(x)=\sqrt{3}\sin\left({\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{3}{2}$}}\pi nx\right) \quad {\rm and}
\quad \eta_n(x)=\sqrt{6}\sin\left[3\pi n(x-{\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{2}{3}$}})\right]
\label{eq:2.2}\end{aligned}$$ of the Hamiltonians in these two regions constitute orthonormal sets of basis elements in each of the regions $[0,\frac{2}{3}]$ and $[\frac{2}{3},1]$. Therefore, the initial state is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x,0) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} {\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$}}\left[ \chi_2(x)
+ \chi_4(x) \right] & (0\leq x\leq \frac{2}{3}), \\ {\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}$}}\left[ \eta_1(x) + \eta_2(x) \right] & (\frac{2}{3}\leq x\leq1).
\end{array} \right. \label{eq:2.3}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the wave function is not normalised in either region.
Let us calculate the expectation value of the Hamiltonian. The energy eigenvalues in each region are $E_n^\chi= \frac{9}{4}
n^2(\pi^2\hbar^2/2m)$ and $E_n^\eta=9n^2 (\pi^2\hbar^2/2m)$, respectively. Using the basis decomposition (\[eq:2.3\]) the energy expectation values for each side of the barrier are $E_\chi=\frac{45}{3}(\pi^2\hbar^2/2m)$ and $E_\eta=\frac{45}{6}
(\pi^2\hbar^2/2m)$. Thus, $E_\chi+E_\eta=\frac{45}{2}(\pi^2\hbar^2/2m)$, which is just the initial energy of the system. Because the energy expectation is a constant under unitary time evolution the expectation value obtained from the time-dependent wave function $\psi(x,t)$ gives the identical result. Analogous results hold for all other initial pure states, and we conclude that inserting an impenetrable barrier at a fixed node requires no energy.
Wave-function collapse and nonlocal energy transfer {#s3}
===================================================
What happens if we observe whether the particle is present in one of the two subregions, say $[\frac{2}{3},1]$ after we have inserted an impenetrable barrier? As discussed in §\[s1\], the thought experiment that we have in mind consists of detecting whether there is a force on the wall of the subchamber. If the particle is trapped in the range $[\frac{2}{3},1]$, then we can detect the force that the particle exerts on the wall of the subchamber.
Our concern here is how such a measurement affects the energy of the system. We have established in the previous section that prior to the measurement the energy is distributed among the two separate subregions, even though there is only one particle. Let us suppose that the measurement confirms the absence of the particle in the range $[\frac{2}{3},1]$. Such an outcome occurs with probability $\frac{1}{3}$. After this measurement we can [*infer*]{} that the value of $E_\eta$ is now zero. This appears to be paradoxical unless we can explain where the energy has gone.[^3]
How does this measurement affect the normalisation of the wave function? Recall that the wave function ${\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$}}[
\chi_2(x)+\chi_4(x)]$ of (\[eq:2.3\]), which has support on $[0,\frac{2}{3}]$, is not normalised to unity because prior to the measurement this wave function did not represent the state of the entire system. However, once the absence of the particle is confirmed by the measurement, the state of the system collapses to a new state having support only on $[0,\frac{2}{3}]$. If we follow the standard approach to quantum measurement theory (cf. Lüders 1951), then the resulting state is given simply by ${\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$}}[\chi_2(x)+\chi_4(x)]$, divided by its norm (the minimum projection), so that the wave function, having support on $[0,\frac{2}{3}]$, is now normalised.
The squared norm of the state ${\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}$}}[\chi_2(x)+\chi_4(x)]$ is $\frac{2}{3}$, so after the absence of the particle in the region $[\frac{2}{3},1]$ has been confirmed, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in the region $[0,\frac{2}{3}]$ becomes $\frac{45}{2}(\pi^2\hbar^2/2m)$, which is the initial energy of the system. The argument outlined here generalises to the case of an arbitrary initial state for which a barrier is inserted at any fixed node.
To summarise, we insert an impenetrable barrier in the potential well where there is a fixed node, and we calculate the expectation values of the Hamiltonian on each side of the barrier. The sum of these expectation values equals the initial energy of the system. Then, we perform a measurement and observe the presence or absence of the particle on one side of the barrier. If the particle is absent, then the energy $E_\eta$ in the subchamber is transferred to the other chamber instantaneously so that the total energy remains conserved.
A similar situation was addressed by Dicke (1981), who considered the use of a Heisenberg microscope probe for a particle trapped in a harmonic potential. In his thought experiment, the absence of the particle in a given region is confirmed by the lack of scattered photons. However, a conceptual difficulty arises because the energy of the particle is affected even though the particle has not interacted with the photon beam. As a possible resolution, Dicke offered the explanation that the quantum state of the unobserved particle (the particle that is absent) is altered by the absorption and emission of photons. What seems difficult to explain, however, is the mechanism by which the energy is transferred.
The difficulty in understanding the phenomenon of energy transfer is, in fact, more severe than Dicke envisaged. In the experiment considered by Dicke, there is no physical obstacle between the photon beam used as a probe and the region where the particle is trapped, whereas in our thought experiment there is an impenetrable potential barrier separating these two regions. We can even separate the two chambers adiabatically as far apart as we wish before performing the position measurement. When the result of the position measurement is obtained, there is an instantaneous transfer of energy from one chamber to a remotely separated chamber.
This thought experiment is an elementary example of an EPR experiment (Einstein [*et al*]{}. 1935) except that here there is only one particle. The EPR analysis uses momentum conservation to reveal the peculiar feature of nonlocality in quantum mechanics. A more familiar version of the EPR experiment based on a singlet state of a pair of spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particles relies on conservation of angular momentum to reveal nonlocality (Bohm 1951). In contrast, in this paper we implicitly accept the nonlocality of quantum mechanics and demonstrate the conservation of energy. We could just as well have assumed energy conservation and have used it to demonstrate nonlocality.
Insertion of the barrier at a nonnodal point {#s4}
============================================
Let us now consider the instantaneous insertion of a barrier where there is no fixed node. For simplicity, we take the initial wave function to be the ground state $\psi(x,0)=\phi_1(x)$ for $x\in[0,L]$, and we insert an impenetrable wall at $x=L-\delta$. This setup is illustrated in Fig. \[F2\]. The probability of trapping the particle in the outer chamber (between $L-\delta$ and $L$) is determined by the integral $p=\int_{L-\delta}^L\psi^2(x,0)\rd x$, and for small values of $\epsilon=\delta/L$ we have the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
p(\epsilon)\sim\frac{2}{3}\pi^2\epsilon^3 - \frac{2}{15}\pi^4
\epsilon^5 + {\cal O}(\epsilon^7). \label{eq:5.1}\end{aligned}$$ If the particle in the box behaved classically, then the probability distribution for the location of the particle would be uniform because the velocity of the particle would be constant. Quantum mechanically, for a highly excited state $\phi_n(x)$ (large $n$), the particle behaves classically. Indeed, for large $n$ we have $p(\epsilon)\sim \epsilon$. The cubic behaviour in (\[eq:5.1\]) is a characteristic feature of low-energy quantum states.
Because we have placed an infinite potential barrier at the point $x=L-\delta$, the two subchambers can now be treated separately, as in the previous example. Thus, we consider an orthonormal set of basis elements on each side of the wall: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_n(x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{L-\delta}} \sin\left( \frac{n\pi x}
{L-\delta} \right) \quad (x\in[0,L-\delta]) \label{eq:5.2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_n(x) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\delta}} \sin\left( \frac{n\pi
(x-L+\delta)} {\delta} \right) \quad (x\in[L-\delta,L]).
\label{eq:5.3}\end{aligned}$$ Using these bases we can expand the initial wave function with coefficients given by $a_n=\int_0^{L-\delta}\psi(x) \chi_n(x)\rd
x$ and $b_n=\int_{L-\delta}^L\psi(x) \eta_n(x)\rd x$, in each of the two regions. Straightforward calculations show that $$\begin{aligned}
a_n = \frac{2n(-1)^{n+1}\sqrt{1-\epsilon}\sin(\pi\epsilon)}
{\pi[n+(1-\epsilon)][n-(1-\epsilon)]} \quad {\rm and} \quad b_n =
\frac{2n\sqrt{\epsilon}\sin(\pi\epsilon)}
{\pi(n+\epsilon)(n-\epsilon)}, \label{eq:5.4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon=\delta/L$. Therefore, the initial wave function for the region $x\in[0,L-\delta)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{\chi}(x,0) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n \chi_n(x), \label{eq:5.5}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_\chi(x,0)=\psi(x,0)$ for $x\in[0,L-\delta)$ and $\psi_\chi(x,0)=0$ otherwise.
The notation $[0,L-\delta)$ indicates that the Fourier expansion of the initial wave function converges [*pointwise*]{} in the half-open interval that contains the left endpoint $0$ but not the right endpoint $L-\delta$. In general, a Fourier sine series converges pointwise and uniformly to a continuously differentiable function satisfying homogeneous boundary conditions at the two endpoints. If a continuously differentiable function vanishes at one endpoint (say, the left endpoint) but not at the other (say, the right endpoint), then the Fourier sine series converges pointwise to the function everywhere except at the right endpoint, where we observe the rapid oscillation known as the [*Gibbs phenomenon*]{} and nonuniform convergence of the Fourier series.
In the region $x\in(L-\delta,L]$ we have an analogous expression for $\psi_\eta(x)$ in terms of $b_n$ and $\eta_n(x)$. Because of the symmetry associated with the problem, the results for $x\in(L-\delta,L]$ are identical to those for $x\in[0,L-\delta)$, under the substitution $\epsilon\to 1-\epsilon$. Therefore, we need only analyse the range $[0,L-\delta)$ from which we infer the corresponding results in $(L-\delta,L]$.
The expectation value $E_\chi$ of the Hamiltonian $H$ in (\[eq:1.1\]) for $x\in[0,L-\delta)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_\chi = \int_0^{L-\delta}\psi_{\chi}^*(x,0)H\psi_{\chi}(x,0)\rd
x. \label{eq:5.6}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the wave function $\psi_\chi(x)$ is not normalised to unity because it does not represent the totality of the system.
If we substitute (\[eq:5.5\]) in (\[eq:5.6\]) to calculate the energy of the subsystem in the range $[0,L-\delta)$, then we obtain the divergent series representation for $E_\chi$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n^2 \frac{\pi^2\hbar^2n^2} {2m(L-\delta)^2}.
\label{eq:5.7}\end{aligned}$$ This series diverges because $a_n^2\sim1/n^2$ for large $n$. However, this divergence does not imply that the energy of the particle in the region $[0,L-\delta)$ is infinite. This apparent paradox arises because the series (\[eq:5.5\]), while it converges to $\psi_\chi(x,0)$, is not uniformly convergent. Consequently, when the differential operator $H$ acts on $\psi_\chi(x,0)$ in (\[eq:5.6\]), we cannot differentiate the series term by term to obtain (\[eq:5.7\]). The correct way to calculate $E_\chi$ relies on expressing the initial wave function $\psi_\chi(x,0)$ of (\[eq:5.5\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{\chi}(x,0) &=& \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n \chi_n(x) \nonumber \\
&=& \alpha \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} \sin\left(\frac{n\pi
x}{L-\delta}\right) \left[ \frac{n}{n^2-\beta^2}-\frac{1}{n}+
\frac{1}{n}\right] \nonumber \\ &=& \alpha \beta^2
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n(n^2-\beta^2)}\sin
\left(\frac{n\pi x}{L-\delta}\right) + \alpha \sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}\sin\left(\frac{n\pi x}{L-\delta}\right)
\nonumber \\ &=& \alpha \beta^2 \sum_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n(n^2-\beta^2)}\sin \left(\frac{n\pi
x}{L-\delta}\right) + \frac{\alpha\pi}{2(L-\delta)}x ,
\label{eq:5.9}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=(2\sqrt{2}/\pi\sqrt{L})\sin(\pi\epsilon)$ and $\beta=1-\epsilon$. We recognise that the second term in the final step in (\[eq:5.9\]) is the Fourier series representation of the function $x$. The Gibbs phenomenon arises here because the initial wave function does not satisfy the homogeneous boundary conditions obeyed by each of the Fourier eigenmodes. After subtracting the function proportional to $x$, the remaining function satisfies homogeneous boundary conditions and the Gibbs phenomenon evaporates.
Let us explain in detail the idea behind the formal manipulation in (\[eq:5.9\]). First, we note that the large-$n$ asymptotic behaviour of the Fourier coefficients is $a_n\sim1/n$, which gives rise to the divergent series (\[eq:5.7\]). Therefore, in (\[eq:5.9\]) we isolate the contribution of order $1/n$ in the summand so that the reminder has a $1/n^3$ behaviour for large $n$ and the series converges rapidly. The leading $1/n$ behaviour comes from the Fourier coefficients of the function $x$. Although the series expansion of $x$ is not uniformly convergent, we can explicitly perform the summation before applying the differential operator. In effect, this renormalisation procedure eliminates the Gibbs phenomenon, and we obtain a finite answer. Indeed, if we substitute the final line of (\[eq:5.9\]) into (\[eq:5.6\]), after some algebra we find that the renormalised energy is $$\begin{aligned}
E_\chi = \frac{\pi^2\hbar^2}{2mL^2} \frac{(1-\epsilon)
\sin^2(\pi\epsilon)}{\pi^2}
\left(\Psi_1(\epsilon)+\Psi_1(2-\epsilon)+
\frac{\Psi_0(2-\epsilon)-\Psi_0(\epsilon)}{1-\epsilon}\right).
\label{eq:5.10}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Psi_0(u)$ denotes the digamma function $\Psi_0(u)=\rd\ln\Gamma(u)/\rd u$ and $\Psi_1(u)=\rd\Psi(u)/\rd u$ is the first derivative of the digamma (first polygamma) function. The result in (\[eq:5.10\]) is exact and holds for all values of $\epsilon\in[0,1]$.
The expectation value $E_\eta$ of the Hamiltonian in the range $(L-\delta,L]$ is obtained by substituting $1-\epsilon$ for $\epsilon$ in (\[eq:5.10\]). Therefore, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in the two half-open regions $[0,L-\delta)$ and $(L-\delta,L]$ is $E_\chi+E_\eta$. From the properties of the digamma and polygamma functions we find that $$\begin{aligned}
E_\chi + E_\eta = \frac{\pi^2\hbar^2}{2mL^2} \label{eq:5.11}\end{aligned}$$ for all values of $\epsilon$. As this is just the initial energy of the system, one might conclude that energy is conserved during the insertion of the wall. However, the expression (\[eq:5.11\]) does not take into account the energy density at the point $x=L-\delta$. Because the barrier is assumed impenetrable, the wave function must vanish at $L-\delta$. Therefore, at time $t=0$ the wave function is discontinuous at $L-\delta$ and the energy density is infinite. Thus, an instantaneous insertion of the barrier at a nonnodal location requires an infinite amount of energy.
Effect of a position measurement {#s5}
================================
Let us study, as we did in §\[s3\], the effect of a measurement that determines the presence or absence of the particle after the instantaneous insertion of the barrier at $t=0$. We are concerned with the energy initially contained in the chamber and thus we also perform the subsequent position measurement at time $t=0$.
Without the measurement the conservation law (\[eq:5.11\]) holds in the open region $[0,L]-\{L-\delta\}$. However, if the measurement is performed and confirms the absence of the particle in the range $(L-\delta,L]$, then after this measurement we can infer that the value of $E_\eta$ is now zero. Recall that the wave function $\psi_\chi(x,0)$, having support on $[0,L-\delta)$, is not normalised to unity. However, once the absence of the particle is confirmed by measurement, then the state of the system will collapse into a new state having support on $[0,L-\delta)$, and we must redetermine the normalisation of the wave function as we did in §\[s3\].
The squared norm of $\psi_\chi(x,0)$ can be calculated in two ways, either by integrating the square of $\psi_\chi(x,0)$ or by summing the squares of the expansion coefficients $a_n$. The result of the former calculation is $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{L-\delta} \psi_{\chi}^2(x,0) \rd x = \frac{1}{\pi}
\sin(\pi\epsilon)\cos(\pi\epsilon) + (1-\epsilon), \label{eq:6.1}\end{aligned}$$ whereas the latter calculation gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n^2 &=& \frac{4}{\pi^2}(1-\epsilon)\sin^2(\pi
\epsilon) \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{n^2}{[n^2-(1-\epsilon)^2]^2}
\nonumber \\ &=& \frac{(1-\epsilon) \sin^2(\pi\epsilon)}{\pi^2}
\left( \Psi_1(\epsilon)+\Psi_1(2-\epsilon) + \frac{
\Psi_0(2-\epsilon)-\Psi_0(\epsilon)}{1-\epsilon} \right) .
\label{eq:6.2}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the right sides of (\[eq:6.1\]) and (\[eq:6.2\]) agree, and they are also equal to the right side of (\[eq:5.10\]) without the factor $\pi^2\hbar^2/2mL^2$. Therefore, if we normalise the wave function $\psi_\chi(x,0)$ and calculate the expectation value of the Hamiltonian, then we find that for [*all*]{} values of $\epsilon\in[0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
E_\chi = \frac{\pi^2\hbar^2}{2mL^2}. \label{eq:6.3}\end{aligned}$$ This is the initial energy of the system. Therefore, we notice the phenomenon of nonlocal energy transfer and find that the energy is conserved.
On the other hand, if the position measurement is performed at time $t>0$, then, as we show in §\[s6\], the infinite energy density concentrated initially at $x=L-\delta$ will propagate across the two subchambers. Hence, the nonlocal feature of quantum mechanics allows the transfer of an infinite amount of energy across arbitrary large distances provided that we have an infinite energy source enabling us to insert the barrier instantaneously.
Recognition of the barrier by fractal wave functions {#s6}
====================================================
After the barrier is in place at $x=L-\delta$, its impenetrability causes the wave function to vanish at $L-\delta$. It is natural to ask how the particle becomes aware of this new boundary condition. We therefore investigate the dynamics of the system in the closed interval $[0,L-\delta]$. The time-dependent wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_\chi(x,t) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \re^{-\ri E_n t/\hbar} a_n
\chi_n(x) \label{eq:7.1}\end{aligned}$$ for $0\leq x\leq L-\delta$, where $\chi_n(x)$ and $a_n$ are specified in (\[eq:5.2\]) and (\[eq:5.4\]). The energies are $E_n = \pi^2\hbar^2 n^2/2m(L-\delta)^2$.
At $t=0$ we have $\lim_{x\to(L-\delta)^-}\psi_\chi(x,0)\neq0$. This limiting value is nonzero because at $t=0$ there is a discontinuity at the boundary $x_0=L-\delta$. However, for any time $t>0$ the dynamics of unitary time evolution respects the new boundary condition associated with the impenetrable barrier and forces the wave function $\psi(x,t)$ to vanish at $x=L-\delta$. In Fig. \[F3\] we plot the real and imaginary parts of $\psi(x,t)$ approximated by a truncated Fourier series in the vicinity of the inserted barrier. This plot shows that the wave function $\psi(x_0,t)$ does indeed vanish.
Although the discontinuity of the wave function vanishes for $t>0$, an infinite amount of energy continues to be stored in the potential well. This energy manifests itself in the form of a fractal wave function whose energy density in the well is everywhere infinite. The self-similar structure of the fractal wave function can be verified by plotting it on successively smaller intervals while at the same time increasing the number of terms in the Fourier series expansion. Fig. \[F4\] shows the imaginary part of the wave function $\psi_\chi(x,t)$ at $t=10^{-17}$ seconds using a $50,000$-term Fourier series. The energy of the fractal wave function in Fig. \[F4\] is infinite because the probability $p_n$ of finding the particle in the $n$th energy state decays like $p_n\sim n^{-2}$, while the $n$th energy level grows like $E_n\sim n^2$.
The fractal structure encountered here has been investigated previously by Berry (1996). Berry discussed the question of how a wave function in an infinite potential well evolves in time from a constant initial state $\psi(x,0)=1/\sqrt{L}$. Berry found that if an initial wave function in a potential well has a finite jump discontinuity so that it has infinite energy, then under unitary time evolution the wave function will instantly develop fractal structure. Other studies of fractal wave functions have been done by Wójcik [*et al*]{}. (2000), Berry [*et al*]{}. (2001) and references cited therein.
Although a fractal state such as (\[eq:7.1\]) requires infinite energy to create, if we insert a barrier rapidly but in finite time and with finite energy, then the resulting wave function displays a fractal-like feature. However, because there is only finite energy, if a barrier is inserted in the vicinity of one end of the well, then for large $L$ it will take a while before the wave function at the other end of the well is excited. An example in which a barrier is inserted near one end of the well rapidly enough to excite the first one thousand energy levels is shown in Fig. \[F5\], where we plot the imaginary part of the wave function in the vicinity of the other end of the well. As we see in Fig. \[F5\], there is a time delay before the rise in the amplitude of the wave function near the well becomes noticeable.
Adiabatic insertion of an impenetrable barrier {#s7}
==============================================
Inserting an impenetrable barrier into a wave function at a nodeless point is similar to pushing an object through a viscous fluid. The work done in the process depends on the speed of insertion. In §\[s6\] we showed that it requires an infinite amount of work to insert the barrier instantaneously. However, a slow insertion of the barrier requires only a finite amount of work.
In this section we consider the case of an [*adiabatic*]{} (infinitely slow) insertion of a barrier at a nonnodal point $x_0$. Inserting a barrier creates a new node at $x_0$ and changes the state of the system. However, an adiabatic process is one in which the system does not depart from equilibrium. Thus, during an adiabatic insertion the change in the energy of the system is minimised.
We reconsider the configuration in §\[s4\], where a barrier was inserted into the initial state $\phi_1(x)$ at $x_0=L-\delta$. However, instead of an instantaneous insertion we now perform an adiabatic insertion. The states before and after the adiabatic insertion of the barrier are illustrated in Fig. \[F6\], where we have taken $\delta=0.1\,L$. The final energy of the system is the sum of the ground-state energies on both sides of the inserted barrier, multiplied by the corresponding probability amplitudes. The energy required to insert the barrier is determined by the difference between the final and initial energies of the system: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E &=& \frac{\pi^2\hbar^2}{2m} \left( \frac{1}{(L-\delta)^2}
\int_0^{L-\delta} \phi_1^2(x)\rd x + \frac{1}{\delta^2}
\int_{L-\delta}^1 \phi_1^2(x)\rd x - \frac{1}{L^2}\right)
\nonumber \\ &=& \frac{\pi^2\hbar^2}{2mL^2} \left( \frac{1}
{\epsilon} + \frac{1}{1-\epsilon} + \frac{2\epsilon-1} {\pi
\epsilon^2 (1-\epsilon)^2} \sin(\pi\epsilon) \cos(\pi\epsilon) -1
\right), \label{eq:8.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon=\delta/L$.
For small $\epsilon$ the Taylor expansion of $\Delta E$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E\sim\frac{\pi^2\hbar^2}{2mL^2}\Big(2\epsilon
+{\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{2}{3}$}}\pi^2\epsilon+3\epsilon^2+{\cal O}
(\epsilon^3)\Big)\quad (\epsilon\ll 1). \label{eq:8.2}\end{aligned}$$ The term $\frac{2}{3}\pi^2\epsilon$ is a consequence of the cubic behaviour of the probability in (\[eq:5.1\]) and is a feature of low-energy quantum states. High quantum number states do not have this term and thus this behaviour has no classical analogue.
What happens if we measure the presence or absence of the particle on one side of the inserted barrier, say, in $[L-\delta,L]$? If the particle is absent, then the energy that was contained in $[L-\delta,L]$ will be transferred to $[0,L-\delta]$, where the particle is now present. However, counter to the intuition one gains from Fig. \[F6\], the [*Lüders state*]{} (the state having support on $[0,L-\delta]$ that results after the wave function collapses) is not a normalised ground state.
To show that the Lüders state is not the ground state we assume the contrary. If it were the ground state, then the final energy of the system would be proportional to $(L-\delta)^{-2}$. The initial energy of the system before the adiabatic insertion of the barrier was proportional to $L^{-2}$. The energy difference of these two ground states must equal the energy $\Delta E$ required to insert the barrier. However, the energy $\Delta E$ required to insert the barrier is greater than this difference except when the insertion is located at the centre $\delta=L/2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{(L-\delta)^2} \int_0^{L-\delta} \phi_1^2(x)\rd x +
\frac{1}{\delta^2} \int_{L-\delta}^1 \phi_1^2(x)\rd x
-\frac{1}{L^2} \geq \frac{1}{(L-\delta)^2} -\frac{1}{L^2},
\label{eq:8.3}\end{aligned}$$ where equality holds only if $\delta=L/2$. Thus, the energy injected into the system by the adiabatic insertion of the barrier at $\delta\neq L/2$ is so large that after the absence of the particle on one side of the barrier is confirmed, the wave function on the other side will be excited to a state higher than the ground state.
For $\epsilon\ll 1$ the right side of (\[eq:8.3\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{(L-\delta)^2} - \frac{1}{L^2} \sim \frac{1}{L^2} \Big(
2\epsilon + 3\epsilon^2 + {\cal O}(\epsilon^3)\Big).
\label{eq:8.4}\end{aligned}$$ This result shows that the term $\frac{2}{3}\pi^2\epsilon$ in (\[eq:8.2\]) is the additional energy that excites the system above the ground state when the absence of the particle in the interval $[L-\delta,L]$ is confirmed. This additional term arises whenever we insert the barrier at a location away from the centre of the potential well that contains a low-energy initial wave function.
It is interesting to note that depending on whether a measurement to confirm the presence or absence of the particle in the region $[L-\delta, L]$ is conducted, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in the region $[0,L-\delta]$ takes different values when $\epsilon\ll1$. Specifically, if the system has not been disturbed by a measurement, then to first order in $\epsilon$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{L-\delta} \phi_1(x) H \phi_1(x) \rd x =
\frac{\pi^2\hbar^2} {2mL^2} \big( 1+2\epsilon \big) .
\label{eq:9.1}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if the system has been disturbed by a measurement, then the energy expectation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm tr}(\rho H) = \frac{\pi^2\hbar^2} {2mL^2} \Big( 1 + \left( 2+
{\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{2}{3}$}}\pi^2\right) \epsilon \Big). \label{eq:9.2}\end{aligned}$$ Here the density matrix $\rho$ reflects the two possible outcomes of the measurements, whose statistics is provided by (\[eq:5.1\]). For example, for $\epsilon$ of order $1\%$ there is about a $6\%$ difference between the energy expectation values.
Maxwell’s daemon for square wells {#s8}
=================================
A quantum version of Maxwell’s daemon was considered by numerous researchers (Zurek 1986, Bennett 1987, Lloyd 1997, and references therein). In the context of the square-well systems considered in this paper, the Maxwell daemon scenario is as follows: A barrier is inserted adiabatically at the centre of a well containing the initial ground-state wave function $\phi_1(x)$. A node appears at the centre, and on each side of the node the wave function is in the (unnormalised) ground state. The daemon then performs a measurement to determine on which side of the barrier the particle is present and in doing so causes the wave function to collapse. Until now, the barrier considered in this paper was fixed in place; however, in this scenario the barrier is a classical object that is allowed to slide to the left or right inside the well. The daemon then releases the barrier, and as the barrier slides and the subchamber containing the particle expands, energy is extracted from the collapsed wave function. This energy can be used to reduce the entropy of the environment. When the barrier reaches the edge of the well, the initial wave function is recovered. This appears to be a cyclic engine that violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The standard argument (see Landauer 1961 and Zurek 1986) to show why the second law is actually not violated is that to close the cycle of this engine completely the daemon must erase the information about where the particle was when the barrier was inserted. Because the probability of finding the particle in a given subchamber was $\frac{1}{2}$, the amount of this information is $\ln2$. The act of erasing the memory balances the decrease in the entropy (the so-called Landauer’s principle) so that there is no violation of the second law.
If the barrier is not inserted at the centre of the well, the entropy associated with erasing the memory is reduced. This is because the probability of finding the particle in a given subchamber is not $\frac{1}{2}$. Classically, this reduced entropy still balances the reduction of the entropy in the environment. Similarly, for a quantum system in equilibrium with a high temperature heat reservoir, as considered by Zurek, Landauer’s erasure principle also applies without modification because no energy is needed to insert the barrier.
However, for small $\epsilon$ and for low-energy quantum states the entropy reduced in the environment no longer balances the information contained in the daemon’s memory. Specifically, the probabilities of trapping the particle in the subchambers are $p(\epsilon)$ and $1-p(\epsilon)$, where $p(\epsilon)$ is given in (\[eq:5.1\]). The entropy lost by the daemon can be expressed as a series expansion for $\epsilon\ll1$: $$\begin{aligned}
S(\epsilon)\sim\left[{\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{2}{3}$}}\pi^2\Big(1-
\ln\left({\mbox{$\textstyle \frac{2}{3}$}}\pi^2\right)\Big) -2\pi^2\ln(\epsilon) \right]
\epsilon^3,\end{aligned}$$ which approaches zero rapidly as $\epsilon\to0$. On the other hand, the energy that the daemon has extracted is of order $\epsilon$.
This apparent violation of the second law is avoided by recognising that inserting the barrier adiabatically at a nonnodal point requires a finite amount of work. Therefore, the usual explanation, which relies solely on Landauer’s principle, for why the second law is not violated is insufficient in such circumstances. We have shown here that Landauer’s principle when used in this quantum context must be augmented by including the energy required to insert the barrier.
Fractal states with unbounded entropy {#s9}
=====================================
Let us examine the entropy of fractal quantum states. The term [*entropy*]{} used here is the [*von Neumann entropy*]{} associated with the density matrix that represents the mixed state of the system after a measurement (of the energy, for example) is performed on the initial pure state. A pure state has zero entropy, so when we speak of the entropy of a fractal wave function, it is always understood to indicate the von Neumann entropy associated with the density matrix after energy measurement.
The fractal wave functions encountered here and elsewhere in the literature share the property that the associated entropy is finite. It is possible, however, to construct a special class of fractal wave functions whose entropies are infinite. To show that the entropy associated with states generated by an instantaneous insertion of the barrier is finite, we recall that the probability $p_n$ of finding the system in the $n$th energy level is given for large $n$ by $p_n\sim n^{-2}$. This follows directly from (\[eq:5.4\]), and the same $n$-dependence applies to Berry’s fractal states (1996). Therefore, the von Neumann entropy $S=-\sum_n p_n\ln p_n$ is finite. In the case of fractal states considered by Wójcik [*et al*]{}. (2000), the probability $p_n$ decays exponentially fast, and thus the associated von Neumann entropy converges rapidly.
As noted above, we can create a new class of fractal wave functions for which the associated entropy is infinite. Consider as an example the probability $$\begin{aligned}
p_n = \frac{1/N(\nu)}{(n+\nu)[\ln(n+\nu)]^2}, \label{eq:10.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu>0$ is a constant and $N(\nu)$ is the normalisation. The probability (\[eq:10.1\]) is an example of a fat-tail distribution for which none of the associated moments exist and, similarly, the associated entropy is also infinite. The key idea here is that the norm of the state is finite because the integral $\int^\Lambda 1/x(\ln x)^2\rd x=1/\ln\Lambda$ is finite as $\Lambda\to\infty$, while the entropy is infinite because the integral $\int^\Lambda 1/x\ln x\,\rd x=\ln(\ln\Lambda)$ diverges as $\Lambda\to\infty$.
Letting $c_n=\sqrt{p_n}$, we can construct a wave function representing a state of a particle in the potential well: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x,t)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \re^{-\ri E_n t/\hbar}c_n \phi_n(x).
\label{eq:10.2}\end{aligned}$$ At $t=0$ this wave function is smooth for $x>0$ and singular at $x=0$. Such an initial state might be created by an instantaneous compression of the potential well at $x=0$. The key difference between the wave function (\[eq:10.2\]) and the states considered in §\[s6\] is that at the boundary $x=0$ the initial wave function $\psi(x,0)$ (\[eq:10.2\]) is infinite. However, once the system evolves in time, the wave function satisfies the homogeneous boundary condition at $x=0$ and becomes fractal. An example is displayed in Fig. \[F7\].
One particularly interesting characteristic behaviour associated with the wave function $\psi(x,t)$ of (\[eq:10.2\]) is that whenever the time variable $t$ reaches the values $$\begin{aligned}
t=\frac{2kmL^2}{\pi^2\hbar}\quad (k=1,2,3,\ldots), \label{eq:10.3}\end{aligned}$$ the wave function exhibits a peculiar ringing phenomenon as illustrated in Fig. \[F8\]. There are 117 oscillations of the kind shown in the figure in the interval $[0,L]$.
If we measure the energy of the system prescribed by the wave function (\[eq:10.2\]), the entropy of the resulting mixed state is infinite even though the size $L$ of the system is finite. This seems to imply that quantum mechanics is not consistent with black hole physics, for which the entropy of a system is bounded by the surface area of a black hole (see Bekenstein 1994 and references cited therein). However, recall that the energy of the present system is also infinite. Thus, in order to create an infinite entropy state for a particle trapped in a potential well, the system must also possess infinite energy. One may argue that when the energy of the system reaches a threshold value, the system collapses to form a black hole. As a consequence, the entropy of the system cannot diverge. On the other hand, there are other systems, such as the bound states of a hydrogen atom, for which energy expectation is always finite. In §\[s10\] we examine some other quantum systems having unbounded entropy.
Limits on quantum states having infinite entropy {#s10}
================================================
One can construct wave functions using the probability weights (\[eq:10.1\]) for other quantum systems, such as a harmonic oscillator or a hydrogen atom. What can we say about the energy and size of such systems?
We investigate first the properties of a particle trapped in a harmonic potential $V(x)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega^2x^2$. The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (with $m\omega/\hbar=1$) are $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_n(x) = \frac{\pi^{1/4}}{\sqrt{2^n n!}} \re^{-\frac{1}{2}x^2}
H_n(x), \label{eq:11.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_n(x)$ denotes the $n$th Hermite polynomial. Using these eigenstates we construct an initial wave function $\psi(x)=\sum_n
c_n \phi_n(x)$.
Unlike the case of a particle in a square well, the wave function $\psi(x)$ exhibits no discontinuity or fractal structure, as is evident from the plot of the wave function in Fig. \[F9\]. This is because the initial wave function $\psi(x)$ does not violate the boundary conditions associated with the Schrödinger eigenvalue problem. Nonetheless, if an energy measurement is performed on the system prepared in the state $\psi(x)$, the resulting density matrix has infinite von Neumann entropy. Similarly, the energy of the system is also infinite because the expectation value of the Hamiltonian diverges. The energy expectation value can be determined either by taking the sum $\sum_n p_n E_n$, where $E_n\sim n$ ($n\to\infty$), or by considering the asymptotic behaviour of the wave function $\psi(x)$. Specifically, numerical studies indicate that $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x)\sim\frac{0.44}{\sqrt{x}\ln x} \label{eq:11.2}\end{aligned}$$ as $x\to\infty$. Therefore, the probability distribution $\psi^2(x)$ associated with the position of the particle has a fat tail and none of the moments exists. In particular, the expectation value of $x$ is infinite, so the characteristic size of the system is infinite.
Let us now consider the case of a Coulomb potential for which the energy eigenvalues $E_n$ are proportional to $-1/n$. In this case, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian is necessarily bounded for an arbitrary state. Therefore, it is possible to create a mixed state using bound states of the hydrogen atom for which the entropy is infinite, while keeping the system energy finite. However, the expectation value of $r$ in the $n$th Coulombic bound state grows like $n^2$ for large $n$ (Messiah 1958). Therefore, the expectation value of the radius $r$ in the infinite-entropy state is infinite. Hence, the surface area of the mixed state with diagonal elements $p_n$ given by (\[eq:10.1\]), is infinite.
With these observations we conjecture that [*for a quantum state to have infinite entropy, either its energy or size, or possibly both, must also diverge*]{}. If this indeed is the case, then we may argue that quantum theory is not in direct contradiction with laws of black hole thermodynamics.
Effects of separating the subchambers {#s11}
=====================================
Can the nonlocality property of quantum mechanics described in this paper be used to communicate rapidly over great distances? Recall that diffusion is a spreading process that proceeds infinitely fast. The Schrödinger equation is a diffusion equation, so an initial wave function having compact support will evolve immediately into a wave function that is nonvanishing over all space. Nevertheless, at great distances the wave function is exponentially small, and it is impossible to take advantage of the nonlocality of the diffusion process to send signals.
However, if the support of the wave function remains finite, one may ask if instantaneous communication now becomes practical: Can we use the configuration of two widely separated square wells and the entanglement of states to transmit signals instantaneously?
Suppose we prepare many identical copies of a system of a single particle trapped in a square well and insert impenetrable barriers into each of the potential wells. One subregion is taken to observer $A$ and the other taken to observer $B$. This establishes a ‘telephone line’ (cf. Gisin 1990) between $A$ and $B$. Suppose that at an agreed time $A$ wishes to transmit one bit information to $B$. To do so $A$ will either measure the presence of the particles or $A$ will do nothing. If observer $B$ can determine statistically whether $A$ has performed the measurement, then one bit of information is transmitted.
Considerations of such a problem require careful analysis of the effects of the physical displacement of the subchambers on the wave functions contained therein. If the subchambers are separated adiabatically, then by definition this separation will not affect the wave functions. However, such a separation requires an infinite amount of time. As a consequence, even if an instantaneous communication across long distances were possible (for example, using the discrepancy of the energy expectations in (\[eq:9.1\]) and (\[eq:9.2\])), it requires an infinite amount of time to establish the telephone line.
To overcome this problem we could try to separate the boxes in finite time. However, in this case we believe that the wave function collapses to a density matrix because accelerating the box[^4] constitutes a measurement of whether there is a particle in the box. If it were possible to separate the boxes in a finite time without collapsing the wave function, then it would be possible to send signals instantaneously over great distances. Moreover, since the accelerated box can extract energy from its environment, it is possible to transmit an arbitrarily large quantity of energy instantaneously across large distances.
Discussion {#s12}
==========
The system considered here is perhaps the simplest quantum system represented in terms of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Nevertheless, by a thorough analysis of the various effects of dividing the system into a pair of subsystems we were led to a number of interesting and peculiar features of quantum mechanics. Some of the gedanken experiments considered in this paper might well be feasible using the procedures recently developed by Konstantinov and Maris (2003).
Because an insertion of the barrier in a potential well creates entangled subsystems, one may ask whether it is possible to formulate a version of the Bell inequality that is appropriate for this configuration. The Bell inequality relies on the statistics of noncommuting observables. In the present example one might consider the measurement of the presence or absence of a particle in a subchamber and the energy contained in a subchamber as the relevant observables.
In the discussion of a quantum-mechanical Maxwell daemon we found an example in which the standard argument based on Landauer’s principle is insufficient. Nonetheless, we were able to resolve the problem by taking into account the energy needed to insert the barrier into the potential well.
We have found a new class of fractal states having infinite entropy. Our discussion in §\[s10\] suggests that if a quantum state has infinite entropy, then it must also have infinite energy and/or infinite size. This raises the interesting question of whether it is possible to derive a bound on entropy or perhaps even a bound on the gravitational constant, conditional on finite size and energy, in the context of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics.
The discussion in §\[s11\] concerning the mechanical displacement and separation of the subchambers leads to an interesting gedanken experiment to test the so-called Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics. According to this interpretation, the collapse of the wave function occurs only when the result of a measurement has been registered by a conscious being (Wigner 1963). Therefore, if the subchambers are displaced by a mechanical device that does not involve conscious awareness, and as a result the wave function does not collapse, then it is theoretically possible to transport an unbounded quantity of energy instantaneously over large distances.
CMB is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.K. EPSRC, and the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation. DCB is supported by The Royal Society.
Bekenstein, J. D. 1994 Entropy bounds and black hole remnants [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**49**]{}, 1912-1921.
Bender, C. M., Brody, D. C. $\&$ Meister, B. K. 2002 Entropy and temperature of a quantum Carnot engine [*Proc. R. Soc. London*]{} A[**458**]{}, 1519-1526.
Bennett, C. H. 1987 Demons, engines, and the second law [*Sci. Amer.*]{} [**257**]{} 108-117.
Berry, M. V. 1996 Quantum fractals in boxes [*J. Phys.*]{} A[**29**]{}, 6617-6629.
Berry, M. V., Marzoli, I. $\&$ Schleich, W. 2001 Quantum carpets, carpets of light [*Physics World*]{} [**June**]{}, 1-6.
Bohm, D. 1951 [*Quantum Theory*]{} New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Dicke, R. H. 1981 Interaction-free quantum measurements: A paradox? [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**49**]{}, 925-930.
Einstein, A., Padolsky, P. $\&$ Rosen, N. 1935 Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**47**]{}, 777-780.
Gisin, N. 1990 Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and superluminal communications [*Phys. Lett.*]{} A[**143**]{}, 1-2.
Konstantinov, D. $\&$ Maris, H. J. 2003 Detection of Excited-State Electron Bubbles in Superfluid Helium [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**90**]{}, 025302-1$\sim$3.
Landauer, R. 1961 Dissipation and Heat Generation in the Computing Process [*IBM J. Research and Develop.*]{} [**5**]{}, 183-191.
Lloyd, S. 1997 Quantum-mechanical Maxwell’s daemon [*Phys. Rev.*]{} A[**56**]{}, 3374-3382.
Lüders, G. 1951 Über die Zustandsänderung durch den Messprozess. [*Ann. Physik*]{} [**8**]{}, 322-328.
Messiah, A. 1958 [*Quantum Mechanics*]{} New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wigner, E. P. 1963 The problem of measurement [*Am. J. Phys*]{}. [**31**]{}, 6-15.
Wójcik, D., Bia[ł]{}ynicki-Birula, I. $\&$ Życzkowski, K. 2000 Time evolution of quantum fractals [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{}, 5022-5025.
Zurek, W. H. 1986 Maxwell’s daemon, Szilard’s engine and quantum measurements, in [*Frontiers of Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics*]{}, NATO ASI Series B: Physics [**135**]{}, G. T. Moore $\&$ M. O. Scully, eds. New York: Plenum.
[^1]: Permanent address: Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis MO 63130, USA.
[^2]: An example of a quantum probe would be a Heisenberg microscope in which a dense beam of photons is aimed at the subchamber. The presence of the particle would then be confirmed by the scattering of photons out of the beam. A probe of this kind for a particle trapped in a harmonic well was envisaged by Dicke (1981), who considered the possibility of quantum effects associated with the photons in the beam. The problem with a photon beam probe is that in order for the particle in the box to interact with the photons, it must be electrically charged. This allows the particle to absorb energy from the photon beam and to radiate energy into the photon beam. Although the consequences of such a quantum probe are interesting, we do not address this additional complexity here.
[^3]: The situation considered here is similar to a double-slit experiment in which a particle is not localised at one of the two slits; localising the particle at one slit destroys the entanglement, which is observed as an interference pattern.
[^4]: In general, the equivalence principle implies that if a box containing a particle is accelerated, there is an induced gravitational force on the particle. Thus, during acceleration and deceleration the floor of the square well is not horizontal; rather, it slopes linearly downward to the left or right, and the wave function in the well is an Airy function.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that Y. Cheung’s general $Z$-continued fractions can be adapted to give approximation by saddle connection vectors for any compact translation surface. That is, we show the finiteness of his Minkowski constant for any compact translation surface. Furthermore, we show that for a Veech surface in standard form, each component of any saddle connection vector dominates its conjugates. The saddle connection continued fractions then allow one to recognize certain transcendental directions by their developments.'
address:
- |
LATP, case cour A, Faculté des sciences Saint Jérôme\
Avenue Escadrille Normandie Niemen\
13397 Marseille cedex 20, France
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Oregon State University\
Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
author:
- Pascal Hubert
- 'Thomas A. Schmidt'
date: 9 October 2010
title: Diophantine approximation on Veech surfaces
---
[^1]
Introduction and Main Results
=============================
We show that Yitwah Cheung’s generalization of the geometric interpretation of regular continued fractions gives a successful method for approximation of flow directions on translation surfaces by saddle connection vectors. Cheung [@C], [@CHM] generalizes the work of Poincaré and Klein by replacing approximation by the integer lattice in $\mathbb R^2$ with approximation by any infinite discrete set $Z$ of nonzero vectors with finite “Minkowski constant”, equal to one-fourth times the supremum taken over the areas of centro-symmetric bounded convex bodies disjoint from $Z$.\
We prove, as Cheung certainly understood, that the set of saddle connection vectors of any translation surface has a finite Minkowski constant.
\[t:goodMink\] Let $S$ be a compact translation surface, and $Z = \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$ the set of saddle connection vectors of $S$. Then $$\mu(Z) \le \pi \,\text{vol}(S)\,$$ where $\text{vol}(S)$ is the Lebesgue area of $S$.
The following result is of independent interest; here, it allows us to reach transcendence results using approximation by saddle connection vectors. Recall that the group of matrix parts (the so-called “derivatives”) of the oriented affine diffeomorphisms of a compact finite genus translation surface, $S$, form a Fuchsian group, $\Gamma(S)$. The trace field of the surface is the algebraic number field generated over the rationals by the set of traces of the elements of $\Gamma(S)$, when this group is non-trivial. When $\Gamma(S)$ is a lattice in $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$, the surface is said to be a Veech surface.
\[l:holVectorEntries\] Suppose that $S$ is a Veech surface normalized so that: $\Gamma(S) \subset \text{SL}_2(\mathbb K)$; the horizontal direction is periodic; and, both components of every saddle connection vector of $S$ lie in $\mathbb K$, where $\mathbb K$ is the trace field of $S$. Then there exists a positive constant $c = c(S)$ such that for all holonomy vectors $v = \begin{pmatrix} v_1\\v_2\end{pmatrix}$, and $1\le i \le 2$ one has $$|\, v_{i}\,| \ge c \, |\, \sigma(\, v_{i})\,|\,,$$ where $\sigma$ varies through the set of field embeddings of $\mathbb K$ into $\mathbb R$.
Note that in the above, all field embedding $\sigma$ in fact take values only in $\mathbb R$.
With $S$ as above and $Z = \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$ the set of saddle connection vectors of $S$, the $Z$-expansion of an inverse slope $\theta$ for a flow direction is defined in Section \[ss:theZrev\]. Theorem \[t:goodMink\] then implies that this gives a sequence of elements $(p_n, q_n) \in \mathbb K^2$ such that $| \theta - p_n/q_n|$ goes to zero as $n$ tends to infinity; see Lemma \[l:convergencePlus\].
One criterion for a “good” continued fraction algorithm is that extremely rapid convergence to a real number implies that this number is transcendental. We show that the $Z = \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$-fractions on Veech surfaces enjoy this property.
\[t:transc\] With $S$ and $\mathbb K$ as above, let $D = [\mathbb K: \mathbb Q]$ be the field extension degree of $\mathbb K$ over the field of rational numbers. If a real number $\xi \in [0,1] \setminus \mathbb K$ has an infinite $\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$-expansion, whose convergents $p_n/q_n$ satisfy $$\limsup_{n \to \infty}\, \dfrac{\log \log q_n}{n} > \log(\,2 D - 1\,) \,,$$ then $\xi$ is transcendental.
Related work
------------
There exist algorithms that approximate flow directions on particular translation surfaces by so-called parabolic directions, see [@AH], [@SU], [@SU2]. Roughly speaking, these algorithms can be viewed as continued fraction algorithms expressing real values in terms of the orbit of infinity under the action of a related Fuchsian group. Up to finite index and appropriate normalization, each underlying group in these examples is one of the infinite family of Hecke triangle Fuchsian groups, [@Vch]. Some 60 years ago, for each Hecke group, D. Rosen [@R] gave a continued fraction algorithm. Motivated in part by the use in [@AS] of the Rosen fractions to identify pseudo-Anosov directions with vanishing so-called SAF-invariant, with Y. Bugeaud, in [@BHS] we recently gave the first transcendence results using Rosen continued fractions. Theorem \[t:transc\] is the analog of a main result there.
Each Hecke group is contained in a particular $\text{PSL}(2, K)$ with $K$ a totally real number field. Key to the approach of [@BHS] was the fact that any element in a Hecke group of sufficiently large trace is such that this trace is appropriately larger than each of its conjugates over $\mathbb Q$. This leads to a bound of the height of a convergent $p_n/q_n$ in terms of $q_n$ itself. The LeVeque form of Roth’s Theorem, in combination with a bound on approximation in terms of $q_n q_{n+1}$, can then be used to show that transcendence is revealed by exceptionally high rates of growth of the $q_n$. We show here that all of this is possible for any Veech surface, replacing Rosen fractions by $Z$-expansions with $Z = \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$. Key to this is our results that (1) any nontrivial Veech group $\Gamma(S)$ has the property of the dominance of traces over their conjugates, and (2) in the case of a Veech surface $S$, dominance property for the group implies the dominance of components of saddle vectors over their conjugates.
We mention that it would be interesting to compare the approximation in terms of saddle connection vectors with the known instances of approximation with parabolic directions.
Outline
-------
In the following section we sketch some of the disparate background necessary for our results; in Section \[s:MinkFin\] we prove the crucial result that the Minkowski constant is finite for any compact translation surface; in Section \[s:bdHts\] we show that if $S$ is a Veech surface then $\Gamma(S)$ has the property of dominating conjugates and from this that one can bound the heights in the $Z$-expansions, $Z = \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)\,$; finally, in Section \[s:trans\] we very briefly show that the arguments of [@BHS] are valid here: $Z = \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)\,$-expansions with extremely rapidly growing denominators belong to transcendental numbers.
Thanks
------
It is a pleasure to thank Curt McMullen for asking if the results of [@BHS] could hold in the general Veech surface setting. We also thank Emmanuel Russ for pointing out the reference [@Ba].
Background
==========
Cheung’s $Z$-expansions {#ss:theZrev}
-----------------------
We briefly review Yitwah Cheung’s definition of his $Z$-expansions — we follow Section 3 of [@CHM], although we focus on approximation of a ray instead of a line. Fix a discrete set $Z \subset \mathbb R^2$, and assume that $Z$ does not contain the zero vector. Given a positive real $\theta$, consider the ray emitted from the origin with slope $1/\theta$. Our goal is to define a sequence of elements of $Z$ that approximates this ray.
Note that the number that is approximated here is the [*inverse of the slope*]{} of the ray. This choice accords well with the [*projective*]{} action of $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$ on $\mathbb P^1(\mathbb R) = \mathbb R \cup \{\infty\}$.
Let $u$ be the unit vector in the direction of the ray. Denote the positive half plane of the ray by $H_{+}(\theta) = \{ v \in \mathbb R^2\,\vert\, u \cdot v > 0\}$, and let $Z_{+}(\theta) := Z \cap H_{+}(\theta)$. Let $v = (p,q) \in \mathbb R^2\,$; the difference vector between $v$ and the vector whose endpoint is given by the intersection of $y= x/\theta$ and $y = q$ has length of absolute value $\text{hor}_{\theta}(v) = \vert q \theta - p\vert$. The value $q$ is the [*height*]{} of $v$ and $\text{hor}_{\theta}(v)$ is its [*horizontal component*]{}, see Figure \[zParalleloFig\].
The [*$Z$-convergents*]{} of $\theta$ is the set of elements of $Z$ in the half-plane of the ray such that each minimizes the horizontal component $\text{hor}_{\theta}(v)$ amongst elements of equal or lesser height: $$\text{Conv}_{Z}(\theta) = \{ v \in Z_{+}(\theta)\,\vert\; \forall w \in Z_{+}(\theta), |w_2| \le |v_2| \implies \text{hor}_{\theta}(v) \le \text{hor}_{\theta}(w)\,\}\,.$$
The [*$Z$-expansion*]{} of $\theta$ is the sequence obtained by ordering the set $\text{Conv}_{Z}(\theta)$ by height, where we choose as necessary between elements of the same height.
Recall from [@CHM] that if $Z$ contains some element of the $x$-axis, and there are infinitely many $Z$-convergents to $\theta$, then certainly the heights of the sequence tend to infinity.
The [*Minkowski constant*]{} of $Z$ is $$\mu(Z) = \dfrac{1}{4}\, \sup \text{area}(\mathcal C)\,$$ where $\mathcal C$ varies through bounded, convex, $(0,0)$-symmetric sets that are disjoint from $Z$.
Finiteness of the Minkowski constant assures good approximation, see [@CHM] for the proof of the following.
(Cheung [*et al.*]{}) Suppose both that $\mu(Z)$ is finite and that $Z$ contains a non-zero vector on the $x$-axis. Then the $Z$-expansion of a direction with inverse slope $\theta$ is infinite if and only if no element of $Z$ lies in this direction.
Denote the $n$-th element of the $Z$-expansion of $\theta$ by $(p_n, q_n)$. Then the following is also shown in [@CHM], see our Figure \[zParalleloFig\].
\[l:convergencePlus\](Cheung [*et al.*]{}) The $Z$-expansion of $\theta$ satisfies
$$\dfrac{|p_n q_{n+1}-p_{n+1}q_n|}{ 2 \, q_n \,q_{n+1} } < | \theta - p_n/ q_n | \le \mu(Z)/(q_n \, q_{n+1}) \,.$$
Translation surfaces
--------------------
### Translation surfaces; Veech surfaces
For all of this material, see the expository articles [@MT], [@Z]. A [*translation surface*]{} is a real surface with an atlas such that, off of a finite number of points, transition functions are translations. Here we consider only [*compact*]{} surfaces, and will continued to do so without further notice. From the Euclidean plane, this punctured surface inherits a flat metric, and this metric extends to the complete surface, with (possibly removable) conical singularities at the punctures. Due to the transition function being translations, directions of linear flow on a translation surface are well-defined, and Lebesgue measure is inherited from the plane. We define $\text{vol}(S)$ to be the total Lebesgue measure of the surface.
Post-composing the coordinate function of a chart from the atlas of a translation surface with any element of $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$ results in a new translation surface. This action preserves the underlying topology, the types of the conical singularities, and the area of the surface.
Related to this, an [*affine diffeomorphism*]{} of the translation surface is a homomorphism that restricts to be a diffeomorphism on the punctured flat surface whose derivative is a [*constant*]{} $2 \times 2$ real matrix. W. Veech [@Vch] showed that for any compact translation surface $S$, the matrices that arise as such derivatives of (orientation- and area-preserving) affine diffeomorphisms form a Fuchsian group $\Gamma(S)$, now referred to as the [*Veech group*]{} of the surface.
A [*Veech surface*]{} is a translation surface such that the group $\Gamma(S)$ is a co-finite subgroup of subgroup of $\text{SL}(2, \mathbb R)$; that is, such that the quotient of the Poincaré upper half-plane by $\Gamma(S)$ (using the standard fractional linear action) has finite hyperbolic area. Equivalently, $\Gamma(S)$ is a lattice in $\text{SL}(2, \mathbb R)$; indeed, some refer to a Veech surface as having the “lattice property”.
### Saddle connections; ergodicity of action, parabolic directions {#s:sadErgPar}
A [*saddle connection*]{} on a translation surface $S$ is a geodesic segment connecting singularities (with no singularities on its interior). By using the local coordinates of the translation surface, each saddle connection defines a vector in $\mathbb R^2$. The collection of these (affine) [*saddle connection vectors*]{} is $\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$. That $\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$ contains an element of length at most $\sqrt{2 \, \text{vol}(S)} $ was shown by Vorobets [@V](see the proof of Proposition 3.2 there).
Local coordinates on the [*stratum*]{} that is the space of translation surfaces of fixed genus and singularities type is provided by the integral relative to the set of singularities. In wording from [@EMZ], the saddle connections cut $S$ into a collection of polygons which provide local coordinates. The stratum then inherits a Lebesgue measure, as [@Z] says, a key theorem is that if Masur and Veech: the $\text{SL}(2, \mathbb R)$ action on translation surface preserves this measure and is ergodic on connected components of the strata.
Results of Veech [@Vch] imply that if $\Gamma(S)$ is a lattice (and $S$ has singularities), then the direction of any saddle connection vector is a parabolic direction — there is a parabolic element of $\Gamma(S)$ fixing a vector in this direction, and that there is some saddle connection vector in each parabolic direction. Since a lattice in $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$ has only finitely many parabolic conjugacy classes, a Veech surface has only finitely many $\Gamma(S)$-orbits of parabolic directions.
### Trace field, standard form
Gutkin and Judge [@GJ] defined the [*trace field*]{} of a translation surface to be the field extension of the rationals generated by the traces of derivatives of the affine diffeomorphisms of the surface; this is clearly independent of choice of a translation surface within an $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$-orbit. A result of Gutkin and Judge (see Lemma 7.5 of [@GJ]) implies that the ratio of the lengths of any two saddle connection vectors in a common parabolic direction gives an element of the trace field.
Möller [@Moe], see Proposition 2.6 there, showed that the trace field of any Veech surface is totally real (that is, every field embedding into the complex numbers sends the field to a subfield of the real numbers). The result holds true under weaker hypotheses, see [@HL], [@CS].
Calta and Smillie in [@CS] introduced a notion of [*standard form*]{} of a translation surface; for a Veech surface, standard form means having the vertical, the horizontal and the diagonal as parabolic directions. They show that when a Veech surface is in standard form, the parabolic directions all lie in the trace field. Combining this with the aforementioned result of Gutkin and Judge, one finds that, by scaling and choice within $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$-orbit, the saddle connection vectors of a Veech surface can be assumed to have components in the trace field. Furthermore, Kenyon and Smillie [@KS], see the proof of Corollary 29 there, argue that the $\mathbb Z$-module generated by the saddle connection vectors has a submodule of finite index that is contained in $\mathcal O_K \oplus \mathcal O_K$, where $\mathcal O_K$ denotes the ring of integers of the trace field $K$. In particular, there is some $m \in \mathbb N$ such that for any $v \in \text{V}_{sc}(S)$, the components of $m v$ are in $\mathcal O_K$.
### Traces of hyperbolics dominate conjugates {#ss:domination}
A Fuchsian group $\Gamma$ is said to have a [*modular embedding*]{} if there exists an arithmetic group $\Delta$ acting on $\mathbb H^n$ for an appropriate $n$, an inclusion $f : \Gamma \to \Delta$ and a holomorphic embedding $F = (F_1, . . . , F_n) : \mathbb H\to \mathbb H^n$ such that $F_1 = \text{id}$ and $F(\gamma \cdot z) = f(\gamma)\cdot F(z)$, see [@CW].
Schmutz Schaller and Wolfart [@SW] (see in particular their Corollary 5) show that if a Fuchsian group has a modular embedding, then its hyperbolic elements dominate their conjugates in absolute value. For ease of discussion, let us call this the [*domination of conjugates*]{} property.
M. Möller [@Moe] shows that if $S$ is a Veech surface, then $\Gamma(S)$ is commensurable to a Fuchsian group with a modular embedding (see his Corollary 2.11). Commensurability here means up to finite index and $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$-conjugation; it directly follows that a Veech group always has a finite index subgroup with the domination of conjugates property. Using trace relations based upon the fundamental $\text{tr}(\gamma^2) = (\, \text{tr}(\gamma)\,)^2 - 2$, it is quite likely that this can be extended to the full group.
In the proof of Lemma \[t:domConj\], we give a more elementary derivation, showing that any Veech group containing a hyperbolic element has the domination of conjugates property.\
Approximation by algebraic numbers
----------------------------------
In the following, we repeat some lines of background from [@BHS].
The following result was announced by Roth [@Roth] and proven by LeVeque, see Chapter 4 of [@L]. (The version below is Theorem 2.5 of [@B].) Recall that given an algebraic number $\alpha$, its [*naive height*]{}, denoted by $H(\alpha)\,$, is the largest absolute value of the coefficients of its minimal polynomial over $\mathbb Z\,$.
\[t:Lev\](LeVeque) Let $K$ be a number field, and $\xi$ a real algebraic number not in $K\,$. Then, for any $\epsilon >0\,$, there exists a positive constant $c(\xi, K, \epsilon)$ such that $$|\, \xi - \alpha \,| > \dfrac{c(\xi, K, \epsilon)}{H(\alpha)^{2+\epsilon}}$$ holds for every $\alpha$ in $K$.
The [*logarithmic Weil height*]{} of $\alpha$ lying in a number field $K$ of degree $D$ over $\mathbb Q$ is $h(\alpha) = \frac{1}{D}\sum_{\nu} \,
\log^{+} || \alpha ||_{\nu}$, where $\log^{+} t$ equals $0$ if $t\le 1$ and $M_K$ denotes the places (finite and infinite “primes”) of the field, and $|| \cdot ||_{\nu}$ is the $\nu$-absolute value. This definition is independent of the field $K$ containing $\alpha$.
The [*product formula*]{} for the number field $K$ is: $\prod_{\nu \in M_K} \,|| \alpha ||_{\nu} = 1$. From this, $\forall \, \alpha, \beta \in \mathcal O_K$ with $\beta \neq 0$, such that the ideals $\langle \alpha \rangle, \langle \beta \rangle$ have no common prime divisors, one finds that $h(\alpha/\beta) = \frac{1}{D}\sum_{\sigma} \,
\log^{+} \max\{| \sigma( \alpha)|, | \sigma( \beta)|\,\}$, where $\sigma$ runs through the infinite places of $K$, which we consider as field embeddings. Even upon dropping the relative primality condition, one finds
$$\label{eq:upBdHt}
h(\alpha/\beta) \le \frac{1}{D}\sum_{\sigma} \,
\log^{+} \max\{| \sigma( \alpha)|, | \sigma( \beta)|\,\}\,.$$
The two heights are related by $$\label{eq:heightsReltd}
\log H(\alpha) \le \deg(\alpha) \, (\, h(\alpha) + \log 2\,)\,,$$ for any non-zero algebraic number $\alpha$, see Lemma 3.11 in [@W].\
Finally, recall that standard transcendence notation includes the use of $\ll$ and $\gg$ to denote inequality with implied constant.
Minkowski constants {#s:MinkFin}
===================
Minkowski constants in strata
-----------------------------
The Minkowski constant of the nonzero holonomy of a translation surface defines a function that may be of true interest. The following shows that it has properties in common with the Siegel-Veech invariants (see [@EMZ]).
\[l:minkAsInvariant\] The function assigning to a translation surface $S$ the Minkowski constant of the set of saddle connection vectors, $S \mapsto \mu(\, \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)\,)$, is constant on $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$-orbits.
The action of $\text{SL}_2(\mathbb R)$ on translation surfaces sends saddle connection vectors to saddle connection vectors. But, this standard action sends the collection of bounded, convex sets that are symmetric about the origin to itself.
The following is now implied by the ergodicity of the $\text{SL}(2, \mathbb R)$ action.
\[l:minkDense\] Any connected component of the moduli space of abelian differentials of a given signature has a subset of full measure on which the Minkowski constant is constant.
We give an example where the Minkowski constant is small. See Figure 46 of [@Z] for a representation of the surface in question.
\[l:minkSmall\] Consider the translation surface $S$ given by the $L$-shaped square-tiled surface of three tiles. Then $\mu(\,\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)\,) = \text{vol}(S)/3$.
We may assume that $S$ has area 3. One easily finds that $\Gamma(S)$ is the Theta group, the subgroup of the modular group generated by $z \mapsto z+2$ and $z \mapsto -1/z$. The entries of an element $\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}$ of this group satisfy $a \equiv d \equiv -b \equiv -c \pmod 2$. One immediately finds that $S$ is in standard form: there are visibly connection vectors in the horizontal, vertical and diagonal directions. Indeed, these are primitive vectors in the full lattice $\mathbb Z^2$, and Theta acts so as to give that $\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$ consists of all of the primitive vectors. Hence, $\mu(\, \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)\,) = \mu(\,\mathbb Z^2\,) = 1$.
Finiteness of Minkowski constants
----------------------------------
Key to convergence of Cheung’s $Z$-approximants is his hypothesis that the Minkowski constant $\mu(Z)$ is finite. Note that Theorem \[t:goodMink\] justifies the statement in Corollary 3.9 of [@CHM].
(of Theorem \[t:goodMink\]) Fix any bounded convex region $\mathcal C$ that is symmetric about the origin in the plane. By a theorem of Fritz John, see say [@Ba] for a discussion, the ellipse (symmetric about the origin) $\mathcal E$ of maximal area interior to $\mathcal C$ is such that the scaled ellipse $\sqrt{2}\, \mathcal E$ contains $\mathcal C$. It follows that $\text{area}(\mathcal E) \ge \text{area}(\mathcal C)/2$.
Now, there is $A \in \text{SL}(2, \mathbb R)$ taking $\mathcal E$ to a circle. If $ \text{area}(\mathcal C) \ge 4 \pi \,\text{vol}(S)$, then $A\cdot \mathcal E$ contains any vector of length less than or equal to $\sqrt{2 \, \text{vol}(S)}$. But, $A\cdot \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S) = \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(A\cdot S)$ has a saddle connection vector of length at most $\sqrt{2 \, \text{vol}(A \cdot S)} = \sqrt{2 \, \text{vol}(S)}$, where we have used the bound of Vorobets for the length of the shortest saddle connection mentioned in Section \[s:sadErgPar\] . Therefore, $A \cdot \mathcal C$ contains a saddle connection vector of $A \cdot S$ and hence $\mathcal C$ contains an element of $\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$. We conclude that $ \mu(\,\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)\,) \le \pi \,\text{vol}(S)$.
Bounding the height of convergents {#s:bdHts}
==================================
In the background discussion of Section \[ss:domination\], we sketched a sequence of results from the literature that should imply that when $S$ is a Veech surface the traces of hyperbolic elements in $\Gamma(S)$ dominate their conjugates. Here we give a more elementary proof, with weaker hypotheses.
\[t:domConj\] Let $M$ be a hyperbolic element in the Veech group of a translation surface. Then the trace of $M$ is as least as large in absolute value as any of its images under the field embeddings of the trace field of the translation surface.
Recall that $M$ corresponds to a pseudo-Anosov map, say $\phi$. The action of $\phi$ on the integral homology of the surface gives an integral matrix, Perron-Frobenius shows that there is a dominant eigenvalue, $\lambda$, the dilatation of $\phi$. The minimal polynomial of $\lambda$ divides the characteristic polynomial of the action of $\phi$ on the homology. Thus, the Galois conjugates of $\lambda$ are also eigenvalues of the action. Hence, $\lambda$ dominates its conjugates over $\mathbb Q$.
Now, $M$ being in the group of the given flat surface allows one to deduce that the eigenvalues of $M$ are $\lambda$ and $1/\lambda$. Thus, the trace of $M$ is $t = \lambda + \lambda^{-1}$. Now, any field embedding of $\mathbb Q(t)$ into $\mathbb C$ lifts to field embeddings of $\mathbb Q(\lambda)$ into $\mathbb C$. Thus, we may write $\sigma(t) = \sigma(\lambda) + \sigma(\lambda)^{-1}$ for the image of this trace under any field embedding of $\mathbb Q(t)$. The function $x \mapsto x + 1/x$ is increasing on $[1, +\infty)$; thus, from $\lambda > | \sigma(\lambda)|$, we conclude $$\vert \sigma(t) \vert = \vert \sigma(\lambda) + \sigma(\lambda)^{-1} \vert \leq \vert \sigma(\lambda)\vert + \vert \sigma(\lambda)\vert ^{-1} < \lambda + \lambda^{-1}\,.$$
Finally, recall that [@KS] (Theorem 28) shows $\mathbb Q(t)$ already gives the full trace field of the surface.
We now show that if a Fuchsian subgroup $\Gamma$ of the determinant one matrices over a number field is known to have traces that dominate their conjugates, and the subgroup includes a translation, then every entry of every element of $\Gamma$ dominates its conjugates. We do this by refining arguments of [@BHS] (see Lemma 3.1 there).
\[l:bigElmts\] Fix a totally real number field $\mathbb K$. Suppose that $\Gamma \subset \text{PSL}_2(\mathbb K)$ contains a parabolic element $$\begin{pmatrix} 1&\lambda\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix} \,,$$ and set $c_1 = \min\{(|\,\sigma(\lambda)/\lambda)\,|\,)\}\,$, where $\sigma$ varies through the set of field embeddings of $\mathbb K$ into $\mathbb R$. Suppose further that for all $M \in \Gamma$ whose trace is sufficiently large in absolute value, that for all $\sigma$ one has $$|\, \text{tr}(M)\,| \ge |\, \sigma(\,\text{tr}(M)\,)\,|\,.$$ Then for all $$A = \begin{pmatrix} a_{11}&a_{12}\\a_{21}&a_{22}\end{pmatrix} \in \Gamma\,,$$ and for all $\sigma$ and for all $1 \le i,j \le 2$, one has $$|\, a_{ij}\,| \ge c_1 \, |\, \sigma(\,a_{ij}\,)\,|\; \mbox{if}\;\; i \neq j$$ $$\mbox{and }\; |\,a_{ii}\,| \ge c_{1}^{2} \; |\, \sigma(\,a_{ii}\,)\,|\;\; \,.$$
For ease of notation, let $P = \begin{pmatrix} 1&\lambda\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}$. Let $A \in \Gamma$ be arbitrary. The trace of $P^n A$ is $a_{11} + a_{22} + n \lambda a_{21}$; thus, either $a_{21} = 0$, or upon letting $n$ tend to infinity this trace is eventually large in absolute value. Thus, we find that $a_{21}$ is at least $c_1$ times the absolute value of any of its conjugates. Considering $A P^n$ similarly gives that $a_{12}$ is at least $c_1$ times the absolute value of any of its conjugates.
Now, the $(1,2)$-element of $A P^n$ is $n a_{11} \lambda + a_{12}$ and as we considering arbitrary elements in $\Gamma$ above, this must be at least $c_1$ times the absolute value of any of its conjugates. We thus find that $|\,a_{11}\,| \ge c_{1}^{2} \; |\, \sigma(\,a_{11}\,)\,|$. Replacing $A$ by $A^{-1}$ shows that also $a_{22}$ has this property.
We now prove the announced main result stating that each component of any saddle connection vector of a Veech surface is appropriately larger than any of its conjugates.
(of Theorem \[l:holVectorEntries\])A translation surface has only finitely many singularities, and hence only finitely many saddle connection vectors in any given direction. Since $S$ is a Veech surface we have both that each non-zero holonomy vector lies in some parabolic direction and that there are only finitely many $\Gamma$-orbits of parabolic directions. We choose a representative direction from each of these orbits, and let $\mathcal V$ be the set of all saddle connection vectors in these chosen directions.
Since $S$ is in standard form, the (positively oriented) horizontal is certainly a parabolic direction for $S$. In particular, $\Gamma$ has an element of the form $\begin{pmatrix} 1&\lambda\\ 0&1\end{pmatrix}$; but since $S$ is a Veech surface, also the traces of hyperbolic elements in $\Gamma$ dominate their conjugates, and thus Lemma \[l:bigElmts\] holds. We also can and do assume that in the above construction of $\mathcal V$, that the horizontal direction is chosen to represent its $\Gamma$-orbit.
Let $c' = \min \{ |\, \sigma(\, v_i )\,|/ |\, v_i \,|\,\}\,$, with the minimum taken over all horizontal $v \in \mathcal V$, , $i \in \{1,2\}$, and embeddings $\sigma$. For $v \in \mathcal V$, there is $P \in \Gamma$ such that $P v = v$. Since $P$ is upper diagonalizable, we can find some vector $w$ such that $Pw = v + w$. We can then express $e_1 = \alpha v + \beta w$ for some real number $\alpha, \beta$, with $\beta \neq 0$ when $v$ is non-horizontal. Note that since $Pe_1 = e_1 + \beta v$ and $P \in \Gamma$, we must have that $\beta \in \mathbb K$. Choosing such a $w$ for each $v\in \mathcal V$, let $c'' = \min \{ |\, \sigma(\, \beta )\,|/ |\, \beta \,|\,\}\,$, over all non-horizontal $v \in \mathcal V$, and embeddings $\sigma$. Finally, set $c= c''' \, c_{1}^{2}$ with $c''' = \min\{c', c''\}$.
Now, if $h$ is an arbitrary saddle connection vector of $S$, then there exists some $A \in \Gamma$ and $v \in \mathcal V$ such that $h = Av$. If $v = \alpha e_1$ is horizontal, then $h$ is the multiple by $\alpha$ of the first column of $A$. Our result clearly holds in this case. Otherwise, with notation as above, induction gives $P^n e_1 = e_1 + n \beta v$, and thus $AP^n e_1 = Ae_1 + n \beta h$. The left hand side is the first column of an element of $\Gamma$, thus our standard argument allows us to conclude that each of $\beta h_i$ with $i=1,2$ is greater in absolute value than $c_{1}^{2}$ times any of its conjugates. Here also we find that each of $h_i$ is greater in absolute value than $c$ times any of its conjugates.
Finally, by the finiteness of $\mathcal V$ one easily verifies that $c$ may be taken to depend only on $S$.
We now can bound the heights of the saddle connection approximants.
\[l:heightBd\] Fix a Veech surface $S$ in standard form, with trace field $\mathbb K$. Let $D$ denote the field extension degree $[\mathbb K:\mathbb Q\,]\,$. There exists a constant $c_2 = c_2(S)$ such that for all $x \in [0,1]$ of infinite $\text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$-expansion $(p_n/q_n)_{n\ge 1}\,$, $$H(p_n/q_n) \le c_2 q_n^D.$$
There is a positive integer $m$ depending only on $S$ such that $m v \in \mathcal O_{K}^{2}$ for all $v \in \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$. Writing $(p_n, q_n) = (\alpha/m, \beta/m)$ with $\alpha, \beta \in \mathcal O_K$, Equation gives $h(p_n/q_n) \le \log m + \frac{1}{D}\sum_{\sigma} \, \log^{+} \max\{| \sigma( p_n)|, | \sigma( q_n)|\,\}$. With $c$ as in Theorem \[l:holVectorEntries\] we find $h(p_n/q_n) \le \log c \,m + \log \max\{ |p_n |, q_n\,\} \le \log c' c\, m + \log q_n$ for $c'$ depending only on $S$. Now, Equation implies the result.
Transcendence with $Z$-fractions {#s:trans}
================================
We prove our transcendance result in the traditional manner: by showing that the sequence of denominators of convergents to an algebraic number cannot grow too quickly. The ingredients are the result of Roth–LeVeque and the convergence bound with a denominator of $q_{n}q_{n+1}$.
(of Theorem \[t:transc\] ) Let $\eps$ be a positive real number. Let $\zeta$ be an algebraic number having an infinite $Z= \text{V}_{\text{sc}}(S)$-expansion with convergents $r_n / s_n$.
By the Roth–LeVeque Theorem \[t:Lev\], we have $$|\zeta - r_n / s_n| \gg H(r_n / s_n)^{- 2 - \eps}, \quad \hbox{for $n \ge 1$}.$$ And, hence by Lemma \[l:heightBd\], for $n \ge 1$, we have $|\zeta - r_n / s_n| \gg s_n^{- 2D - D \eps}\,$.
The key to the proof is provided by applying Lemma \[l:convergencePlus\] and thus finding that there exists a constant $c_3$ (independent of $n$) such that $$s_{n+1} < c_3 s_n^{2D - 1 + D \eps}\,.$$
Thereafter, standard manipulations, as in the proof of Theorem 1.1 of [@BHS] give the result.
[99]{}
P. Arnoux and P. Hubert, [*Fractions continues sur les surfaces de Veech*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 81 (2000), 35–64.
P. Arnoux and T. A. Schmidt, [*Veech surfaces with non-periodic directions in the trace field*]{}, J. Mod. Dyn. 3 (2009), no. 4, 611–629.
K. Ball, [*An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry*]{}, in: Flavors of geometry, volume MSRI Publ. 31. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997. http://www.msri.org/ publications/books/Book31/files/ball.pdf.
Y. Bugeaud, [*Approximation by algebraic numbers*]{}, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 160. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
Y. Bugeaud, P. Hubert and T. Schmidt, [*Transcendence with Rosen continued fractions*]{}, preprint (2010): arXiv:1007.2050.
K. Calta and J. Smillie, [*Algebraically periodic translation surfaces*]{}, J. Mod. Dyn. 2 (2008), no. 2, 209–248.
Y. Cheung, [*Hausdorff dimension of the set of singular pairs*]{} Ann. Math., to appear.
Y. Cheung, P. Hubert, and H. Masur, [*Dichotomy for the Hausdorff dimension of the set of nonergodic directions*]{}, Inventiones, 47 pp. (2010) published on-line: DOI: 10.1007/s00222-010-0279-2
P. Cohen and J. Wolfart, [*Modular embeddings for some nonarithmetic Fuchsian groups*]{}, Acta Arith. 56 (1990), no. 2, 93–110.
A. Eskin, H. Masur, and A. Zorich, [*Moduli spaces of abelian differentials: the principal boundary, counting problems, and the Siegel-Veech constants*]{}, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ƒtudes Sci. No. 97 (2003), 61–179.
E. Gutkin and C. Judge, [*Affine mappings of translation surfaces: geometry and arithmetic*]{}, Duke Math. J, 103 (2000) pp. 191–213.
P. Hubert and E. Lanneau, [*Veech groups without parabolic elements*]{}, Duke Math. J. 133 (2006), no. 2, 335–346.
R. Kenyon and J. Smillie, [*Billiards in rational-angled triangles*]{}, Comment. Mathem. Helv. **75** (2000), 65–108.
W. J. LeVeque, [ *Topics in number theory, Vols. 1 and 2*]{}. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, Mass., 1956.
H. Masur and S. Tabachnikov, [*Rational billiards and flat structures*]{}, in: Handbook of dynamical systems, Vol. 1A, pp. 1015–1089, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
M. Möller, [*Variations of Hodge structures of a Teichmüller curve*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (2006), no. 2, 327–344
D. Rosen, *A class of continued fractions associated with certain properly discontinuous groups*, Duke Math. J. [**21**]{} (1954), 549–563.
K. F. Roth, [*Rational approximations to algebraic numbers*]{}, Mathematika 2 (1955) 1–20; corrigendum 168.
P. Schmutz Schaller and J. Wolfart, [*Semi-arithmetic Fuchsian groups and modular embeddings*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 61 (2000), no. 1, 13–24.
J. Smillie and C. Ulcigrai, [*Beyond Sturmian sequences: coding linear trajectories in the regular octagon*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc., 2010 (published online: doi: 10.1112/plms/pdq018)
, [*Geodesic flow on the Teichmüller disk of the regular octagon, cutting sequences and octagon continued fractions maps*]{}, Trans. AMS, to appear.
W.A. Veech,[*Gauss measures for transformations on the space of interval exchange maps*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2), vol. 115 (1982), 201–242.
, [*Teichmüller curves in modular space, Eisenstein series, and an application to triangular billiards*]{}, Inv. Math. 97 (1989), 553 – 583.
, [*Geometric realizations of hyperelliptic curves. Algorithms, fractals, and dynamics*]{}, (Okayama/Kyoto, 1992), 217–226, Plenum, New York, 1995.
Ya. B. Vorobets [*Plane structures and billiards in rational polyhedra: the Veech alternative (Russian)*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 51 (1996), 3–42; translation in Russian Math. Surveys 51:5 (1996), 779–817.
M. Waldschmidt, [*Diophantine Approximation on Linear Algebraic Groups. Transcendence properties of the exponential function in several variables*]{}. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 326. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
A. Zorich, [*Flat surfaces*]{}, in: Frontiers in number theory, physics, and geometry. I, 437–583, Springer, Berlin, 2006.
[^1]: The first author is partially supported by Projet blanc ANR: ANR-06-BLAN-0038. Both authors thank the Hausdorff Research Institute for Mathematics, and the organizers of the special trimester on the geometry and dynamics of Teichmüller space for providing a very stimulating atmosphere.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that the problem of deciding whether a $2$- or $3$-dimensional simplicial complex embeds into $\mathbb{R}^3$ is [**NP**]{}-hard. Our construction also shows that deciding whether a $3$-manifold with boundary tori admits an $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ filling is [**NP**]{}-hard. The former stands in contrast with the lower dimensional cases which can be solved in linear time, and the latter with a variety of computational problems in $3$-manifold topology (for example, unknot or $3$-sphere recognition, which are in $ {\textbf{NP}}\cap \hbox{co-}{\textbf{NP}}$ assuming the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis). Our reduction encodes a satisfiability instance into the embeddability problem of a $3$-manifold with boundary tori, and relies extensively on techniques from low-dimensional topology, most importantly Dehn fillings on link complements.'
author:
- Arnaud de Mesmay
- 'Yo’av Rieck'
- Eric Sedgwick
- Martin Tancer
bibliography:
- 'e3hard.bib'
title: 'Embeddability in $\R^3$ is NP-hard[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
For integers $d \geq k \geq 1$, let $\textsc{Embed}_{k\rightarrow d}$ be the algorithmic problem of determining whether a given $k$-dimensional simplicial complex[^2] embeds piecewise-linearly in $\mathbb{R}^d$. This problem generalizes graph planarity, which corresponds to $k=1$ and $d=2$ and can be solved in linear time (see [@p-pte-16]). The case $k=d=2$ is also known to be decidable in linear time using similar techniques [@gr-ltpa2c-79]. In the past years, several results have appeared studying the computational complexity of $\textsc{Embed}_{k\rightarrow d}$ for higher values of $k$ and $d$, exhibiting very different behaviors depending on the relative values of $k$ and $d$. In dimension $d \geq 4$, the problem is polynomial-time decidable for $k <
(2d-2)/3$ [@ckv-aslep-17] (building on [@ckmsvw-camis-14; @ckmvw-ptchgp-14; @kms-pthsem-13]). In these polynomial cases, known geometric tools (e.g. the Whitney trick and the Haefliger-Weber theorem) allow to reduce the problem of embeddability to purely homotopy-theoretical questions, which are then solved using techniques of *computational homotopy theory*. However, the Haefliger-Weber theorem generally requires a high codimension to be executed, which typically fails for low values of $d$. In the remaining cases in dimension $d \geq 4$, that is, when $k \geq (2d-2)/3$, the problem is [**NP**]{}-hard [@mtw-hescr-11]. Decidability is not known for these [**NP**]{}-hard cases, except for $d \geq 5$ and $k=d$ or $d-1$, which are known to be undecidable. The cases $d=3$ and $k=2,3$ were the first intriguing gaps left by these results, and the corresponding problems $\textsc{Embed}_{2\rightarrow 3}$ and $\textsc{Embed}_{3\rightarrow 3}$ were recently proved to be decidable by Matoušek, Sedgwick, Tancer and Wagner [@mstw-e3sd-14] using an entirely different set of tools than the other cases. Indeed, they rely extensively on techniques developed specifically to study the topology of knots and $3$-manifolds, and in particular on *normal surface theory*.
Normal surfaces are a ubiquitous tool to solve decision problems in $3$-dimensional topology, and are used in most decision algorithms in that realm (see for example Matveev [@m-atc3m-03]). However, algorithms relying on normal surfaces generally proceed by enumerating big solution spaces to find “interesting” surfaces, which makes most of them remarkably inefficient (at least theoretically), with upper bounds on the runtimes ranging from singly exponential, for example for unknot recognition [@hlp-ccklp-99], to merely elementary recursive for $3$-manifold homeomorphism [@k-ah3mcg-15]. The aforementioned algorithm of Matoušek, Sedgwick, Tancer and Wagner for $\textsc{Embed}_{2\rightarrow 3}$ is no exception, proving a bound on the runtime that is at least an iterated exponential tower. For some problems, this inefficiency is somewhat justified by hardness results: this has been an active area of research in recent years [@aht-cckgs-06; @bcm-cins-16; @bds-chgnph-16; @bmw-fnos3m-17; @bs-cdtast-13; @l-chpl3m-16]. In particular, Burton, de Mesmay and Wagner [@bmw-fnos3m-17] have shown that the embeddability of non-orientable surfaces into $3$-manifolds is [**NP**]{}-hard (when the $3$-manifold is part of the input). In their reduction, most of the complexity is encoded in the target $3$-manifold, as is the case for most of the [**NP**]{}-hardness results in $3$-manifold theory (except for two recent hardness results on classical links by Lackenby [@l-chpl3m-16]). Furthermore, two of the most iconic $3$-dimensional problems revolving around $\mathbb{S}^3$ or submanifolds thereof, unknot and $3$-sphere recognition, are expected *not* to be [**NP**]{}-hard since they are both in [**NP**]{} [@hlp-ccklp-99; @i-r3s-01; @s-srlnp-11] and co-[**NP**]{} [@l-ecktn-16; @z-ih3sai-16] (note that the co-[**NP**]{} membership for $3$-sphere recognition assumes the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis). This could give the impression that $\mathbb{S}^3$ occupies a particular position in this computational landscape, where problems tend to be easier than in the general case.
#### Our results. {#our-results. .unnumbered}
In this article, we undermine this idea by proving that testing embeddability into $\mathbb{R}^3$ is [**NP**]{}-hard. Precisely, we prove [**NP**]{}-hardness of $\textsc{Embed}_{2\rightarrow 3}$ and $\textsc{Embed}_{3\rightarrow 3}$, as well as for $\textsc{$3$-Manifold Embeds in $\mathbb{R}^3$}$, the restriction of $\textsc{Embed}_{3\rightarrow 3}$ when the domain is a $3$-manifold and the range is $\mathbb{R}^3$.
\[T:main\] The following problems are all [**NP**]{}-hard: $\textsc{Embed}_{2\rightarrow 3}$, $\textsc{Embed}_{3\rightarrow 3}$, and $\textsc{3-Manifold Embeds in $\mathbb{R}^3$}$.
We observe that $\textsc{Embed}_{3\rightarrow 3}$ reduces to $\textsc{Embed}_{2\rightarrow 3}$ following the algorithm described in [@mstw-e3sd-14 Section 12], and that $\textsc{Embed}_{3\rightarrow 3}$ contains $\textsc{3-Manifold Embeds
in $\mathbb{R}^3$}$, so in order to prove Theorem \[T:main\], it is enough to prove that $\textsc{3-Manifold Embeds in $\mathbb{R}^3$}$ is [**NP**]{}-hard. Since embeddability in $\mathbb{R}^3$ is equivalent to embeddability in $\mathbb{S}^3$ (unless the input complex is $\mathbb{S}^3$, which will never be the case in our reduction), we will work throughout the paper with $\mathbb{S}^3$ instead of $\mathbb{R}^3$.
In fact we get more. On the one hand, we only need to consider embeddings of complexes that are connected orientable 3-manifolds whose boundaries consists of tori (which are often seen as “simpler” than 3-manifolds with arbitrary boundary, let alone general complexes), and on the other hand, we may replace $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ and consider embeddings into any fixed triangulated closed irreducible orientable 3-manifold $M$ admitting no essential torus (these terms are defined in the next section). i These 3-manifolds include all closed orientable *hyperbolic *3-manifolds, a family that is of great interest. We state this here as a corollary, and provide the proof in the last section, Section \[section:ProofOfCorollary\]:**
\[corollary\] Let $M$ be a triangulated closed orientable irreducible and atoroidal 3-manifold and let $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tor}}$ be the set of triangulated connected orientable 3-manifolds whose boundaries consists of a (possibly empty) collection of tori. Then the decision problem:
> Given $N \in \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tor}}$, does $N$ embed in $M$?
is [**NP**]{}-hard.
#### Outline and techniques. {#outline-and-techniques. .unnumbered}
The idea of the proof of Theorem \[T:main\] is to work with 3-manifolds with boundary tori, such as complements of $1$-manifolds in $\mathbb{S}^3$, i.e., knot and link complements. By the Fox Re-embedding Theorem [@fox], if such a 3-manifold $M$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$, then there exists an embedding where $\overline{\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus M}$ is a collection of solid tori.[^3] The process of filling a torus boundary with a solid torus is called a *Dehn filling*, and thus, deciding whether these 3-manifolds embed in $\mathbb{S}^3$ amounts to understanding whether one can obtain $\mathbb{S}^3$ with a good choice of Dehn fillings. By a celebrated theorem of Gordon and Luecke [@gordon-luecke], the situation is very constrained when considering knot complements, since they prove that the only Dehn filling on a nontrivial knot in $\mathbb{S}^3$ yielding $\mathbb{S}^3$ is the trivial one. This was used by Jaco and Sedgwick [@js-dpsdf-03] to provide an algorithm to recognize knot complements, which is equivalent to testing the embeddability of a $3$-manifold with a single torus boundary into $\mathbb{S}^3$.**
By contrast, the situation is far richer for link complements, because one can easily produce links where distinct Dehn fillings all give $\mathbb{S}^3$ (see [@RieckYamashita] for a variety of examples and an attempt at constraining such fillings). Our hardness proof leverages this complexity, by encoding a SAT instance within a link with non-trivial Dehn fillings already carried out on some of its components, yielding a $3$-manifold $M$, such that the instance is satisfiable if and only if $M$ is embeddable in $\mathbb{S}^3$. The idea behind our reduction is rather simple, and we present a simplified version of it as a warm-up at the start of Section \[S:reduction\], but proving that it works, and in particular that there are no *accidental *embeddings into $\mathbb{S}^3$, requires significant work, relying on multiple prior results on Dehn fillings [@cgls; @scharlemannDiskSphere], cable spaces [@gordon-litherland] and knotted handlebodies (see, for example, [@i-tgthku-12] for a discussion).**
Preliminaries
=============
In these preliminaries, we introduce most of the notions that we will use, but in the rest of the paper, especially Sections \[S:otherdirection\] and \[sec:VxLxBoundaryIrreducible\], we assume some familiarity with knot theory and $3$-manifold topology. Good references for these are Rolfsen [@Ro90] and Schultens [@s-it3m-14].
Dehn surgery on knots and links
-------------------------------
In our exposition we mainly follow [@Ro90]. We work in the PL category. By *3-manifold *we mean compact connected orientable $3$-dimensional manifold. A 3-manifold is called *closed *if its boundary is empty. We use standard notation: $\partial$, $\mathrm{int}$, and $N$ stand for boundary, interior, and (closed) normal neighborhood, respectively. The closure of a set $X$ is denoted $\overline{X}$. We write $\mathbb{S}^{n}$ for the $n$-sphere and $\mathbb{D}^{2}$ for the closed 2-disk. By *sphere *we mean $\mathbb{S}^{2}$. We always assume general position. When considering homology we always use integral coefficients, that is, by $H_{1}(X)$ we mean $H_{1}(X;\mathbb{Z})$.******
#### Compressions and reductions.
A curve embedded in a surface $F$ is a connected $1$-manifold embedded in $F$, which is either a *loop *(if it is closed) or an *arc *with two endpoints on $\partial F$. A curve is *inessential *if it is a loop bounding a disk or an arc cobounding a disk with some arc in $\partial F$, *essential *otherwise.********
A sphere $S$ in a $3$-manifold $M$ is a *reducing sphere *if $S$ does not bound a ball in $M$. A $3$-manifold without reducing spheres is called *irreducible*. Let $F$ be a surface properly embedded in $M$ or embedded in $\partial M$. A *compressing disk *for $F$ is an embedded disk $D
\subseteq M$ whose interior is disjoint from $F$ and whose boundary is an essential loop in $F$. A *boundary compressing disk *is an embedded disk $D \subseteq M$ whose interior is disjoint from $F \cup \partial M$, and whose boundary $\partial D=f \cup x$ is the union of two arcs, where $f=\partial D \cap F=D \cap F$ is an essential arc properly embedded in $F$, and $x=\partial D \cap \partial M= D
\cap \partial M \subset \partial M$. A surface is *compressible *if it has a compressing disk or is a $2$-sphere bounding a ball, *boundary compressible *if it has a boundary compressing disk or is a disk cobounding a ball with a disk in $\partial M$, and *incompressible *and *boundary incompressible *otherwise. A surface $F \subseteq M$ is *boundary parallel *if it is separating and a component of $M \setminus F$ is homeomorphic to $F \times I$ with $F$ corresponding to $F \times \{0\}$ (here $I=[0,1]$). Finally, a surface is *essential *if it is incompressible, boundary incompressible and not boundary parallel. A $3$-manifold $M$ is *boundary irreducible *if its boundary is incompressible.**********************
#### The solid torus and genus 2 handlebody.
The solid torus is $\mathbb{D}^{2} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}$. Since it plays a key role in our game we mention a few facts about it here. The isotopy class[^4] of a curve $\{\mathrm{pt}\} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}$ is called the *core *of the solid torus. The disk $\mathbb{D}^{2} \times \{\mathrm{pt}\}$ is called the *meridian disk *of $\mathbb{D}^{2} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}$. The isotopy class of boundary of the meridian disk in the boundary of the solid torus, $\mathbb{S}^{1} \times \{\mathrm{pt}\} \subset \partial \mathbb{D}^{2} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}$, is called the *meridian *of the solid torus. We emphasize that we consider the meridian as a curve in the boundary torus and *not *in the solid torus. The boundary of the solid torus is, of course, a torus, and the homology class of the meridian disk generates the kernel of the homomorphism $H_{1}(\partial \mathbb{D}^{2} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}) (\cong \mathbb{Z}^{2})
\to H_{1}(\mathbb{D}^{2} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}) (\cong \mathbb{Z})$ induced by the inclusion.********
Note that if $\gamma$ is a circle embedded in a 3-manifold then $N(\gamma)$ is a solid torus (recall that we only consider orientable 3-manifolds). Similarly, if $A$ is an annulus or a Möbius band embedded in a 3-manifold then $N(A)$ is a solid torus. If $\gamma$ is the wedge of two circles (that is, the union of two circles whose intersection is exactly one point) embedded in a 3-manifold, we call $N(\gamma)$ the *genus 2 handlebody. *It is easy to see that the genus $2$ handlebody is well defined, that is, the homeomorphism type of $N(\gamma)$ does not depend on the choices made. In fact, the genus 2 handlebody is homeomorphic to the 3-manifolds obtained by gluing two solid tori along a disk in their boundaries.**
#### Knots and links.
By a *knot* $\kappa$ in a 3-manifold $M$ (typically $M = \mathbb{S}^{3}$) we mean an isotopy class of an embedding $\kappa:\mathbb{S}^{1} \to M$; as is customary we identify a knot with its image, and write $\kappa \subset M$ for $\kappa(\mathbb{S}^{1}) \subset M$ and $N(\kappa)$ for a regular neighborhood of $\kappa$ (that is, $N(\kappa)$ is a solid torus embedded in $M$ and $\kappa$ is its core). A knot $\kappa \subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$ is the *unknot* if $\kappa$ is the boundary of an embedded disk in $\mathbb{S}^3$. A *link* $L$ is a collection of pairwise disjoint knots, called the *components *of $L$. Links are considered up to isotopy during which the components are required to remain pairwise disjoint. A link $L$ is *split* if there is an embedded $2$-sphere disjoint from $L$, called a *splitting sphere*, separating some components from others. If there is a splitting sphere for $\kappa_{1} \sqcup \kappa_{2}$ separating the two components we say that they are *unlinked*, *linked* otherwise. An *unlink* is a link in which every component can be split form all remaining components and every component is unknotted (that is, there exists disjointly embedded balls so that each component is an unknot contained in its own ball). The *exterior *of a link $L \subset M$ is $E(L) := \overline{M \setminus \mathrm{int}N(L)}$.****
We view $ \mathbb{S}^{3}$ as $\mathbb{R}^{3} \cup \{\infty\}$. A *link diagram* for a link $L \subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$ is a projection of $L$ to the plane ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ induced by $(x,y,z) \to (x,y)$ such that $\infty \not\in L$, every point $(x,y) \in {{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ has at most two preimages on the link, and furthermore, whenever $(x,y)$ has two preimages, they correspond to a transversal crossing at $(x,y)$ of two subcurves of the link. These conditions are satisfied if $L$ is in general position. A point with two preimages is called a *crossing*, and we mark which subcurve passes over and which under. Note that a link diagram determines a unique link in $\mathbb{S}^3$. We will exploit this: in order to construct a link in $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ we will construct, directly, its diagram.**
#### Dehn filling and Dehn surgery.
We now explain the concept of *Dehn filling*, and the closely related concept of *Dehn surgery*. Later on, in Section \[S:otherdirection\], we will show that these two concepts control embeddability into $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ in our setting, and for that reason they are central to our work. Let $M$ be a 3-manifold and $T \subset \partial M$ a torus.****
By *Dehn filling *$T$ we mean attaching a solid torus $\mathbb{D}^{2} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}$ to $T$. (Note that the boundary of the resulting manifold is $\partial M
\setminus T$.) However, the result of Dehn filling is not uniquely determined by $M$ and $T$, as it depends on the choice of attachment (that is, the choice of homeomorphism $\partial (\mathbb{D}^{2} \times \mathbb{S}^{1}) \to T$); see Figure \[f:slope\]. It can be shown[^5] that up to homeomorphism the resulting 3-manifold is determined by the homology class $r$ of the image of the meridian of the attached solid torus in $H_{1}(T)$; such a class is called a *slope *of $T$. Then by $M(r)$ we denote the result of Dehn filling $T$ along the slope $r$.****
Formally, a *slope *of $T$ is an element of $H_{1}(T)$ that is represented by an embedded circle in $T$. (Algebraically, slopes can be characterized as the *primitive *elements of $H_{1}(T)$, that is, elements that together with one other element generate $H_{1}(T)$.) When the manifold $M$ is $\mathbb{S}^3$, we can parameterize these slopes by rational numbers, this will be explained below.****
![Dehn filling: The meridian of the solid torus $\mathbb{D}^{2} \times
\mathbb{S}^{1}$ is glued to a (representative of a) slope $r$ in $T$.[]{data-label="f:slope"}](slope_Dehn_filling)
A *Dehn surgery *on a knot $\kappa \subset M$ is Dehn filling on the component $\partial N(\kappa)$ of the $\partial E(\kappa)$. Note that since $\partial M$ may not be empty, $\partial E(\kappa)$ may have other components; by Dehn surgery on $\kappa$ we mean Dehn filling, specifically, the component of $\partial E(\kappa)$ that corresponds to $\kappa$, that is, $\partial E(\kappa) \setminus \partial M$. Dehn surgery on $\kappa$ is determined by a choice of slope on $\partial N(\kappa)$. As is customary we refer to this slope as a *slope of *$\kappa$.****
\[example:DehnFillingSolidTorus\] Let $M \cong \mathbb{S}^{1} \times
\mathbb{D}^{2}$ be the solid torus. We consider the manifolds $M(r)$ obtained by filling the slope $r$ in the boundary of $M$. By definition, these are exactly the manifolds that can be obtained as the union of two solid tori. An easy calculation (see, for example, [@hatcher02 Example 2.43]) shows that the manifold $M(r)$ resulting from filling has homology group $H_{1}(M(r)) \cong \mathbb{Z}_{|r|}$, where $|r|$ is the minimal number of times the boundary of the meridian disk of the attached solid torus meets the boundary of the meridian disk of the solid torus $M$. Moreover, $M(r) \cong \mathbb{S}^3$ if and only if $|r|=1$. This simple example shows that by changing the slope $r$ we can change the homology $H_1(M(r))$ and thus obtain infinitely many distinct manifolds as $M(r)$ (in fact this is always the case). On the other hand, since there are infinitely many slopes that satisfy $|r| = 1$ the same manifold (in this case $\mathbb{S}^3$) can be obtained infinitely many times as $M(r)$ (in fact, this is almost never the case and obtaining the same manifold more than once is an interesting question that is not fully understood).
#### Parametrization of slopes.
While the concept of Dehn surgery is more general, for our purposes, it is sufficient to consider only surgery on a link $L \subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$, or a link $L \subset M$, where $M$ is a 3-manifold embedded in $\mathbb{S}^3$. Since every component $\kappa$ of $L$ is a knot in $\mathbb{S}^{3}$, it has two distinguished slopes called the *meridian *and *longitude*, which intersect once and together form a basis for $H_{1}(\partial N(\kappa))$. The *meridian *is the unique essential simple closed curve in $\partial N(\kappa)$ (up to isotopy) that bounds a disk in the solid torus $N(\kappa)$. Surgery along this slope does not change the 3-manifold: we reattach $N(\kappa)$ exactly as it was prior to removing it. The *longitude *is the unique essential simple closed curve in $\partial N(\kappa)$ (up to isotopy) that bounds an orientable surface in the exterior of the knot $E(\kappa) = \mathbb{S}^3 \setminus \operatorname{int}N(\kappa)$. In this paper each component of our link is an unknot and, in that case, this surface can always be taken to be the disk bounded by the knot (which is allowed to meet other components of the link in its interior).********
Having the homology classes of the meridian and longitude in hand we may write them as $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$, respectively. This gives a concrete identification of $H_{1}(\partial N(\kappa))$ with $\mathbb{Z}^{2}$.[^6]
The slopes of $\partial N(\kappa)$ are represented by embedded circles. An element $(q,p) \in \mathbb{Z}^{2}$ represents an embedded circle if and only if $q$ and $p$ are relatively prime. Finally, we note that $(q,p)$ and $(-q,-p)$ represent the same curve and hence the same slope. It is therefore natural to identify slopes on $\partial N(\kappa)$ with $$\textit{slopes} = \mathbb{Q} \cup \{1/0\}$$ by identifying $(q,p)$ with $p/q$. Note that under this identification the meridian is identified with $1/0$ and the longitude with $0/1$.
#### Dehn surgery on a link with coefficients.
With the above parameterization for slopes, we are now prepared to introduce our principal notation for a 3-manifold obtained by Dehn surgery on a link in a sub-manifold of $\mathbb{S}^3$. For examples, see Figure \[f:simplified\_example\], where $M = \mathbb{S}^3$. Each component of the link will be labeled with a *surgery coefficient, *an instruction for Dehn surgery. In addition to slopes of $\kappa$ we allow the surgery coefficient of $\kappa$ to be $\emptyset$. We define surgery on $\kappa$ with coefficient $\emptyset$ to be $E(\kappa)$, and call this process *drilling $\kappa$ out*. Thus, we may identify all possible coefficients with****
$$\mathit{coefficients} = \mathbb Q \cup \{\emptyset, 1/0\}.$$
We summarize this construction and the notation we will use (often with $M=\mathbb{S}^3$).
By a *link with surgery coefficients *(in $\mathbb{S}^3$) we mean a link $L \subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$ for which each component $\kappa$ is labeled with a slope $r_\kappa \in \mathbb Q \cup \{\emptyset, 1/0\}$. We emphasize that the notation $L$ means the link including the coefficients. Then $M(L)$, the 3-manifold obtained by Dehn surgery on $L$ along the given slopes, is defined in the following way:**
1. If $r_{\kappa} = \emptyset$, we drill $\kappa$ out.
2. If $r_{\kappa} \in \mathbb Q \cup \{1/0\}$, we perform a Dehn surgery with coefficient $r_{\kappa}$.
It is interesting to note that a result of Lickorish [@lickorish; @Ro90] states that every closed orientable 3-manifold has a description of this form, that is, it can be written as $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$ for some link $L \subset \mathbb{S}^3$ with surgery coefficients.
\[example:lensspace\] Consider the unknot $\kappa \subset \mathbb{S}^3$ with surgery coefficient $p/q$.
Note that the exterior of the unknot $E(\kappa)$ is a solid torus. Thus $\mathbb{S}^3(\kappa)$ is the union of two solid tori; or, as described in Example \[example:DehnFillingSolidTorus\], is a manifold $M(r)$ obtained by performing Dehn filling on the solid torus $M=E(\kappa)$. As in that example, $\mathbb{S}^3(\kappa)$ has homology $H_{1}(\mathbb{S}^{3}(\kappa))
\cong \mathbb Z_{|r|}$ where $|r|$ is the minimal number of times the boundary of the meridian disk of the attached solid torus (slope $p/q$) meets the longitude of $\kappa$ (slope $0/1$). Since that intersection number is $|p|$, $\mathbb{S}^{3}(\kappa)$ has homology $H_{1}(\mathbb{S}^{3}(\kappa))
\cong \mathbb{Z}_{|p|}$. Moreover, $\mathbb{S}^{3}(\kappa) \cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$ if and only if the two meridians intersect minimally exactly once, i.e. if and only if $|p| = 1$.
#### Modifications of a link with surgery coefficients.
We will utilize two operations on a link $L$, given by Propositions \[p:delete10\] and \[p:simple\_twist\] below, so that the resulting link $L'$ describes a surgered 3-manifold homeomorphic to the original, that is $\mathbb{S}^3(L') \cong \mathbb{S}^3(L)$. (In fact, these operations are sufficient: the links $L$ and $L'$ describe the same 3-manifold $\mathbb{S}^3(L') \cong \mathbb{S}^3(L)$ only when $L$ and $L'$ are related by a sequence of these operations. This is the topic of the Kirby calculus [@kirby]).
In order to state these operations, we first define the linking number of two knots $\iota$ and $\kappa$:[^7] From now on we assume that $\mathbb{S}^3$ is equipped with a fixed orientation. We also assume that $\iota$ and $\kappa$ are oriented. Considering a link diagram for $\iota \cup \kappa$ we consider all crossings where $\iota$ passes under $\kappa$ and we assign them with $1$ or $-1$ according to the figure below.
The *linking number* $\operatorname{lk}(\iota,\kappa)$ is then the sum of these assigned values. It turns out that the value in the definition is independent of the choice of the projection for obtaining the link diagram. It also turns out that $\operatorname{lk}(\iota,\kappa)
= \operatorname{lk}(\kappa,\iota)$. Note that a pair of knots can have linking number zero yet not be unlinked.
In [@Ro90 9.H] Rolfsen describes a general recipe how to modify a link $L$ with surgery coefficients into a link $L'$ with (possibly different) surgery coefficients such that $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}^3(L')$ (see namely Proposition 2 in [@Ro90 9.H]). We have already noted that removing (hence adding) components with coefficient $1/0$ does not change the 3-manifold obtained by surgery:
\[p:delete10\] Let $L \subset \mathbb{S}^3$ be a link with surgery coefficients, and $L' = L \cup \kappa$, where $\kappa$ is any knot with surgery coefficient $1/0$. Then $\mathbb{S}^3(L')$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$.
For the second operation, we need the following definition. Suppose one component, say $\kappa_1$ of a link $L=\kappa_1 \cup \kappa_2 \cup \ldots \cup
\kappa_s$, is unknotted, and let $D$ be a disk that it bounds. Let $t$ be an integer. The link $L_t$ obtained by *twisting $t$ times about $\kappa_1$* is the link obtained by replacing locally the arcs of $\kappa_2, \ldots, \kappa_s$ going through $D$ by $t$ helices which screw through a collar of $D$ in the right hand sense; see Figure \[f:twisting\]. (If $t$ is negative, we have $|t|$ helices in the left hand sense.)
![Twisting once about an unknot.[]{data-label="f:twisting"}](twisting){width="9cm"}
\[p:simple\_twist\] Let $L = \kappa_1 \cup \kappa_2 \cup \cdots \cup \kappa_s$ be a link with surgery coefficients $r_1, r_2, \dots, r_s$, where $s \geq 2$ and $r_1 \neq \emptyset$ and where $\kappa_1$ is an unknot.[^8]
Let $t$ be an integer parameter, and let $L_t = \kappa_1 \cup \kappa_2' \cdots \cup
\cdots \kappa_s'$ be the link obtained by twisting $t$ times about $\kappa_1$ with surgery coefficients $r'_1, r'_2, \dots, r'_s$, where $r_{i}' = \emptyset$ whenever $r_{i} = \emptyset$, and otherwise $r_{i}'$ is given by
$$r'_i =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{t+1/r_1} & \quad \text{if } i = 1;\\
r_i + t (\operatorname{lk}(\kappa_i,\kappa_1))^2 & \quad \text{if } i>1;\\
\end{cases}$$ Then $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}^3(L')$. (Note, in particular, that $r'_1 = 0$ if $r_1 = 0$, $r'_1 = 1/t$ if $r_1 = 1/0$, and $r'_1 = 1/0$ if $t + 1/r_1 =
0$.)
![The Hopf link (Proposition \[p:simple\_twist\], Example \[e:linked\_unknots\])[]{data-label="f:basic_link"}](basic_link)
\[e:linked\_unknots\]
1. Let $L$ be the *Hopf link*, given in Figure \[f:basic\_link\], with surgery coefficients $r_1 = 1/n$ for some $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $r_2 = 1/0$ (that is, $\kappa_2$ could be removed). Then by setting $t = -n$ in Proposition \[p:simple\_twist\], we obtain $\mathbb{S}^3(L) = \mathbb{S}^3(\operatorname{`empty\ link'}) = \mathbb{S}^3$.**
2. Let $L$ be the Hopf link, this time with surgery coefficients $r_1 = -1/k$ and $r_2 = \frac{1-kn}n$ for $k, n \in \mathbb{Z}$. Then still $\mathbb{S}^3(L)
= \mathbb{S}^3(\operatorname{`empty\ link'}) = \mathbb{S}^3$. Indeed, we first apply Proposition \[p:simple\_twist\] with $t=k$ obtaining coefficients $r'_1 =
1/0$ and $r'_2 = 1/n$. Now, we use part $(a)$ after swapping $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$.
We will see in Section \[S:onedirection\] a more intricate use of this proposition; see Figure \[f:kirby\].
NP-hardness {#subsection:NPhard}
-----------
A *Boolean formula* is a formula built from *literals* (a variable or its negation) using conjunctions and disjunctions. It is *satisfiable* if there exists a truth assignment for the variables making it true. It is in *conjunctive normal form* if it is a conjunction of disjunctions, such as for example the formula $\Phi=(a \vee b) \wedge (\neg b \vee c) \wedge (c \vee
a \vee \neg b)$. The disjunctions are called the *clauses* of the formula. It is a *3-CNF* formula if every clause is made of at most $3$ literals. The *complexity* $|\Phi|$ of a 3-CNF formula $\Phi$ is its number of literals plus its number of clauses. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">3-SAT</span> problem is the problem of determining whether a given 3-CNF formula is satisfiable.
This problem is well known to be **NP**-hard (see for example [@ab-ccma-09]). Furthermore, the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">3-SAT</span> problem remains **NP**-hard when restricted to instances where (1) every clause contains exactly 3 literals and (2) each clause contains at most once each variable; see for example Garey and Johnson [@gj-cigtnp-90]. In the rest of the text we will always consider 3-CNF formulae with these additional assumptions.
The reduction {#S:reduction}
=============
#### Warm-up.
Before we present a formal description of our reduction, let us start with a simplified construction that will reveal our main idea. For simplicity, given that this is not our final construction, most of the discussion here will be focused on an example coming from a concrete formula.
![The link corresponding to each variable.[]{data-label="f:variable_link"}](variable_link)
![The clause diagram - Borromean rings.[]{data-label="f:borromean"}](borromean)
Starting from a formula $\Phi$, we build a link $L$ with surgery coefficients in the following way:
- The link $L$ contains one unknot for each literal of the formula (i.e., for each variable and its negation).
- For each variable, the two unknots corresponding to it and its negation are interlinked with a *clasp*, which is yet another unknot; see Figure \[f:variable\_link\].
- For every clause of $\Phi$, we consider a triplet of Borromean rings (see Figure \[f:borromean\]). Each ring corresponds to a literal of the clause, and is ‘attached’ to the unknot corresponding to its literal.
- In this link, the surgery coefficients for the literals are $\emptyset$, and those for the clasps are $3/2$.
The precise definition of ‘attachment’ (*band sum*) will be given later on, but for now the following example and figure should give the reader a sufficient idea of the construction.
Let us consider the (satisfiable) formula $\Phi = (t \vee x \vee
y) \wedge (\neg x \vee y \vee z)$. The link $L$ with surgery coefficients corresponding to this formula is depicted on Figure \[f:simplified\_example\].
We consider the 3-manifold $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ obtained by Dehn surgery on $L$ with the given surgery coefficients. The key feature of this construction is that a satisfying assignment for $\Phi$ directly reveals that $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$. Indeed, we can obtain the embedding with the following simple rule: for each $\operatorname{TRUE}$ variable $v$, we fill the unknot corresponding to $v$ with the slope $1/0$, while for each $\operatorname{FALSE}$ variable $v'$, we fill the unknot corresponding to $\neg v'$ with the slope $1/0$. All the other unknots are then filled with coefficients $1/1$. We claim that these fillings yield a $3$-sphere. We explain why on the example introduced above, and the same argument easily applies for the general construction.
Let us consider the satisfying assignment $t = \operatorname{TRUE}$, $x, y, z = \operatorname{FALSE}$. Consequently, we fill the unknots for the literals $t$, $\neg x$, $\neg y$ and $\neg z$ with coefficient $1/0$, that is, we remove them from the link. See Figure \[f:example\_removing\].
Now, we fill the remaining unknots for literals with coefficients $1/1$. Because the initial assignment is satisfying, all Borromean rings unlink and we get in our case four unlinked copies of the Hopf link, each contained in a ball and with coefficients $3/2$ and $1/1$. This yields $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ by Example \[e:linked\_unknots\] (b) with $k=-1$ and $n=2$.
The hard part of our reduction is to show that this simple rule, relying on a satisfying assignment to fill unknots with $1/0$ or $1/1$, is ‘essentially’ the only way we may get $\mathbb{S}^3$. In particular we would like to show that we cannot get $\mathbb{S}^3$ for a non-satisfiable formula.
In fact, we are not sure whether this claim is true for the simple construction above. However, once we modify the construction slightly, we are able to show that the resulting 3-manifold embeds into $\mathbb{S}^3$ if and only if it comes from a satisfiable formula. Now we proceed with a formal description of our final construction.
#### Full construction.
Given a 3-SAT formula $\Phi$, satisfying the conditions stated in Subsection \[subsection:NPhard\], we construct a 3-manifold, $M = \mathbb{S}^3(L)$, where $L \subset \mathbb{S}^3$ is a link that is described by a planar diagram; our construction will produce the diagram (including surgery coefficients) explicitly. In order to guarantee that the 3-manifold does not embed when the formula is not satisfiable, we complicate the construction from the warm-up in two ways: (1) we further entangle each clasp and its literals, and (2) we replace each literal component with its $(2,1)$-[*cable*]{}, i.e. a component that follows twice along and twists once around the original. We now describe the construction in detail.
![The variable diagram.[]{data-label="f:variable_full"}](variable_full)
#### Variable Diagram.
For each variable $x$, place a copy of the diagram depicted in Figure \[f:variable\_full\] in the plane. The diagram depicts a link with three unknotted components. Label the left and right components with $x$ and $\neg x$, respectively. We will refer to the central component as the [*clasp*]{} $\gamma_x$.
If $x$ is a variable, we will let ${{\pm x}}$ denote either the literal $x$ or the literal $\neg x$.
#### Clause Diagram.
For each clause $\pm x \vee \pm y \vee \pm z$ in the formula, embed a diagram of the Borromean rings in the plane; see Figure \[f:borromean\]. The properties of the Borromean rings that we need are (1) each component is an unknot, and (2) removing any component results in a two component link where the components are not linked.
#### Connecting the diagram.
For each literal ${{\pm x}}$ occurring in a clause, identify (but don’t draw) an embedded arc connecting the literal from the clause diagram to the literal in variable diagram; see Figure \[f:construction\_full1\]. These arcs can be chosen so that: a) the interior of each arc is disjoint from every variable and clause diagram, and b) each pair of arcs meet in at most one point and, when so, that point is in the interior of each arc. Whenever two such arcs cross, we arbitrarily pick which one lies above the other one. Note that at this point we have exactly $16$ crossings in each variable diagram, $6$ crossings in each clause diagram, and at most ${3n}\choose{2}$ crossings between connecting arcs, where $n$ is the number of clauses (so $3n$ is the number of connecting arcs). Thus the total number of crossings is quadratic in the size of $\Phi$, and it is clear that the construction can be done in quadratic time.
#### Band.
We now modify the diagram by performing a [*band sum*]{} along each arc, call it $\alpha$, connecting a variable diagram to a clause diagram: For each endpoint of $\alpha$ delete a short arc containing that endpoint from a variable/clause diagram, and then draw two close parallel copies of $\alpha$ that connect the remnants using two disjoint copies of $\alpha$; see the two leftmost pictures on Figure \[f:band\_sum\_y\]. Wherever two arcs cross, say $\alpha$ crossing over $\alpha'$, we now see four intersections. In all four intersections we keep the arcs corresponding to $\alpha$ over the arcs corresponding to $\alpha'$. Clearly, the time required for this construction is quadratic in the size of $\Phi$.
![Performing the band sum and then cabling the knot components labeled $y$ in the diagram from Figure \[f:construction\_full1\].[]{data-label="f:band_sum_y"}](band_sum_y)
#### Cable.
The final step in our construction of the diagram is *$(2,1)$-cabling *of the components that correspond to literals (that is, the components that do not correspond to clasps). This can be described explicitly as follows: let $\kappa'$ be a component corresponding to the literal $\pm x$. Take two disjoint parallel copies of $\kappa'$ and join them together using a single crossing, as shown in the two rightmost pictures of Figure \[f:band\_sum\_y\]. Label this component $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}}$. Note that the time required for this construction, and the number of crossings in the given diagram, are both quadratic in the size of $\Phi$.**
The 3-manifold corresponding to $\Phi$ is obtained by Dehn surgery on $L$. To complete our construction we determine the surgery coefficients:
#### The 3-manifold.
Let $M = M(\Phi) = \mathbb{S}^3(L)$ be the 3-manifold obtained by surgery on the link constructed above, where the surgery coefficients are $\emptyset$ on each component that corresponds to a literal and $3/2$ on each clasp.
\[notation:surfaces\] Before we proceed we summarize the notation that will be used throughout the paper. Fix a literal ${{\pm x}}$. We will use the following notation for the link described by the diagram constructed above:
- $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}}$: The knot corresponding to ${{\pm x}}$ is denoted $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}}$. By construction $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}}$ is an unknot.
- $B_{{\pm x}}$: Note that $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}}$ naturally bounds a Möbius band: it was constructed from two disjoint parallel curves (that naturally bound an annulus) with a single crossing (that corresponds to adding a half twist to the annulus). This Möbius band is denoted $B_{{\pm x}}$. By construction $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}} = \partial B_{{\pm x}}$.
- $\gamma_x$: The [*clasp*]{} is an unknot that we denote $\gamma_x$.
- The clasp $\gamma_{x}$ bounds a disk that we denote $D_{x}$. Note that $D_{x} \cap B_{x}$ consists of exactly one arc (and similarly for $D_{x} \cap B_{\neg x}$).
- $L$: The link $L = \bigcup~ (\kappa_x \cup \gamma_x \cup \kappa_{\neg x}$) is the union of the three components for each variable $x$. Each clasp $\gamma_x$ is labeled with the surgery coefficient $3/2$, each literal component $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}}$ is labeled with coefficient $\emptyset$.
- $M=M(\Phi) = \mathbb{S}^3(L)$ is the 3-manifold obtained by surgery on $L$.
$\Phi$ satisfiable $\Rightarrow M$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$ {#S:onedirection}
===========================================================
First we show that if $M$ is satisfiable, then $M$ embeds into $\mathbb{S}^3$.
\[proposition:SatisfiableImpliesEmbeds\] If $\Phi$ is satisfiable, then $M = \mathbb{S}^3(L)$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$.
The idea of the proof is to suitably fill in the ‘empty tori’ in $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$ corresponding to $\kappa_x$ and $\kappa_{\neg
x}$. That is, it is sufficient to show that we can alter each coefficient $\emptyset$ to some coefficient in ${{\mathbb{Q}}}\cup
\{1/0\}$ so that the resulting 3-manifold is $\mathbb{S}^3$.
Given a satisfying assignment of $\Phi$ we consider every variable $x$ of $\Phi$ and alter the surgery coefficients as follows: if $x$ is assigned <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>, we fill $\kappa_x$ with coefficient $1/0$, and if $x$ is assigned <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span> we fill $\kappa_{\neg x}$ with coefficient ${1}/{0}$. This filling is equivalent to removing $\kappa_x$ or $\kappa_{\neg x}$ from the link, and from now on we assume that such components have been erased from the diagram.
Since the assignment is satisfying, in each clause $C$ at least one literal is satisfied. Hence, at least one of the Möbius bands in the Borromean rings corresponding to $C$ disappears, and thus the Borromean rings unravel for the other literals involved in $C$. Therefore, we can now use an isotopy to retract all the bands connecting the clause diagrams to the literals in the variable gadgets. That is, after this step, we are left with a link that consists of pairs of components, each pair embedded in a ball (and the balls are pairwise disjoint), so that each pair consists of linked unknots, one of which is the clasp $\gamma_x$, and the other is either $\kappa_x$ (if $x$ is assigned <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span>) or $\kappa_{\neg x}$ (if $x$ is assigned <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>). We now perform a second alteration of the surgery coefficients, replacing the remaining $\emptyset$ with $3/1$. We claim that the resulting 3-manifold is $\mathbb{S}^3$: this is shown using multiple applications of Proposition \[p:simple\_twist\] as pictured in Figure \[f:kirby\]. This shows that the result of the Dehn surgery on each pair is homeomorphic to the 3-manifold obtained by $- 1/2$ Dehn surgery on the components of an unlink, that is, a link whose components are unlinked unknots. It is easy to see that this gives $\mathbb{S}^3$. As an alternative proof that we obtain $\mathbb{S}^3$, we may apply Example \[e:linked\_unknots\](b) with $k=n=2$ to the penultimate step of Figure \[f:kirby\].
$\Phi$ satisfiable $\Leftarrow M$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$ {#S:otherdirection}
==========================================================
This section is devoted to the proof of the reverse direction, which is much harder. While Gordon and Luecke [@gordon-luecke] showed that a boundary irreducible 3-manifold whose boundary consists of a single torus admits at most one embedding into $\mathbb{S}^3$, manifolds with multiple torus boundary components may admit many, even an infinite number, of distinct embeddings ([*cf.*]{} [@RieckYamashita]). The main point of the proof is that $M$ has no [*accidental*]{} embeddings into $\mathbb{S}^3$. That is, any embedding is the result of, for each variable, performing a $1/0$ filling on either the variable or its negation (but not both). Interpreting a $1/0$ filling as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span> and any other filling as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">False</span> then allows us to prove:
\[proposition:EmbedsImpliesSatisfiable\] If $M = \mathbb{S}^3(L)$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$, $\Phi$ is satisfiable.
In an effort to expose the underlying structure of our argument, we split the proof into two sections. First, in this section, we establish the general setup for proving Proposition \[proposition:EmbedsImpliesSatisfiable\]. We identify a key technical step (Proposition \[prop:genus2compresses\]). Still in this section, we provide a proof of Proposition \[proposition:EmbedsImpliesSatisfiable\] modulo Proposition \[prop:genus2compresses\]. Then, to conclude the proof, we prove Proposition \[prop:genus2compresses\] in Section \[sec:VxLxBoundaryIrreducible\].
Assume that $M$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$. The Fox Re-Embedding Theorem [@fox] says that if $M$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^3$, then there is an embedding $M \hookrightarrow \mathbb{S}^3$ so that the complement $\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus M$ is the union of *handlebodies*. Since $\partial M$ consists of tori, these handlebodies are solid tori,[^9] and thus this embedding is the result of performing a Dehn filling on each component of $\partial M$.**
The Dehn filling of $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$ that results in $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ defines a slope on each boundary component that corresponds to a literal ${{\pm x}}$. Let be the link obtained from $L$ by replacing the surgery coefficients $\emptyset$ on $\kappa_{{{\pm x}}}$ with the appropriate slope and, on each clasp $\gamma_x$, retaining the surgery coefficient $3/2$. Thus $\mathbb{S}^3(\lemb) \cong \mathbb{S}^3$.
We express $\lemb$ as the disjoint union $\lemb = L_{1/0} \cup {L_{\neq 1/0}}$, where $L_{1/0}$ are the components with coefficient $1/0$ and ${L_{\neq 1/0}}$ are the components with coefficients that are not $1/0$. Note then that $\mathbb{S}^3({L_{\neq 1/0}})$ is also homeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}^3$ (erase $L_{1/0}$).
We will use Notation \[notation:surfaces\] for the remainder of the section.
\[clm:notBoth10\] For each variable $x$, $\gamma_x \in {L_{\neq 1/0}}$ and at least one of $\kappa_x,\kappa_{\neg x}$ is in ${L_{\neq 1/0}}$.
By construction, for each variable $x$, the clasp $\gamma_x$ has coefficient $3/2$, so $\gamma_x \in {L_{\neq 1/0}}$.
To complete the proof of the claim assume, for a contradiction, that for some variable $x$ we have $\kappa_x,\kappa_{\neg x} \in L_{1/0}$; we may therefore remove both from , obtaining $L''$ so that $\mathbb{S}^3(L'') \cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$. However, by our construction, $\gamma_x$ is now separated from all other link components of $L''$ (by a $2$-sphere). Example \[example:lensspace\] now implies that $H_{1}(\mathbb{S}^3(L''))$ has a $\mathbb{Z}_3$-summand which contradicts the fact that $\mathbb{S}^3(L'')$ is a sphere.
For each literal ${{\pm x}}$, the component $\kappa_{{\pm x}}$ was constructed as a $(2,1)$-cable and it follows that $\kappa_{{\pm x}}$ is the boundary of a Möbius band $B_{{\pm x}}$ that is disjoint from all other components of the link. The clasp $\gamma_x$ bounds a disk $D_x$ which meets the Möbius bands $B_x$ and $B_{\neg x}$ each in a single arc. By construction, for any variable $y \neq x$ we have that $(B_{x} \cup D_x \cup B_{\neg x}) \cap (B_{y} \cup D_y \cup B_{\neg y}) = \emptyset$. Define the [*variable link*]{} to be $L_x := (\kappa_x \cup \gamma_x \cup \kappa_{{\neg x}}) \cap {L_{\neq 1/0}}$, that is, $L_x$ are the components corresponding to the variable $x$ that have non-$1/0$ surgery coefficients. Let $V_x = N(B_x^* \cup D_x \cup B_{{\neg x}}^*)$, where $*$ means that we omit $B_{{\pm x}}$ from the union if $\kappa_{{\pm x}}\subset L_{1/0}$. Then, by Claim \[clm:notBoth10\], $V_x \subset \mathbb{S}^3$ is a genus 1 or 2 handlebody containing the link $L_x$; see Figure \[fig:Vx\].
The technical crux of our proof lies in establishing the following proposition:
[[proposition]{}]{}[proptechnical]{} \[prop:genus2compresses\] $V_x(L_x)$ is boundary irreducible.
For now, we assume it and postpone its proof to Section \[sec:VxLxBoundaryIrreducible\]. By construction, for any variable $y \neq x$ we have that $V_{x} \cap V_{y} = \emptyset$. Let $V = \bigcup V_x$ be the union of these handlebodies over all variables $x$ and $W$ the closure of the complement, $W = \overline{\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus V}$. Of course, every component of $\partial W$ has genus 1 or 2.
\[clm:genusTwoIncompressibleOutside\] Every genus two component of $\partial W$ is incompressible in $W$.
Any genus two component of $\partial W$ is a boundary $\partial V_x$ for some variable $x$ for which both $\kappa_x, \kappa_{{\neg x}}\subset {L_{\neq 1/0}}$. Since every variable occurs at most once in each clause, the variable link $L_x$ has been connected to and band summed with at most one knot of each Borromean ring. Thus this operation did not change its isotopy class, and the closure of the complement $\overline{\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus
V_x}$ is homeomorphic to the exterior of the [*handcuff graph*]{} $4_1$; see Figure \[fig:handcuff\], which was shown by Ishii et al. [@i-tgthku-12] to be *irreducible* (for a *different* notion of irreducibility than the one we defined in the preliminaries). It is known that a knotted handlebody of genus $2$ is irreducible if and only if its exterior has incompressible boundary [@i-khdshk-15], but the proof is hard to extract from the multiple references therein, so for completeness we provide another one, tailored to our case, that $\partial V_x$ is incompressible in $\overline{\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus V_x}$.
Let us denote by $H$ the handcuff graph $4_1$. Tsukui [@t-s3s-70 Example 1] proves that $\pi_1(\mathrm{E}(H))$ is indecomposable with respect to free products, where here $\mathrm{E}(H) := \overline{\mathbb{S}^{3} \setminus N(H)}$ is the exterior of $H$. Suppose ad absurdum that $\partial N(H)$ compresses outside. If the compressing disk $D$ separates $\partial N(H)$ (so two tori are obtained) then the van Kampen theorem shows that there is a free product decomposition unless one of the two sides is simply connected, but every torus in $\mathbb{S}^3$ separates $\mathbb{S}^3$ into two components, and neither is simply connected. If $D$ is not separating then banding $D$ to itself we obtain a separating compressing disk; see Figure \[f:banding\] and the explanation in its caption.
Thus, every boundary $\partial V_x$ is incompressible in $\overline{\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus V_x}$. Since $W \subset \overline{\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus V_x}$, $\partial V_x$ is also incompressible in $W$.
Therefore any compressible component of $\partial W$ is a torus (we remark that such components may exist). Let $\Delta \subset W$ be collection of compressing disks, one for each compressible torus.
We claim that we may take the disks in $\Delta$ to be *disjointly *embedded.[^10] To see this, we first assume that the disks of $\Delta$ intersect each other transversely. Order the disks of $\Delta$ as $D_{1},\dots,D_{n}$ and assume that for some $i \geq 1$ we have that the $D_{1},\dots,D_{i}$ are disjointly embedded (note that this holds for $i=1$). Therefore transversality implies that the intersection of $D_{i+1}$ with $\cup_{j=1}^{i} D_{j}$ is an embedded 1-manifold, and an easy Euler characteristic argument shows that some component of $D_{i+1} \setminus (\cup_{j=1}^{i} D_{j})$ is a disk[^11] (whose boundary is in $D_{i+1} \cap D_{j_{0}}$ for some $1 \leq j_{0} \leq i$). We may use the disk to cut and paste $D_{j_{0}}$ and obtain a new disk that we will use to replace $D_{j_{0}}$ in $\Delta$ (without renaming). The new collection of disks has the exact same boundary, the first $i$ disks are disjointly embedded, and $D_{i+1}$ intersects them fewer times than before. Continuing this way we get a collection $\Delta$ where the first $i+1$ disks are disjointly embedded, and the claim follows by induction.**
Let $W' := \overline{W - N(\Delta)}$ and $V' := V \cup N(\Delta) = \overline{\mathbb{S}^3 \setminus W'}$. Thus, $W'$ is obtained by cutting $W$ open along the disks $\Delta$ and $V'$ is obtained by attaching 2-handles to $V$. Then each link $L_x$ lies in a component of $V'$, denote it $V_x'$, and note that $\mathbb{S}^3 = V' \cup W'$ where $V' =
\bigsqcup V_x'$. Each $V_x'$ is either a genus two handlebody, a solid torus, or a ball. Soon we will see that they are all balls.
As $\mathbb{S}^3({L_{\neq 1/0}})$ is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}^3$ we can rewrite according to the $\mathbb{S}^3 = W' \cup V'$ decomposition:
$$\mathbb{S}^3 \cong W' \cup \Big(\bigcup V_x'(L_x) \Big).$$
\[claim:Wincompressible\] Every non-sphere component of $\partial W'$ is incompressible in $W'$.
By Claim \[clm:genusTwoIncompressibleOutside\], every genus 2 component of $\partial W'$ is incompressible in $W$, and by construction of $\Delta$ every genus 1 component of $\partial W'$ is incompressible in $W$.
For each variable $x$, the 3-manifold $V_x'(L_x)$ is either a ball or is boundary irreducible. \[clm:bound\_i\]
The 3-manifold $V_x'(L_x)$ is embedded in $\mathbb{S}^3$, so if its boundary is a sphere, then it follows that $V_x'(L_x)$ is a ball. Thus, it suffices to show the result for a component $V_x'(L_x)$ with boundary of positive genus. And, in that case we have that $V_x'(L_x) = V_x(L_x)$ because 2-handles were only attached to components with genus 1 boundary, which then become spheres. Now the claim follows from Proposition \[prop:genus2compresses\] claiming that $V_x(L_x)$ is boundary irreducible.
\[clm:balls\] For each variable $x$, the handlebody $V_x'$ is a ball.
Let $S_x = \partial V_x'(L_x)$ be the boundary of $V_x'(L_x)$ and $S = \bigcup S_x$ the union of all these boundaries. Of course, $S$ is embedded in $\mathbb{S}^3(L_{\neq 1/0})$, which is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{S}^3$. It then follows that every component of $S$ is either a sphere, or there is a compressing disk $D$ for $S$, i.e., a disk $D$ for which $D \cap S = \partial D$ is an essential curve in $S$. Such a curve must lie in a component of positive genus. But a compressing disk $D$ is impossible, because then either $D \subset W'$, contradicting Claim \[claim:Wincompressible\], or $D \subset V_x'(L_x)$ for some $x$, contradicting Claim \[clm:bound\_i\].
This shows that $S$ is incompressible; we claim that more is true: $S_{x}$ is incompressible for every $x$. This is again an innermost disk argument, similar to (and in fact simpler than) the argument used above to show that $\Delta$ may be taken to be embedded. Suppose, for a contradiction, that some $S_{x}$ compresses and let $D$ be a compressing disk for $S_{x}$ ($D$ is not necessarily a compressing disk for $S$ since it may intersect other components of $S$). We assume that $D$ intersects $S$ transversally and minimizes $\#(D \cap S)$ among all such disks. An easy Euler characteristic argument shows that some component of $D$ cut open along $S$ is a disk; this is the *innermost *disk (of course, if $D \cap S = \emptyset$ the innermost disk is $D$ itself). The minimality assumption implies that the boundary of the innermost disk is essential in $S$, and thus the innermost disk is a compressing disk for $S$, which we showed above cannot exist. This contradiction shows that $S_{x}$ is incompressible for every $x$.**
This observation allows us to complete the proof of Proposition \[proposition:EmbedsImpliesSatisfiable\]:
For each literal ${{\pm x}}$, assign the value ${{\pm x}}:= \textsc{True}$ if $\kappa_{{\pm x}}\subset L_{1/0}$ and ${{\pm x}}:= \textsc{False}$ if $\kappa_{{\pm x}}\subset {L_{\neq 1/0}}$. By Claim \[clm:notBoth10\], there is no variable $x$ with both $x$ and $\neg x$ set to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>. Furthermore, since for each variable $x$ the handlebody $V_x'$ is a ball, and by Claim \[clm:genusTwoIncompressibleOutside\] 2-handles were attached only to solid tori, it follows that every $V_x$ was a solid torus, i.e., exactly one of $x$ and $\neg x$ is <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">True</span>.
Suppose that some clause $C = {{\pm x}}\vee {{\pm}}y \vee {{\pm}}z$ of $\Phi$ is not satisfied. By our assumptions on the formula $\Phi$, the literals ${{\pm x}}$, ${{\pm}}y$ and ${{\pm}}z$ are different, and this clause appears only once in $\Phi$. Consider $B_{{\pm x}}\cup B_{{{\pm}}y} \cup B_{{{\pm}}z}$, the union of 3 Möbius bands that, because they pass through the diagram for the clause $C$, form the Borromean rings and, in particular, are linked. But, by Claim \[clm:balls\], $B_{{\pm x}}\subset V_x'$ is contained in a ball that is disjoint from both $B_{{{\pm}}y}$ and $B_{{{\pm}}z}$. This contradicts the fact that they are linked.
We conclude that every clause $C$, hence the total formula $\Phi$, is satisfied.
$V_x(L_x)$ is boundary irreducible. {#sec:VxLxBoundaryIrreducible}
===================================
This section is the most technical part of the paper, proving Proposition \[prop:genus2compresses\], which as we saw in the proof of Claim \[clm:bound\_i\], is an essential step in showing that $\mathbb{S}^3(L') \ncong \mathbb{S}^3$ unless the surgery coefficients of $L'$ yield a satisfying assignment via the rule $\{1/0 \leftrightarrow \textsc{True},~{\neq}1/0 \leftrightarrow \textsc{False}\}$.
Most of the section is a sequence of claims, from which the proof of this proposition will follow.
Recall that $V_x = N(B_x^* \cup D_x \cup B_{{\neg x}}^*)$, where $B_{{\pm x}}$ is a Möbius band bounded by $\kappa_{{\pm x}}$, $D_x$ is a disk bounded by $\gamma_x$ and $*$ means that we omit $B_{{\pm x}}$ from the union if $\kappa_{{\pm x}}\subset
L_{1/0}$. Thus $V_x$ is a genus 1 or 2 handlebody that contains a clasp $\gamma_x$, and 1 or 2 (resp.) literals $\kappa_{{\pm x}}$; see Figure \[fig:genus2\].
When compared with Figure \[fig:Vx\] the handlebody $V_x$ is drawn here as if it were unknotted. Note that this is purely cosmetic, the difference between knotted and unknotted is a question of how the handlebody is embedded, whereas Proposition \[prop:genus2compresses\] is a statement about the 3-manifold itself, irrespective of any embedding. We also observe that we may assume that $V_x(L_x)$ is unknotted (for arbitrary surgery coefficients on $L_x$). Indeed, let us consider the switch on the diagram of the variable link depicted at Figure \[fig:switch\]. This switch unknots the surrounding handlebody, even if some Dehn surgery on the link components was already performed.
We adjust our notation to suppress $x$ and to emphasize slopes over link components. If $V_x$ is a genus 2 handlebody, we write $V(r_+, s,
r_-)$ for the 3-manifold obtained after surgery on $V_x$ where $r_\pm$ is the surgery coefficient of $\kappa_{{\pm x}}$ and $s$ is the surgery coefficient on the clasp $\gamma_x$. Similarly, if $V_x$ is a solid torus, we write $V(r_\pm,
s)$ for the 3-manifold obtained after surgery on $V_x$ with $r_\pm$ on $\kappa_{{\pm x}}$ and $s$ on $\gamma_x$. As usual, a coefficient of $\emptyset$ means that the component has been drilled out but not filled. In this notation $V_x(L_x)$ is homeomorphic to either $V(r_+, 3/2,
r_-)$ or $V(r_{{\pm x}},3/2)$, where each $r_\pm \neq 1/0$.
If $r$ and $r'$ are slopes in a torus, let $\Delta(r,r')$ denote their [*distance*]{}, that is the minimum number of intersections taken over all pairs of curves that have slopes $r$ and $r'$, respectively. If $r= t/u$ and $r' = v/w$ with respect to some homology basis for the torus, then the distance is easily computed, $\Delta(r,r') = \Delta(t/u, v/w) = |tw -
uv|$. Define the distance between a filling and a non-filling to be $\Delta(r,\emptyset)= \infty$.
![$X(t_+,s,t_-)$ and $X(t_\pm,s)$.[]{data-label="fig:X"}](X)
Recall that each literal component bounds a Möbius band $B_{{\pm x}}$. The boundary of a regular neighborhood of the band is a torus $T_\pm = \partial
N(B_{{\pm x}}) \subset V_x$ that separates each literal knot $\kappa_{{\pm x}}$ from the clasp and $\kappa_{\mp x}$ (if present). Cut $V(r_+, s, r_-)$ along these tori as shown in Figure \[fig:cutAlongTori\]. This expresses $V(r_+, s, r_-)$ as a union $V(r_+, s,
r_-)= X(\emptyset, s, \emptyset) \cup Y_+(r_+) \cup Y_-(r_-)$ or $V(r_\pm, s) = X(\emptyset, s) \cup Y_\pm(r_\pm)$; see Figure \[fig:cutAlongTori\]. Here $X(t_+, s, t_-)$ or $X(t_\pm, s)$ is the manifold obtained by Dehn surgery on the link inside $V_x$ on Figure \[fig:X\] (we keep the clasp $\gamma_x$ but the other knot(s) are different), and $Y(r_\pm)$ is depicted at Figure \[fig:cutAlongTori\].
We first introduce the following two standard lemmas, whose proofs can be found in Schultens [@s-it3m-14 Section 3.9].
\[lem:compDiskDisjoint\] Suppose that $F \subset M$ is a properly embedded essential surface in a 3-manifold $M$. If $M$ is reducible then there is a reducing sphere $S$ for $M$ so that $S \cap F = \emptyset$. If some component of $\partial M$ has a compressing disk in $M$, then there is a compressing disk $D$ for that boundary component for which $D \cap F = \emptyset$.
\[lem:isotopeEssential\] Let $F$ and $F'$ be properly embedded essential surfaces in an irreducible and boundary irreducible 3-manifold. Then $F$ and $F'$ can be isotoped so that $F \cap F'$ is [*essential*]{}, that is each component of the intersection is a curve (loop or arc) that is essential in both $F$ and $F'$.
Then, our first step is to prove that $X(\emptyset, \emptyset)$ and $X(\emptyset, \emptyset, \emptyset)$ are irreducible and boundary irreducible.
\[lem:SIncompressibleInV\] $X(\emptyset, \emptyset)$ and $X(\emptyset, \emptyset, \emptyset)$ are irreducible and boundary irreducible.
First, we observe that $X(\emptyset, \emptyset)$ is homeomorphic to the product $\{\textit{pair of pants}\} \times
\mathbb{S}^1$ (see Figure \[fig:X\]) which is both irreducible and boundary irreducible (see for example Jaco [@jacoBook Chapter VI]).
Next, consider the case of $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset)$. It is the exterior of a three component chain embedded in the genus two handlebody as indicated in Figure \[fig:cutAlongTori\]. When the handlebody is standardly embedded in $\mathbb{S}^3$, as pictured, the chain is a non-trivial link in $\mathbb{S}^3$. It follows that the three inner torus boundary components are incompressible in the exterior of that link in $\mathbb{S}^3$, hence they are also incompressible in $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset)$.
There remains to show that $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset)$ is irreducible and that its genus two boundary component $F$ is incompressible in $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset)$. For this we will rely on Lemma \[lem:compDiskDisjoint\].
First, recall that the central clasp $\gamma_x$ bounds a disk $D_x \subset V_x$. Then $P = D_x \cap X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset) \subset X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset)$ is a properly embedded pair of pants; see Figure \[fig:genus2Surfaces\]. Moreover, $P$ is essential: Compressing $P$ would yield two surfaces, an annulus and a disk, each with essential boundary. But the disk would be a compression for one of the inner torus boundary components, contradicting our previous observation that they are incompressible in $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset)$.
Now, let us assume that there is a reducing sphere for $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset)$ or a compressing disk for $F$. By Lemma \[lem:compDiskDisjoint\], there is a reducing sphere or compressing disk disjoint from $P$. But, then that sphere or disk is a reducing sphere or compressing disk for $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset) \setminus N(P)$. However, $X(\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset) \setminus N(P)$ is homeomorphic to the product $F \times [0,1]$, which is irreducible and boundary irreducible, a contradiction.
Let $A$ be a properly embedded annulus in an irreducible 3-manifold with incompressible boundary. Then $A$ is incompressible, for the alternative implies that the 3-manifold’s boundary is compressible. We say that $A$ is [*peripheral*]{} if it is boundary compressible, [*spanning*]{} if it meets two distinct boundary components, and [*cabling*]{} if it is not peripheral and meets only one boundary component.
The following lemma applies well known results on Dehn filling [@cgls; @scharlemannDiskSphere].
\[lem:IncompressibleIrreducibleNotAProduct\] Let $M$ be an irreducible and boundary irreducible 3-manifold that is not homeomorphic to $\{torus\} \times [0,1]$. Let $A \subset M$ be a spanning annulus whose boundary has slope $t$ in a torus boundary component $T \subset
\partial M$. If $\Delta(s,t) > 1$, then $M(s)$, the 3-manifold obtained by performing a Dehn filling on $T$ with slope $s$, is irreducible, boundary irreducible and is not homeomorphic to $\{torus\} \times [0,1]$.
Let $S$ be the other boundary component met by the spanning annulus $A$. Note that the surface $S$ is compressible in $M(t)$ (and possibly for slopes that meet $t$ once). But since $M$ is not homeomorphic to $ \{ torus \} \times
[0,1]$ and $\Delta(s,t) > 1$ we can apply a theorem of Culler, Gordon, Luecke and Shalen [@cgls Theorem 2.4.3] to conclude that $S$ is incompressible in $M(s)$. Similarly, Theorem 2.4.5 of the same article [@cgls] implies that when $\Delta(s,t) > 1$ every other boundary component $S'$ is incompressible in $M(s)$.
Next we show that $M(s)$ is irreducible. Note first that any cabling annulus $A'$ for $M$ meeting $T$ has slope $t$. For Lemma \[lem:isotopeEssential\] implies that $A$ and $A'$ can be isotoped to intersect essentially. Because the boundary curves of $A'$ are in $T$, any arc component $A \cap A'$ has both endpoints in $T$. But then, such an arc is inessential in $A$. Thus there are no intersection arcs and both annuli have slope $t$. We are now in a position to apply a theorem of Scharlemann [@scharlemannDiskSphere] (with $M = M(t), M' = M(s))$, which shows that when $\partial M(t)$ is compressible then either $M(s)$ is a solid torus, $s$ is the slope of a cabling annulus for $T$, or $M(s)$ is irreducible. But, we have proved that $M(s)$ has incompressible boundary, so it is not a solid torus, and the only possible slope for a cabling annulus is $t$, and thus since $\Delta(s,t) > 1$, $s$ is not a cabling annulus. It follows that $M(s)$ is irreducible as claimed.
Finally assume, by way of contradiction, that $M(s)$ is $\{torus\} \times
[0,1]$. This implies that $M$ has three torus boundary components $S,T$ and another torus, call it $S'$. Let $r$ be the slope of $A$ on $S$. We may write $M(s) = \{torus\} \times [0,1] = A_r \times \mathbb{S}^1$, a product where $A_r$ is an annulus with slope $r$ (actually for any slope). Perform a second Dehn filling with slope $r$ on $S$. The attached solid torus has a product structure $D_r \times \mathbb{S}^1$, where $D_r$ has slope $r$ in $T$, and so after the attachment we have that the filled 3-manifold is a solid torus with product structure $Z =
(D_r \cup A_r) \times \mathbb{S}^1$. Then perform a third filling on $S'$ along any slope with meets the meridional disk $D_r \cup A_r$ once. This produces $\mathbb{S}^3$. Now consider the torus $T \subset \mathbb{S}^3$. On the attached solid torus side, there is a compressing disk for $T$ with slope $s$. But, $A \cup D$, where $D$ is a meridional disk for the torus attached to $S$, is a compressing disk for the other side with slope $t$. Thus we have expressed $\mathbb{S}^3$ as a lens space, the union of two solid tori glued along the torus $T$. As discussed in Example \[example:lensspace\], the homology of this 3-manifold is $\mathbb Z_q$, where $q$ is the intersection number in $T$ of the boundaries, $s$ and $t$, of the meridional disks. Since $\mathbb{S}^3$ is a homology sphere we have $q = \Delta(s,t)=1$, contradicting our assumption that this quantity is at least 2.
Repeated application of the above lemma yields the following conclusion. We emphasize that it covers the possibility that $t_\pm = \emptyset$: just don’t perform all the fillings.
\[lem:FCompressesInXT\] If $\Delta(t_\pm,1/0) > 1$, then $X(t_\pm,3/2)$ is boundary irreducible. If $\Delta(t_+,1/0)>1$ and $\Delta(t_-,1/0)>1$, then $X(t_+,3/2,t_-)$ is boundary irreducible.
We argue both cases at once. Observe that both $X(\emptyset, \emptyset)$ and $X(\emptyset, \emptyset, \emptyset)$ have three torus boundary components each, so neither is homeomorphic to $\{torus\} \times [0,1]$. Claim \[lem:SIncompressibleInV\] shows that both types are irreducible and boundary irreducible, so suitable for application of Lemma \[lem:IncompressibleIrreducibleNotAProduct\]. In both cases, there is a spanning annulus meeting the outer boundary component that meets the clasp component in slope $0/1$; see Figure \[fig:genus2Surfaces\]. Moreover, for any inner torus boundary component $T_\pm \subset \partial X$, there is a spanning annulus from the outer boundary that has slope $1/0$ on $T_\pm$. Since, $\Delta(3/2,0/1)=2>1$ and, by assumption, $\Delta(t_\pm,1/0)>1$, we can use the prior lemma two or three times in (any) sequence to conclude that the filled 3-manifold is boundary irreducible.
We now turn our attention to $Y_\pm(r_\pm)$. Fortunately, $Y_\pm(\emptyset)$ is a [*cable space*]{}, a Seifert fibered space over the annulus with one exceptional fiber, and we have a complete understanding of when $T_\pm$, its outer torus boundary component, is compressible in $Y_\pm(r_\pm)$. This follows directly from a lemma of Gordon and Litherland [@gordon-litherland] that classifies essential planar surfaces in a cable space.
\[lem:T+Compresses\] If $T_\pm$ is compressible in $Y_\pm(r_\pm)$ then one of the following holds:
1. $r_\pm = 2/1$ and $t_\pm = 1/2$, or,
2. $r_\pm = \frac {1+2k}{k}$ and $t_\pm = \frac {1+2k}{4k}$, for some $k \in \mathbb Z$,
where $t_\pm$ is the slope of the curve in $T_\pm$ that bounds a disk in $Y_\pm(r_\pm)$.
If the outer boundary component does compress in $Y_\pm(r_\pm)$, then there will be an essential planar surface in $Y_\pm(\emptyset)$ meeting the outer boundary component $T_\pm$ in a single closed curve, let $t_\pm$ denote its slope; and, some number of curves on the inner torus boundary component, let $r_\pm$ denote their slope. Gordon and Litherland classify essential planar surfaces in Lemma 3.1 of [@gordon-litherland] (using $p=1, q=2$ to apply their result). The only essential planar surfaces that meet the outer boundary once and inner boundary at least once, are their cases (3) and (4) which correspond directly to conclusions (1) and (2), respectively.
Our final claim shows that if $F$ compresses, then there is a compressing disk which respects the decomposition along the tori $T_\pm$.
\[lem:meetsInDisks\] Suppose that $V(r_+,s,r_-)$ or $V(r_\pm,s)$ is boundary reducible. Then there is a boundary reducing disk $D$ so that $D \cap Y_+(r_+)$ and $D
\cap Y_-(r_-)$ are each a (possibly empty) union of compressing disks for $T_+$ and $T_-$, respectively.
Let $D$ be a disk that is transverse to both $T_+$ and $T_-$. Define the weight of $D$ to be the number of components of intersection with these tori, $wt(D) = |D \cap (T_+ \cup T_-)|$. If $b$ is a (curve) component of $D \cap (T_+ \cup T_-)$, then $b$ is a loop that bounds a sub-disk $D_b \subset D$. Define the weight of $b$ to be the weight of the interior of this disk, i.e. $wt(b) = wt(int(D_b)) = | int(D_b) \cap (T_+ \cup T_-)|$.
Over all compressing disks for $F$ in $V(r_+,s,r_-)$ that are transverse to $T_+$ and $T_-$, let $D$ be one that minimizes the weight $wt(D)$. We will show that $D$ meets $Y_+(r_+)$ and $Y_-(r_-)$ as claimed, only in compressing disks.
First note that every component of $D \cap (T_+ \cup T_-)$ is a curve that is essential in one of the tori, $T_+$ or $T_-$. For otherwise, among intersection loops that are inessential in, say, $T_+$, we could choose one, $a$, that is innermost in $T_{+}$ (recall Footnote \[footnote:innermost\]). That is, $a$ bounds a disk in $T_+$ that is disjoint from $D$. Then we can modify $D$ by replacing $D_a$, the disk $a$ bounds in $D$, with the disk $a$ bounds in $T_+$. But then, a slight isotopy makes the new disk transverse to $T_+$, eliminates the intersection curve $a$, and reduces the weight $wt(D)$ by at least 1, a contradiction.
We now show that for each torus, all intersection curves of $D$ with that torus have the same weight: Suppose that there are intersection curves of $D$ with, say, $T_+$ of differing weights. Then, because the intersection curves are all parallel in $T_+$, they cut $T_+$ into annuli; and one of those annuli, call it $A$, has boundary curves $b$ and $c$ that are intersection curves with different weights, say $wt(b) < wt(c)$. Let $D_b$ and $D_c$ be the respective sub-disks of $D$ that they bound. Form a new disk $D'$ with the same boundary as $D$ by replacing $D_c$ with (a slight push-off of) $A \cup D_b$. But this eliminates $wt(c)-wt(b)>0$ intersections (and one more in the case that $D_b$ and $D_c$ start on opposite sides of $T_+$) and contradicts our assumption that $wt(D)$ was minimized.
Finally, note that constant weights on each torus implies that every component of $D \cap Y_+(r_+) \cup Y_-(r_-)$ must be a (compressing) disk. Any non-disk component is a planar surface $P \subset D$, whose boundary components all lie in either $T_+$ or $T_-$. But the weight of its outer boundary component strictly exceeds the weight of each of its inner boundary components, contradicting the fact that the weights for all curves in that torus are equal. The conclusion of the lemma follows.
With the above lemmas, we are able to give the proof of Proposition \[prop:genus2compresses\].
We prove that $V_x(L_x)$ is boundary irreducible. Recall that $V_x(L_x) =
V(r_+,3/2,r_-)$ or $V_x(L_x) = V(r_\pm,3/2)$ where $r_\pm \neq 1/0$.
By way of contradiction, assume that $V_x(L_x)$ is boundary reducible. Applying Claim \[lem:meetsInDisks\], we may find a compressing disk $D$ for $\partial V_x(L_x)$ so that $D \cap (Y_+(r_+) \cup Y_-(r_-))$ is a collection of compressing disks. This collection cannot be empty for this would imply that $X(\emptyset,3/2)$ or $X(\emptyset,3/2,\emptyset)$ is boundary reducible, contradicting Claim \[lem:FCompressesInXT\]. So then $D \cap X$ is a [*punctured disk*]{}, that is a planar surface $P$ with one boundary component in $\partial V_x(L_x)$ and all others in $T_+$ or $T_-$. (Here $X$ stands for either $X(\emptyset,3/2)$ or $X(\emptyset,3/2,\emptyset)$.)
First suppose that $P$ meets only one of the tori, say $T_+$, and in slope $t_+$. This implies that $\partial V_x(L_x)$ compresses in $X(t_+,3/2)$ or $X(t_+,3/2,\emptyset)$ and by Claim \[lem:FCompressesInXT\] we conclude that $\Delta(t_+,1/0) \leq 1$. Since $D$ meets $Y_+(r_+)$ in compressing disks, we can apply Claim \[lem:T+Compresses\]. The only available slope satisfying $\Delta(t_+,1/0) \leq 1$ is $t_+ = 1/0$. But this implies that $r_+ = 1/0$, a contradiction.
Finally, consider the case that $P$ meets both tori, $T_+$ in slope $t_+$ and $T_-$ in slope $t_-$. Again, applying Claim \[lem:FCompressesInXT\] we find that for one slope, say $t_+$, we have $\Delta(t_+,1/0) \leq 1$. But as before, we can also apply Claim \[lem:T+Compresses\] on $Y_+(r_+)$ to conclude that $t_+ = 1/0$ and $r_+ = 1/0$, a contradiction.
Triangulating $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$
===============================
In this section we show that a triangulation of $M = \mathbb{S}^3(L)$ can be computed efficiently. The results in this section are known (see, in particular, Hass, Lagarias and Pippenger [@hlp-ccklp-99 Lemmas 7.1 and 7.2]). However, since they are very useful we decided to include a complete discussion, a little more general than is needed for our work.
In Proposition \[P:TriangulatingE(L)\] we calculate efficiently a triangulation of a link exterior, so that the meridian of each component embed in the $1$-skeleton of the triangulation induced on that boundary.[^12] However, the longitude may not embed in that triangulation. This forces us to discuss another slope, call the *blackboard framing*, which we now define:**
Let $k \subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$ be a knot with a given diagram $D \subset S$ (throughout this section $S
\subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$ is a $2$-sphere). The *blackboard framing *of $k$ is the slope on $\partial N(k)$ represented by the simple closed curve that is parallel to $k$ in $S$, that is, obtained by pushing $k$ to one side on $S$; see Figure \[f:bf\_longitude\].**
![A diagram of a knot $k$ (actually the unknot) and the corresponding blackboard framing and the longitude in $\partial N(k)$. The blackboard framing may link with $k$ whereas the longitude is never linked with $k$.[]{data-label="f:bf_longitude"}](bf_longitude)
\[remark:BBframing\] A few comments are necessary before we proceed:
1. The curve defining the blackboard framing intersects a meridional curve once and thus the blackboard framing is an integral slope, say $n/1$. It is not, in general, the longitude (whose slope is $0/1$).
2. The integer $n$ above is called the *writhe *of $k$; see, for example, in Definition 3.4 of [@LickorishBook]. The writhe is the sum of the signs of the crossings (the sign of a crossing is defined in Page 11 of [@LickorishBook]). In particular, the absolute value of the writhe cannot exceed the crossing number. In that sense the blackboard framing is not too far from the longitude $0/1$.**
3. The blackboard framing *does *depend on the diagram $D$ and its slope changes by $\pm 1$ under a Reidemeister move of type I (the sign depends on the sign of the crossing introduced/removed; see Figure \[f:bf\_longitude\]). However, the writhe does not change under Reidemeister moves of type II and III.**
4. When considering a link we will discuss the blackboard framing of each component while ignoring the remaining components.
5. A link component $\gamma$ that has no self crossing has writhe $0$ (regardless of crossings with other components). More generally, a link component $\gamma$ that can be changed to the diagram with no self crossings using only Reidemeister move type II moves has writhe $0$ (again ignoring other components). This shows each clasp $\gamma_{x}$ in our construction has writhe $0$ (recall Figure \[fig:switch\]), and so the blackboard framing there is the longitude $0/1$.
\[P:TriangulatingE(L)\] Let $D \subset S \subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$ be a link diagram of an $n$ component link $L \subset \mathbb{S}^{3}$ with $c$ crossings. Then there exits a triangulation $\mathcal{T}_{E(L)}$ of $E(L)$ so that the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $\mathcal{T}_{E(L)}$ can be calculated in time $O(c+n)$ and has $O(c+n)$ tetrahedra. Moreover, if $D$ is connected then $O(c+n)$ can be replaced by $O(c)$ in both places.
2. Both the meridian and the blackboard framing embed in the triangulation induced by $\mathcal{T}_{E(L)}$ on each component of $\partial E(L)$.
By applying Reidemeister moves of type II to $D$ we may assume that it is connected; this increases the number of crossing to $c+2(n-1)$ at most. By applying a Reidemeister move of type II to $D$ at each monogon we may assume that no complementary region is a monogon; at worst, this triples the number of crossings. By Remark \[remark:BBframing\] (3), these moves do not change the writhe of the components of $L$. After these changes, the closure of each component of $S \setminus D $ is an $n$-gon with $n \geq
2$. We will assume that $D$ is a link diagram with $c$ crossing satisfying these conditions and construct a triangulation is time $O(c)$ using $O(c)$ tetrahedra; the proposition will follow.
Ignoring the crossings, it is convenient to view $D$ as a $4$-valent graph $G$ embedded in $S$ with $c$ vertices and $2c$ edges. Note that the edges of $G$ are the arcs obtained by cutting $D$ (or $L$) at the crossings.
We now construct $\mathcal{T}$, a triangulation of $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ so that $L$ embeds in the $1$-skeleton of $\mathcal{T}$
![A triangulation of a link exterior and the annulus in its $2$-skeleton. []{data-label="Figure:TriangulatingLinkExteriors"}](TriangulatingLinkExteriors.pdf "fig:"){width="9cm"} ![A triangulation of a link exterior and the annulus in its $2$-skeleton. []{data-label="Figure:TriangulatingLinkExteriors"}](AnnulusIn2Skeleton.pdf "fig:"){width="4cm"}
(for this construction see Figure \[Figure:TriangulatingLinkExteriors\], where $D$ is in black). First we add a vertex in the middle of each edge of $G$ (orange disks in Figure \[Figure:TriangulatingLinkExteriors\]). We connect the four new vertices around each crossing of $L$ to form a quadrilateral (light blue in Figure \[Figure:TriangulatingLinkExteriors\]). Whenever two edges of $G$ form a bigon, the two vertices in the middle of these edges are connected with a *single *edge (that is, a single light blue edge that is involved in two distinct quadrilaterals; see the top of Figure \[Figure:TriangulatingLinkExteriors\]). Note that each quadrilateral, together with two subarcs of $L$, forms the $1$-skeleton of a tetrahedron, and $S$ intersects this tetrahedron in a disk whose boundary is the light blue quadrilateral. Let $\mathcal{T}'$ be the union of these tetrahedra. The closure of each component of $S \setminus \mathcal{T}'$ is an $n$-gon (for some $n \geq
3$; note that $2$-gons will not appear). We subdivide each $n$-gon into $n-2$ triangles, and add these triangles to $\mathcal{T}'$. This yields a $3$-complex whose complement has two components, the closure of each is a ball whose boundary inherits a triangulation. Finally, we add a vertex in the interior of each complementary ball, and cone the boundary of the ball to that vertex. This yields a triangulation $\mathcal{T}$ of $\mathbb{S}^3$ in which $L$ embeds in the $1$-skeleton. It is clear from the construction that the time and number of tetrahedra needed are both linear in $c$.**
Since $L$ is embedded in the 1-skeleton of $\mathcal{T}$, after two barycentric subdivisions we obtain a triangulation in which $\mathrm{int}N(L)$, an open neighborhood of $L$, is embedded. We remove $\mathrm{int}N(L)$ $\mathbb{S}^3$ obtaining the desired triangulation $\mathcal{T}_{E(L)}$ of $E(L)$. Clearly, the time needed to construct this triangulation and the number of tetrahedra are $O(c)$.
It was shown in [@hlp-ccklp-99] that the meridian is in the $1$-skeleton of the boundary. To see that the blackboard framing is embedded there as well, note that $k$ and a push off of $k$ cobound an annulus in the $2$-skeleton of the triangulation $\mathcal{T}$ constructed above (see Figure \[Figure:TriangulatingLinkExteriors\], right). It follows that the push off, which is the blackboard framing, embeds in the $1$-skeleton of the boundary. This completes the proof of Proposition \[P:TriangulatingE(L)\].
Our next goal is performing Dehn filling. To that end we prove:
\[L:solidtorus\] Let $T$ be a triangulation of a torus with $n$ edges and $\gamma$ be a simple cycle on the $1$-skeleton of $T$. Then one can compute a triangulation of a solid torus $S$ in time $O(n)$ with $O(n)$ tetrahedra such that $\partial
S$ is simplicially isomorphic to $T$ and the image of $\gamma$ under this isomorphism is a meridian of $S$.
Starting from the triangulation $T$, we first attach a triangulated disk $D$ to $\gamma$ by adding one vertex $u$ and coning the edges of $\gamma$ to $u$. Note that $D$ has $|\gamma|$ triangles. Then we add a vertex $v$ and we form a cone with apex $v$ to every triangle of $T$, and also to every triangle of $D$ on both sides of $D$. This triangulation is not a simplicial complex yet [(as it admits distinct $3$-simplices with the same vertex set)]{}, but can be made so by a subdivision without changing the triangulation of $T$. The resulting triangulation has $O(n)$ tetrahedra and can be built in linear time. Topologically, we obtain a $3$-ball where two disks in the boundary have been identified to the single disk $D$. This yields a solid torus $S$, and the boundary of $S$ is by construction simplicially isomorphic to $T$. Since $\gamma$ bounds the meridian disk $D$, it is a meridian of $S$, which concludes the proof.
In Section \[S:reduction\] we constructed, given $\Phi \in \textsc{3-Sat}$, a diagram of a link $L$ in time $O(|\Phi|^{2})$ and with $O(|\Phi|^{2})$ crossings. Proposition \[P:TriangulatingE(L)\] above yields a triangulation $\mathcal{T}$ of $E(L)$ in time $O(|\Phi|^{2})$ and with $O(|\Phi|^{2})$ tetrahedra. Let $T_{i}$ be the boundary components corresponding to the clasps, endowed with the triangulation induced by $\mathcal{T}_{E(L)}$. By Proposition \[P:TriangulatingE(L)\], the meridian and the blackboard framing of each clasp are embedded in the $1$-skeleton of the triangulation of $T_{i}$; since the clasps have writhe $0$ (recall Remark \[remark:BBframing\] (5)), the blackboard framing is, in fact, the longitude (Remark \[remark:BBframing\] (3)). Thus we see that the slopes $1/0$ and $0/1$ are embedded in the triangulation of $T_{i}$, and by doing a constant number of barycentric subdivisions, we can refine $\mathcal{T}_{E(L)}$ so that $T_i$ contains, in its $1$-skeleton, a simple curve $\gamma_i$ realizing slope $3/2$. By Lemma \[L:solidtorus\], we can compute a triangulation of a solid torus $S_i$ such that $\partial S_i$ is simplicially isomorphic to $T_i$ and the image of $\gamma_i$ under this isomorphism is a meridian of $S_i$. Now, gluing $S_i$ on $T_i$ yields a Dehn surgery corresponding to the surgery coefficient $3/2$. By doing this for each clasp we obtain a triangulation of $M(L)$. In summary, we just proved:
\[C:computation\] A triangulation of $\mathbb{S}^3(L)$ with $O(|\Phi|^2)$ tetrahedra can be computed in time $O(|\Phi|^2)$.
Proof of Corollary \[corollary\] {#section:ProofOfCorollary}
================================
Recall that in the course of the proof of our main theorem we reduced <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">3-Sat</span> to $\textsc{Embed}_{3\rightarrow3}$ by constructing, given a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">3-SAT</span> formula $\Phi$ (satisfying certain conditions), a connected 3-manifold $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ that embeds in $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ exactly when $\Phi$ is satisfiable. By construction, $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ is connected, orientable, and every boundary component of $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ is a torus, that is, $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L) \in \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{tor}}$.
To complete the proof of Corollary \[corollary\], fix a triangulated closed orientable irreducible 3-manifold $M$ admitting no essential torus. We need to show that the theorem holds with $M$ in the role of the range 3-manifold. The proof assumes familiarity with irreducible manifolds, connected sums and prime decompositions, and in particular the uniqueness of decompositions. We refer to Hatcher [@h-nb3mt-00 Section 1.1] for the relevant background.
We first assume that $M$ is connected. A key tool in the proof of Theorem \[T:main\] was the Fox Re-embedding Theorem. Re-embedding plays a key role in the proof of the corollary, and we will prove the necessary version in Lemma \[lemma:reembading\] below ([*cf.*]{} [@ScharlemannThompsoFox Theorem 7]).
Now, given a <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">3-SAT</span> formula $\Phi$, let $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ be the triangulated 3-manifold constructed in the proof of Theorem \[T:main\]. Recall that $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ was constructed in polynomial time (in the size of $\Phi$). After performing two barycentric subdivisions on $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ we obtain a triangulation that admits a tetrahedron $T$ that is embedded in the interior of $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$. These subdivisions are done in linear time in the size of the triangulation of $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ and hence in polynomial time in the size of $\Phi$. Similarly, after performing a barycentric subdivision on $M$ we obtain a triangulation that admits a tetrahedron $T'$ that is embedded in the interior of $M$. This subdivision is done is constant time (since $M$ is fixed). We fix $T$ and $T'$.
Let $X$ be the triangulated 3-manifold obtained from $M$ and $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ by removing the interiors of $T$ and $T'$ and identifying their boundaries. Topologically, we obtain the connected sum $X \cong M \#
\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$, so $X$ contains a 2-sphere $S^{*}$ (namely, $\partial
T = \partial T'$) that bounds, on one side, a punctured copy of $M$, say $M^{*}$. We fix the notation $S^{*}$ and $M^{*}$ for the remainder of the proof.
Now we want to know that $X$ embeds into $M$ if and only if the formula $\Phi$ is satisfiable. If $\Phi$ is satisfiable, then $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ embeds into $\mathbb{S}^{3}$ and therefore $X$ embeds into $M \# \mathbb{S}^{3} \cong M$. For the other implication, we need the following lemma.
\[lemma:reembading\]
Suppose that $X$ is a manifold with toroidal boundary that embeds in an irreducible atoroidal manifold $M$. Then, after re-embedding, we may assume that the components of $\overline{M \setminus X}$ are solid tori.
\[remark:fox\] In the proof of Lemma \[remark:fox\] we allow $M \cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$, giving a proof of the Fox Re-embedding Theorem when the boundary of the submanifold consists of tori, which is the only case used in this paper.
First, we finish the proof of Corollary \[corollary\] assuming the lemma, then we prove the lemma.
By Lemma \[lemma:reembading\] we have that $M$ is obtained from $X \cong M
\# \mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ by Dehn filling. Since $M$ is closed, any Dehn filling of $X$ is done along components of $\partial \mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$. Thus the result of such a Dehn filling is $M \# Y$, where $Y$ is obtained by Dehn filling $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$. Since $M$ is irreducible, by uniqueness of prime decompositions, we have that $M \# Y \cong M$ if and only if $Y \cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$. Thus $M \# \mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ embeds in $M$ if and only if $\mathbb{S}^{3}(L)$ embeds in $\mathbb{S}^{3}$, and by our main theorem, this happens exactly when $\Phi$ is satisfiable.
If $M$ is not connected we apply the argument to one of its components; this completes the proof of the corollary assuming Lemma \[lemma:reembading\].
Since $M$ is irreducible (or is $\mathbb{S}^{3}$) any sphere embedded in $M$ bounds a ball on (at least) one side, and on the other side it bounds a punctured copy of $M$ (in other words, any sphere realizes the decomposition $M \# \mathbb{S}^{3}$). We will often use this below.
Let $T_{1},\dots,T_{n}$ be the boundary components of $X$ and suppose that $T_{1},\dots,T_{i-1}$ bound solid tori as required by the lemma. We will re-embed $X$ so that the $T_{i}$ bounds a solid torus as well, and the lemma will follow by induction. Let $V_{i}$ be the component of $\overline{M \setminus X}$ with $T_{i} \subset \partial V_{i}$. Note that $T_{i} = \partial V_{i}$, for otherwise $T_{i}$ is nonseparating and one of the following holds:
1. $T_{i}$ is incompressible: this contradicts the assumption that $M$ admits no essential torus.
2. $T_{i}$ is compressible: then the sphere obtained by compressing is nonseparating, contradicting irreducibility of $M$.
Since $M$ is admits no essential torus, $T_{i}$ compresses and we consider two possibilities:
1. $T_{i}$ compresses in $V_{i}$: compressing $T_{i}$ yields a sphere contained in $V_{i}$ which bounds a ball $B$. If $B \subset V_{i}$ then $V_{i}$ is a solid torus (note that if $M \cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$ this will always be the case; we now assume $M \not\cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$). Otherwise, $M^{*} \subset B$, which is impossible since $M \not\cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$.
2. $T_{i}$ compresses in $X$: let $D$ be a compressing disk for $T_{i}$ that intersects $S^{*}$ transversely and minimizes $\#(D \cap S^{*})$ among all such disks. If $D \cap S^{*} \neq \emptyset$ then an easy Euler characteristic argument implies that some component of $S^{*}$ cut open along $D \cap S^{*}$ is a disk (an *innermost *disk), and this disk allows us to cut and paste $D$ in its interior, obtaining a compressing disk that intersects $S^{*}$ fewer times than $D$; thus $D \cap S^{*} = \emptyset$. Let $S'$ be the sphere obtained by compressing $T_{i}$; by construction, $S' \cap M_{1} = \emptyset$. We claim that $S'$ bounds a ball on the side containing $V_{i}$. If $M \cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$ this is trivial, since $S'$ bounds balls on both sides. We assume as we may that $M \not\cong S^{3}$. If the ball $S'$ bounds is not on the side containing $V_{i}$ then it contains $M_{1}$, which is impossible since $M \not\cong \mathbb{S}^{3}$. Now we remove $V_{i}$ and replace it with a solid torus (this is the re-embedding) so that the meridian of the solid torus intersected the boundary of $D$ once; note that $S'$ still bounds a ball in the side containing $V_{i}$, so we did not change the underlying 3-manifold $M$.**
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We would like to thank Ken Baker and Atsushi Ishii for useful correspondence related to this work, and the anonymous reviewers of the SODA version for helpful comments.
[^1]: An extended abstract of this work appeared in the Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms [@soda]. AdM is partially supported by the French ANR project ANR-16-CE40-0009-01 (GATO). AdM and MT are partially supported by the Czech-French collaboration project EMBEDS II (CZ: 7AMB17FR029, FR: 38087RM). This work was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (grant number 283495 to Yo’av Rieck). MT is supported by the GAČR grant 16-01602Y and by Charles University project UNCE/SCI/004.
[^2]: For completeness we give the definition of a complex. An *$i$-simplex *(or simply a simplex) is the convex hull of $i+1$ generic points, called *vertices, *in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^m$ for some integer $m$ (by generic we mean that the points are not contained in an affine space of dimension $i-1$). A face of the simplex is a convex hull of any subset of its vertices. A *(geometric) simplicial complex $K$* is a collection of simplices in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^m$ such that (i) if $\sigma$ belongs to $K$, then any face of $\sigma$ belongs to $K$ as well; and (ii) if $\sigma$ and $\tau$ belong to $K$, then $\sigma \cap \tau$ is a face of both. The *dimension* of $K$ is the maximum of the dimensions of simplices in $K$. When considering embeddability of $K$, we mean embeddability of the *polyhedron* $\bigcup
\{\sigma \in K\}$. For computational complexity questions, a geometric simplicial complex can be ‘stored’ as an abstract simplicial complex containing only the information which vertices span a simplex in $K$. These data determine the polyhedron of $K$ uniquely up to homeomorphism. For further reading on simplicial complexes we refer, for example, to [@matousek03; @munkres84].****
[^3]: We only need the Fox Re-embedding Theorem for 3-manifolds with boundary tori which is a special case of Lemma \[lemma:reembading\] that we prove in Section \[section:ProofOfCorollary\]; see Remark \[remark:fox\].
[^4]: For a discussion of *isotopy *of curves see [@Ro90 Chapter 1].**
[^5]: For this, and many other facts about Dehn surgery; see [@Ro90 Section 9.F].
[^6]: If $r$ corresponds to $(q,p)$, the numbers $q$ and $p$ have easy topological interpretations: $q$ is the minimal number of times that $r$ intersects the meridian and $p$ is the minimal number of times that $r$ intersects the longitude.
[^7]: We follow [@Ro90 5.D(3)]; in the same section Rolfsen provides seven other equivalent definitions of the linking number.
[^8]: Rolfsen in [@Ro90 9.H] does not discuss the coefficients $\emptyset$. However, allowing some of the coefficients $r_3, \cdots, r_s$ to be $\emptyset$ does not affect the proof given in [@Ro90 9.H].
[^9]: A *handlebody *is the neighborhood of a graph; in particular, a handlebody whose boundary is a torus is necessarily a solid torus.**
[^10]: \[footnote:innermost\]This is an example of an “innermost disk argument”; see, for example, [@s-it3m-14 Example 3.9.1].
[^11]: This is the *innermost *disk.**
[^12]: By the *triangulation induced on the boundary *we mean the restriction of the given triangulation to boundary.**
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In the distributed backup-placement problem [@halldorsson2015bp] each node of a network has to select one neighbor, such that the maximum number of nodes that make the same selection is minimized. This is a natural relaxation of the perfect matching problem, in which each node is selected just by one neighbor. Previous (approximate) solutions for backup placement are non-trivial, even for simple graph topologies, such as dense graphs [@barenboim2019fast]. In this paper we devise an algorithm for dense graph topologies, including unit disk graphs, unit ball graphs, line graphs, graphs with bounded diversity, and many more. Our algorithm requires just one round, and is as simple as the following operation. Consider a circular list of neighborhood IDs, sorted in an ascending order, and select the ID that is next to the selecting vertex ID. Surprisingly, such a simple one-round strategy turns out to be very efficient for backup placement computation in dense networks. Not only that it improves the number of rounds of the solution, but also the approximation ratio is improved by a multiplicative factor of at least $2$.
Our new algorithm has several interesting implications. In particular, it gives rise to a $(2 + \epsilon)$-approximation to maximum matching within $O(\log^* n)$ rounds in dense networks. The resulting algorithm is very simple as well, in sharp contrast to previous algorithms that compute such a solution within this running time. Moreover, these algorithms are applicable to a narrower graph family than our algorithm. For the same graph family, the best previously-known result has $O(\log {\Delta} + \log^* n)$ running time [@barenboim2018distributed]. Another interesting implication is the possibility to execute our backup placement algorithm as-is in the self-stabilizing setting. This makes it possible to simplify and improve other algorithms for the self-stabilizing setting, by employing helpful properties of backup placement.
author:
- 'Leonid Barenboim [^1] , Gal Oren [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: |
Distributed Backup Placement in One Round and its Applications\
to Maximum Matching Approximation and Self-Stabilization
---
Introduction {#intro1}
============
[**Background:**]{} The perfect matching problem in a graph $G = (V,E)$ aims to find a subset of edges $E' \subseteq E$, such that the edges of $E'$ are non-adjacent, and each vertex of $V$ belongs to exactly one edge of $E'$. Unfortunately, not every graph admits a perfect matching. In this paper we consider a natural relaxation of perfect matchings. Specifically, each vertex must select a neighbor, such that the maximum number of vertices that select the same vertex in the graph is minimized. In other words, the goal is finding a subset of edges $E' \subseteq E$, such that each vertex of $v$ belongs to at least on edge of $E'$, and the maximum degree in $G' = (V,E')$ is minimized. In addition, the edges of $E'$ are oriented, and each vertex in $G'$ has out degree of one. This corresponds to the requirement that each vertex selects just one neighbor, but can be selected by several neighbors. Note that if $E'$ is a maximum matching, the maximum degree in $G'$ is 1. When finding a maximum matching is not possible, the goal is minimizing the maximum degree of $G'$, while making sure that all vertices belong to edges of $E'$.
In the distributed setting, this problem is called [*Backup Placement*]{}. It was introduced by Halldorsson, Kohler, Patt-Shamir, and Rawitz [@halldorsson2015bp]. It is very well motivated by computer networks whose nodes may have memory faults, and wish to store backup copies of their data at neighboring nodes [@oren2018distributed]. But neighboring nodes may incur faults as well, and so the number of nodes that select the same backup-node should be minimized. This way, if a backup node incurs faults, the number of nodes in the network that lose data is minimized.
The precise definition of the distributed variant of the problem is as follows. The computer network is represented by an unweighted unoriented graph $G = (V,E)$, where $V$ is the set of nodes, and $E$ is the set of communication links. Communication proceeds in synchronous discrete rounds. In each round vertices receive and send message, and perform local computations. A message sent over an edge in a certain round arrives to the endpoint of that edge by the end of the round. The algorithm terminates once every vertex outputs its neighbor selection for the backup placement. The running time is the number of rounds from the beginning until all vertices make their decisions. We consider two variants of networks: faultless networks and faulty networks. For the latter, the goal is obtaining a self-stabilizing algorithm. In Sections \[intro2\] - \[intro3\] we consider faultless networks. In Section \[selfstab\] we consider faulty networks, and elaborate there on the additional properties of the problem and the required solution in this case.
The backup placement problem turned out to be quite challenging in general graphs. The best-currently known solution is a randomized algorithm with running time $O(\frac{\log^6 n}{\log^4 \log n})$ that obtains an approximation factor of $O(\frac{\log n}{\log \log n})$. This solution due to Halldorsen et al. [@halldorsson2015bp] is non-trivial at all, and involves distributed computations of a certain variant of matching, called an $f$-matching, in bipartite graphs. On the other hand, in certain network topologies, simpler and much more efficient solutions are known. In particular, this is the case in wireless networks, certain social networks, claw-free graphs, line graphs, and more generally, any graph with [*neighborhood-independence bounded by a constant $c$*]{}. Neighborhood independence $I(G)$ of a graph $G=(V,E)$ is the maximum size of an independent set contained in a neighborhood $\Gamma(v), v \in V$. For graphs with $I(G) \leq c = O(1)$, a constant-time deterministic distributed algorithm with approximation ratio $2c + 1 = O(1)$ was devised by Barenboim and Oren [@barenboim2019fast]. Although not so complicated, this algorithm still consists of several stages, including a computation of a tree cover, and then handling differently the different parts of the trees. (Such as leafs and non-leafs.)
[**Our Results:**]{} In the current paper we significantly simplify the backup placement algorithm for graphs with neighborhood independence bounded by a constant $c$. Specifically, the algorithm becomes uniform, and consists just of a single instruction that should be executed by all nodes in parallel within a single round. Consequently, the running time becomes just one round, which improves the number of rounds required in the previous solution for such graphs by a constant. More importantly, this improves the approximation ratio as well, which becomes $c$, rather than $2c + 1$ of [@barenboim2019fast]. Furthermore, this instruction is solely a function of the IDs of a vertex and its neighbors. As IDs are stored in areas that are considered to be failure-free (in contrast to variables that are stored in Random Access Memory that is failure-pron), algorithms that perform computations only as a function of IDs within a single round can be translated into self-stabilizing ones in a straightforward way. The structure of our algorithm makes it especially suitable for implementation in real-life networks with limited resources, such as sensor networks, heterogeneous networks, and Internet of Things.
We employ our backup-placement algorithm in order to compute [*maximum matching approximation*]{} of an input graph $G$ with neighborhood independence bounded by $c$. For $c = O(1)$, we obtain a $(2 + \epsilon)$-approximation to maximum matching within $O(\log^* n)$ rounds. The best previously-known $O(1)$-approximation for such graph has running time $O(\log{\Delta} + \log^*n)$ [@barenboim2018distributed], where $\Delta$ is the maximum degree of the graph. Another $O(1)$-approximate matching result, for a narrower family of graphs with bounded growth, has running time $O(\log^* n)$ [@schneider2008log]. However, this result of Schneider and Wattenhofer [@schneider2008log] is based on network decompositions, whose computation in such graphs involves very sophisticated arguments. Our algorithm, on the other hand, applies to a wider family of graphs, and is very simple. Specifically, it performs a constant number of iterations, each of which consists of computing a backup-placement $G' = (V,E')$, computing a maximal matching of it, and removing the matched edges and edges adjacent on them from $G$. Since the maximum degree of $G' = (V,E')$ is $c + 1 = O(1)$, computing a maximal matching in it requires just $O(\log^* n)$ rounds, using [@panconesi2001some].
[**Graphs with bounded independence:**]{} The family of graphs with neighborhood independence bounded by a constant is a very wide family that captures various network types. This includes unit disk graphs, unit balls graphs, line graphs, line graphs of hypergraphs, claw-free graphs, graphs of bounded diversity, and many more. Consequently, this graph family and its subtypes have been very widely studied, especially in the distributed computing setting [@gfeller2007randomized; @schneider2009coloring; @barenboim2011deterministic; @barenboim2017deterministic; @barenboim2018distributed; @assadi2019algorithms; @kuhn2019faster]. For example, unit disc graphs can model certain types of wireless networks. In such networks all nodes have the same transmission range that is the radius of a disc. If nodes are positioned in the plane, the neighbors of any node can be covered by at most 6 discs of radius $1/2$. Each such disc forms a clique, since all nodes inside it can transmit one to another. Thus a disc of radius $1/2$ cannot contain two or more independent nodes. Hence, the neighborhood independence of unit disc graphs is at most $6$. Another notable example is the family of line graphs. In these graphs each vertex belongs to at most $2$ cliques, and thus the neighborhood independence is bounded by $2$.
A notable example of the benefit of analyzing such graphs is the very recent breakthrough of Kuhn [@kuhn2019faster]. Kuhn obtained a $(2\Delta-1)$-edge-coloring of [*general graphs*]{} by analyzing graphs with constant neighborhood independence. The resulting algorithm provides a vertex coloring of such graph with time below the square-root-in-$\Delta$ barrier. Since this provides, in particular, a vertex coloring of line graphs, it results in an edge coloring of general graphs. This result, as well as other results for this topology, illustrate how beneficial can be the analysis of graphs with bounded neighborhood independence.
Distributed Backup Placement Algorithm {#intro2}
======================================
We begin with devising a procedure for computing $O(1)$-backup placement in graphs with bounded *neighborhood independence* *c*. We assume that each vertex knows only about its neighbors, and each vertex has a unique ID. The procedure receives a graph $G = (V,E)$ as input, and proceeds as follows. We define an operation [*next-modulo*]{} that receives a vertex $v$ and a set of its neighbors $\Gamma(v)$ in the graph $G$. The operation *next-modulo*($v$, $\Gamma(v)$), selects a vertex in $\Gamma(v)$ with a higher ID than the ID of $v$, and whose ID is the closets to that of $v$. If no such neighbor is found, then the operation returns the neighbor with the smallest ID. Formally, each vertex $v \in V$ selects a neighbor $w$ of $v$ in $G$ with the property that $ID(w) > ID(v)$, and there is no other neighbor $z$ of $v$ such that $ID(w) > ID(z) > ID(v)$. If there is no such neighbor, then $v$ selects the minimum ID vertex in $\Gamma(v)$. All these selections are performed in parallel within a single round. This completes the description of the algorithm. Its pseudocode is provided in Algorithm \[algo1\]. Its action is illustrated in Figure \[fig1\]. The next theorem summarizes its correctness.
node $v \in G$ in parallel do: v.BP = *next-modulo*($v$, $\Gamma(v)$) /\* find the vertex next to $v$ in $\Gamma(v)$, according to a circular list of sorted IDs of $\Gamma(v) \cup v$ \*/
=\[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=2pt\]
(G\_0) at (0,0) [25]{}; (G\_1) at (0.5,2) [9]{}; (G\_2) at (2,0.5) [30]{}; (G\_3) at (2,-0.5) [4]{}; (G\_4) at (0.5,-2) [40]{}; (G\_5) at (-0.5,-2) [7]{}; (G\_6) at (-2,-0.5) [50]{}; (G\_7) at (-2,0.5) [6]{}; (G\_8) at (-0.5,2) [20]{};
(G\_0) – (G\_1); (G\_1) – (G\_8); (G\_8) – (G\_0);
(G\_0) – (G\_3); (G\_3) – (G\_2); (G\_2) – (G\_0);
(G\_0) – (G\_5); (G\_5) – (G\_4); (G\_4) – (G\_0);
(G\_0) – (G\_6); (G\_6) – (G\_7); (G\_7) – (G\_0);
(G\_1) to\[out=135,in=45\] (G\_8); (G\_8) to\[out=225,in=135\] (G\_0);
(G\_3) to\[out=225,in=315\] (G\_0); (G\_2) to\[out=315,in=45\] (G\_3); (G\_0) to\[out=45,in=135\] (G\_2);
(G\_5) to\[out=135,in=225\] (G\_0); (G\_4) to\[out=225,in=315\] (G\_5);
(G\_7) to\[out=45,in=135\] (G\_0); (G\_6) to\[out=135,in=225\] (G\_7);
Let $G$ be a graph with neighborhood independence of $c$, i.e., for each vertex in the graph with *c+1* neighbors, at least two neighbors are connected by an edge. Then each vertex is selected by at most $c$ neighbors.
Assume for contradiction that $c+1$ vertices chose the same vertex $u$ as a backup placement. Since the neighborhood independence is $c$, at least two vertices, $v_1, v_2$, of the $c+1$ vertices, are connected by an edge. Therefore, a triangle $\{u, v_1, v_2\}$ is formed in the subgraph induced by the edges selected by the algorithm. However, we next show that $u$ could not have been selected by both its neighbors $v_1,v_2$ in the triangle: According to Algorithm \[algo1\], there are only three possibilities regarding ID order:\
(1) $ID(u) < ID(v_1)$ and $ID(u) < ID(v_2)$,\
(2) $ID(v_1) < ID(u)$ and $ID(v_2) < ID(u)$,\
(3) $ID(v_1) < ID(u) < ID(v_2)$ or $ID(v_2) < ID(u) < ID(v_1)$.
However, in each of those possibilities, as presented in the three figures below, it is impossible for two vertices to choose the same vertex for backup placement. This is because there is always a vertex between $v_1$ and $u$ or between $v_2$ and $u$, that one of $u_1,u_2$ must select. Indeed, either $u_1$ is closer to $u_2$ than to $v$, with respect to *next-modulo* operation, or $u_2$ is closer to $u_1$. More precisely:
- Case (1),(2): if $ID(v_1) < ID(v_2)$ then $v_1$ selects $v_2$ or another neighbor with ID smaller than that of $v_2$, but not $u$. Otherwise $v_2$ selects $v_1$, or a neighbor with a smaller ID than that of $v_1$, but not $u$. In any case, both cannot select $u$ simultaneously.
- Case (3): The vertex with the highest ID among the three is either $v_1$ or $v_2$. It must select a neighbor with an even greater ID or the minimum ID. But $u$ has an ID smaller than that of $v_1$ or $v_2$, and is not the minimal among ${u,v_1,v_2}$. Thus, either $v_1$ or $v_2$ does not select $v$.
In any case, we have a contradiction to the assumption that both $v_1$,$v_2$ select $u$.
=\[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=2pt\]
(G\_0) at (0,0) [1]{}; (G\_1) at (-1.5,-2) [2]{}; (G\_2) at (1.5,-2) [3]{};
(G\_0) – (G\_1); (G\_0) – (G\_2); (G\_1) – (G\_2);
\#1 (G\_0) to \[bend right=45\] (G\_1);
\#1 (G\_1) to \[bend right=45\] (G\_2);
\#1 (G\_2) to \[bend right=45\] (G\_0);
=\[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=2pt\]
(G\_0) at (0,0) [3]{}; (G\_1) at (-1.5,-2) [1]{}; (G\_2) at (1.5,-2) [2]{};
(G\_0) – (G\_1); (G\_0) – (G\_2); (G\_1) – (G\_2);
\#1 (G\_0) to \[bend right=45\] (G\_1);
\#1 (G\_1) to \[bend right=45\] (G\_2);
\#1 (G\_2) to \[bend right=45\] (G\_0);
=\[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=2pt\]
(G\_0) at (0,0) [2]{}; (G\_1) at (-1.5,-2) [1]{}; (G\_2) at (1.5,-2) [3]{};
(G\_0) – (G\_1); (G\_0) – (G\_2); (G\_1) – (G\_2);
\#1 (G\_1) to \[bend left=45\] (G\_0);
\#1 (G\_2) to \[bend left=45\] (G\_1);
\#1 (G\_0) to \[bend left=45\] (G\_2);
\#1 (G\_1) to \[bend right=45\] (G\_2);
\[fig\_proof1\]
Maximum Matching Approximation based on Backup Placement {#intro3}
========================================================
A set of edges $M \in E$ is called a *Matching* if and only if every vertex $v \in V$ belongs to at most one edge in $M$. A *Maximal Matching* (shortly, *MM*) is a matching that is maximal with respect to addition of edges, i.e., there is no edge $e \in E$ such that $M \cup \{e\}$ is a valid matching. A *Maximum Matching* (shortly, *MCM*) is a matching of maximum size among all matchings of $E$.
As shown in the previous section, given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with bounded neighborhood independence $c$, we can compute a $O(1)$-backup placement in a single round. This results in a subgraph, $G'=(V,E')$, where $E'$ is the set of all the selected edges of the backup placement algorithm. Each vertex in the subgraph $G'$ has selected one neighbor, and is selected by at most $c$ neighbors. All edges adjacent on a vertex in $G'$ are either selecting edges or selected edges. Thus, the number of such edges is at most $c + 1$. Consequently, the maximum degree $\Delta(G')$ is at most $c + 1$.
=\[circle,fill=black!25,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=2pt\] =\[circle,fill=red,minimum size=12pt,inner sep=2pt\]
(G\_0\_1) at (0,1) ;
(G\_2\_1) at (-4,0) [1]{}; (G\_6\_1) at (-2,0) [2]{}; (G\_4\_1) at (2,0) […]{}; (G\_5\_1) at (4,0) [c]{};
(G\_1) at (0,0) ;
(G\_2) at (-4,-1) [1]{}; (G\_6) at (-2,-1) [2]{}; (G\_3) at (0,-1) [3]{}; (G\_4) at (2,-1) […]{}; (G\_5) at (4,-1) [c]{};
(G\_2) – (G\_1); (G\_6) – (G\_1); (G\_3) – (G\_1); (G\_5) – (G\_1); (G\_2\_1) – (G\_0\_1); (G\_6\_1) – (G\_0\_1); (G\_1) – (G\_0\_1); (G\_5\_1) – (G\_0\_1); (G\_6\_1) – (G\_2); (G\_6\_1) – (G\_1);
We devise a Maximum Matching approximation based on this backup placement subgraph in $O(\log^* n)$ rounds. To this end, we compute a backup placement of an input graph $G$, obtain the graph $G' = (V,E')$, where $E'$ is the set of selected edges, and execute a maximal matching algorithm of Panconesi and Rizzi [@panconesi2001some] on $G'$. The latter algorithm computes a maximal matching of an input graph with degree $\Delta$ within $O(\Delta + \log^*n)$ rounds.
\[lemmaa\] Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with bounded neighborhood independence $c$, we achieve $(c + 1)$-approximation of the Maximum Matching problem.
We begin with executing the backup placement algorithm, which computes the sub-graph $G'=(V,E')$. Next, we compute an MM of $G'$. Since $G'$ has bounded neighborhood independence $c$ and $\Delta(G') = c + 1$, we can show that a maximal matching of $G'$ has size at least $1/(c + 1)$ of $MCM(G)$. This is because every vertex in $V$ is either in $MM(G')$ or adjacent (in $G'$) to a vertex in $MM(G')$. (Otherwise, it is adjacent to a free vertex, and an edge can be added to the maximal matching of $G'$. Contradiction.) Thus, the set of vertices that belong to edges of $MM(G')$ together with the vertices adjacent on them in $G'$, are exactly the set $V$. On the other hand, since each vertex of $MM(G')$ is adjacent in $G'$ to at most $c + 1$ vertices, the size of $V$ is at most $c + 1$ times the number of vertices of $MM(G')$. Since the size of the maximum matching is at most $|V|/2$ and the size of $MM(G')$ is at least $|V|/2(c + 1)$, we obtained a $(c + 1)$-approximation to maximum matching
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with bounded neighborhood independence $c$, the running time of the Maximum Matching approximation is $O(\log^* n)$.
Using $O(\Delta + \log^* n)$-time Maximal Matching algorithm by Panconesi and Rizzi [@panconesi2001some], and due to the fact that $\Delta(G') = c + 1 = O(1)$, the achieved time complexity is $O(\log^* n)$.
In order to reach an even better Maximum Matching approximation than the $(c + 1)$-approximation, we apply several times the maximal matching algorithm by Panconesi and Rizzi [@panconesi2001some] on $G'$ which was obtained by the $O(1)$-backup placement in graphs with bounded *neighborhood independence* *c*. In order to preserve a proper matching of $G$ in each step, after each computation of a maximal matching, we remove the resulting edges endpoints from $G'$, as well as all edges adjacent on these endpoints. Then we invoke again a maximal matching computation on the residual graph. We repeat this for a constant number of iterations. This completes the description of the algorithm. Its pseudocode is provided in Algorithm \[algo2\] below. Next, we prove its correctness and analyze running time.
Let $k$ be a positive constant $G' = GeneralBP(G)$ $MCMA = \emptyset$ $MCMA = MCMA \cup MM(G')$ $G = G \setminus MM(G')$ /\* remove from $G$ the edges of $MM(G')$, the adjacent edges in $G$ of $MM(G')$, and all isolated vertices. \*/ $G' = GeneralBP(G)$ return MCMA
\[lemmab\] Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with bounded neighborhood independence $c$, we achieve a $(2 + \epsilon)$-approximation of the Maximum Matching problem.
Be Lemma 3.1, after the first iteration of the loop of line 5 of Algorithm 2, we obtain a $(c + 1)$-approximation to maximum matching. Moreover, since each edge in the matching is adjacent in $G'$ to at most $2c$ vertices, and the set of vertices of the matching with their neighbors is $V$, the size of the matching is at least $|V|/2(c + 1) = n/2(c + 1)$. In each iteration of the loop, at least $1/(c+1)$-fraction of the vertices that are still in $G$ are matched and removed from $G$. Hence, for $i = 1,2,...,$ the number of vertices remaining in $G$ is at most $(c/c + 1)^i \cdot n$. All the other vertices are either matched or have all their neighbors matched. For an arbitrarily small fixed constant $\epsilon$ and a sufficiently large constant $i$, it holds that $(c/c + 1)^i \cdot n \leq \epsilon \cdot n/2(c + 1)$. In other words, the residual set of vertices after $i$ rounds is of size at most an $\epsilon$ fraction of the matching already computed in iteration 1. Thus, after $i$ iteration, any subset of remaining edges of $G$ whose addition makes the result a maximal matching, increases its size by at most an $\epsilon$ fraction. Therefore, the matching after $i$ iterations is a $(1 + \epsilon)$-approximation to MM. Since MM is a 2-approximation to MCM, our algorithm computes a $(2+\epsilon)$-approximate MCM within a constant number of iterations.
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with bounded neighborhood independence $c$, the running time of Algorithm \[algo2\] is $O(\log^* n)$.
Using $O(\Delta + \log^* n)$-time Maximal Matching algorithm by Panconesi and Rizzi [@panconesi2001some], and due to the fact that $\Delta(G') = c + 1 = O(1)$, each iteration requires $O(\log^*n)$ rounds. Since the overall number of iterations is constant, the entire running time is $O(\log^* n)$ as well.
Self-stabilizing Backup Placement in Graphs of Bounded Neighborhood Independence {#selfstab}
================================================================================
In this section we devise a self-stabilizing backup placement algorithm in Dijkstra model of self-stabilization [@edsger1974dijkstra]. In this model each vertex has a ROM (Read Only Memory) that is failure free, and a RAM (Random Access Memory) that is prone to failures. An adversary can corrupt the RAM of all processors in any way. However, in certain periods of time, faults do not occur. These periods of time are not known to the processors. The goal of a distributed self-stabilizing algorithm is reaching a proper state in all processors, once faults stop occurring. Since these time points are not known in advance, an algorithm is constantly executed by all processors. The stabilization time is the number of rounds from the beginning of a time period in which faults do not occur, until all processors reach a proper state, given that no additional faults occur during this time period.
Our algorithm stores only the $ID$ of a processor in its ROM. The backup placement selection is stored in the RAM of a processor. The self-stabilizing algorithm is extremely simple. Specifically, In each round each vertex executes the *next-modulo* operation. In other words, each vertex repeats Algorithm \[algo1\] in each round. This completes the description of the algorithm. Since this operation within a single (faultless) round results in a proper $O(1)$-Backup-placement in a graph with constant neighborhood independence, such an algorithm stabilizes within one round after faults stop occurring. Moreover the solution remains proper as long as there are no faults. We summarize this in the next theorem.
In graphs with neighborhood independence bounded by a constant, our algorithm stabilizes within $1$ round and produces $O(1)$-backup-placement.
Thanks to the simplicity of this backup-placement algorithm, it can be used as a building block for other self-stabilization algorithms that employ backup-placements. Specifically, in each round an algorithm can execute the *next-modulo* operation before its own code. This way, starting from the round after the round when faults stop occurring, a subgraph $G'$ of maximum degree $c + 1$ is obtained. This subgraph does not change as long as there are no additional faults. This is because the subgraph is deduced once faults stopped occurring, based only on values in the ROM, and this subgraph does not change in faultless rounds. Thus, a self-stabilizing algorithm with time of the form $f(\Delta,n) = f_1(\Delta) \cdot f_2(n)$ invoked on $G'$ will stabilize within $f(\Delta',n) + 1 = O(f_2(n))$ rounds. This is because $\Delta' = \Delta(G') = c + 1 = O(1)$ in graphs with bounded neighborhood independence $c$. Hence, we obtain the following theorem.
In graph with neighborhood independence at most $c = O(1)$, any self-stabilizing maximal matching algorithm with time $f(\Delta,n) = f_1(\Delta) \cdot f_2(n)$ can be converted to a self-stabilizing $(c + 1)$-approximation of maximum matching with time $O(f_1(c) \cdot f_2(n)) = O(f_2(n))$.
For example, a maximal matching algorithm with running time $O(\Delta n + \Delta^2 \log n)$, such as the self-stabilizing algorithm of [@kunne2018self] adapted to a network with IDs, can be converted into a self-stabilizing $(c + 1)$-approximate MCM algorithm with $O(c \cdot n + c^2 \log n)$ time. This is $O( n)$, for $c = O(1)$.
[^1]: Open University of Israel. E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Nuclear Research Center - Negev. E-mail: [[email protected]]{} This work was supported by the Lynn and William Frankel Center for Computer Science, the Open University of Israel’s Research Fund, and ISF grant 724/15.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this article, we introduce determinantal representations of the Moore - Penrose inverse and the Drazin inverse which are based on analogues of the classical adjoint matrix. Using the obtained analogues of the adjoint matrix, we get Cramer rules for the least squares solution and for the Drazin inverse solution of singular linear systems. Finally, determinantal expressions for ${\rm {\bf A}}^{
+} {\rm {\bf A}}$, ${\rm {\bf A}} {\rm {\bf A}}^{ +}$, and ${\rm
{\bf A}}^{ D} {\rm {\bf A}}$ are presented.
author:
- 'Kyrchei I. I.[^1]'
title: 'Analogues of the adjoint matrix for generalized inverses and corresponding Cramer rules.'
---
*Keywords*: Moore-Penrose inverse; Drazin inverse; system of linear equations; least squares solution; Cramer rule
*AMS classification*: 15A09, 15A57
Introduction
============
Determinantal representation of the Moore - Penrose inverse was studied in [@ba; @ben1; @ga; @mo; @st1]. The main result consists in the following theorem. \[section\]
\[kyrc1\] The Moore - Penrose inverse ${\rm {\bf A}}^{+}=(a_{ij}^{+})_{n\times m}$ of ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}_{r}^{m\times n} $ has the following determinantal representation $$a_{ij}^{+} = {\frac{{{\sum\limits_{\left( {\alpha,\,\beta} \right)
\in N_{r} {\left\{ {j,\,i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}^{\ast}} \right)_{\alpha} ^{\beta} } \right|}{\frac{{\partial}
}{{\partial a_{j\,i} }}}{\left| {{\rm {\bf A}}_{\beta} ^{\alpha} }
\right|}} }}}{{{\sum\limits_{\left( {\gamma,\,\delta} \right) \in
N_{r} } {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{\ast}} \right)_{\gamma}
^{\delta} } \right|}\,{\left| {{\rm {\bf A}}_{\delta} ^{\gamma} }
\right|}}} }}}, \,\,1 \leq i, j \leq n.$$
Stanimirovic’ [@st2] introduced a determinantal representation of the Drazin inverse by the following theorem.
The Drazin inverse ${\rm {\bf A}}^{D}=\left(a_{ij}^{D}\right)$ of an arbitrary matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n} $ with $Ind{\rm {\bf A}}=k $ possesses the following determinantal representation $$a_{ij}^{D} = {\frac{{{\sum\limits_{\left( {\alpha,\,\beta} \right)
\in N_{r_{k}} {\left\{ {j,\,i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm
{\bf A}}^{s}} \right)_{\alpha} ^{\beta} }
\right|}{\frac{{\partial} }{{\partial a_{j\,i} }}}{\left| {{\rm
{\bf A}}_{\beta} ^{\alpha} } \right|}} }}}{{{\sum\limits_{\left(
{\gamma,\,\delta} \right) \in N_{r_{k}} } {{\left| {\left( {{\rm
{\bf A}}^{s}} \right)_{\gamma} ^{\delta} } \right|}\,{\left| {{\rm
{\bf A}}_{\delta} ^{\gamma} } \right|}}} }}}, \,\,1 \leq i, j
\leq n;$$ where $s \ge k$ and $r_{k} = rank{\rm {\bf A}}^{s}$.
These determinantal representations of generalized inverses are based on corresponding full-rank representations.
We use the following notations from [@ba; @st1]. Let ${\mathbb C}^{m\times
n} $ be the set of $m$ by $n$ matrices with complex entries, ${\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r} $ be the subset of ${\mathbb
C}^{m\times n} $ in which every matrix has rank $r$. ${\rm \bf
I}_{m}$ denotes the identity matrix of order $m$, and $\|.\|=\|.\|_{2}$ is the Euclidean vector norm. Let $\alpha : =
\left\{ {\alpha _{1} ,\ldots ,\alpha _{k}} \right\} \subseteq
{\left\{ {1,\ldots ,m} \right\}}$ and $\beta : = \left\{ {\beta
_{1} ,\ldots ,\beta _{k}} \right\} \subseteq {\left\{ {1,\ldots
,n} \right\}}$ be subsets of the order $1 \le k \le \min {\left\{
{m,n} \right\}}$. Then ${\left| {{\rm {\bf A}}_{\beta} ^{\alpha} }
\right|}$ denotes the minor of ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb
C}^{m\times n} $ determined by the rows indexed by $\alpha$ and the columns indexed by $\beta$. Clearly, ${\left| {{\rm {\bf
A}}_{\alpha} ^{\alpha} } \right|}$ denotes a principal minor determined by the rows and columns indexed by $\alpha$. The cofactor of $a_{ij} $ in ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times
n} $ is denoted by ${\frac{{\partial }}{{\partial a_{ij}}
}}{\left| {{\rm {\bf A}}} \right|}$. For $1 \leq k\leq n$, denote by $\textsl{L}_{ k, n}: = {\left\{ {\,\alpha :\alpha = \left(
{\alpha _{1} ,\ldots ,\alpha _{k}} \right),\,{\kern 1pt} 1 \le
\alpha _{1} \le \ldots \le \alpha _{k} \le n} \right\}}$ the collection of strictly increasing sequences of $k$ integers chosen from $\left\{ {1,\ldots ,n} \right\}$. Let $N_{k} : =
\textsl{L}_{k, m} \times \textsl{L}_{ k, n} $. For fixed $\alpha
\in \textsl{L}_{ p, m}$, $\beta \in \textsl{L}_{ p, n}$, $1\leq
p\leq k$, let $$\begin{array}{c}
I_{k,\,m} \left( {\alpha} \right): = {\left\{ {I:\,I \in
\textsl{L}_{ k,\, m} ,I \supseteq \alpha} \right\}},\\
J_{k,\,n}
\left( {\beta} \right): = {\left\{ {J:\,J \in \textsl{L}_{ k,\, n}
,J \supseteq \beta} \right\}},\\
N_{k} \left( {\alpha ,\beta} \right): = I_{k,\,m} \left( {\alpha}
\right)\times J_{k,\,n} \left( {\beta} \right)
\end{array}$$ For case $i \in \alpha $ and $j \in \beta$, we denote $$\begin{array}{c}
I_{k,m} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}: = {\left\{ {\alpha:\,\alpha \in
L_{k, m}, i \in \alpha} \right\}},
J_{k,\,n} {\left\{ {j}
\right\}}: = {\left\{ {\beta:\,\beta\in L_{k, n}, j \in \beta}
\right\}},\\
N_{k} {\left\{ {i,j} \right\}}: = I_{k,\, m} {\left\{ {i}
\right\}}\times J_{k,\, n} {\left\{ {j} \right\}}.
\end{array}$$
In this paper we introduce determinantal representations of the Moore - Penrose inverse and of the Drazin inverse based on corresponding limit representations. The obtained determinantal representations can be considered as founded on some analogues of the classical adjoint matrix. The corresponding Cramer rules for the complex system of linear equations with a rectangular or singular coefficient matrix follow from these analogues.
Analogues of the classical adjoint matrix for the Moore - Penrose inverse
==========================================================================
We shall use the following well-known facts (see, for example, [@ho]). \[section\]
The matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} \in {\mathbb C}^{n\times m}$ is called the Moore - Penrose inverse of an arbitrary ${\rm {\bf
A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}$ if it satisfies the equations $${\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} {\rm {\bf A}} = {\rm {\bf
A}};\,\,{\rm {\bf A}}^{ +}{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\rm
{\bf A}}^{ +};\,\, ({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ + })^{\ast}={\rm
{\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ + };\,\,({\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} {\rm {\bf
A}})^{\ast}={\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} {\rm {\bf A}}.$$
The superscript $\ast$ denotes conjugate transpose matrix. \[section\]
[@ho] There exists a unique Moore - Penrose inverse ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ + }$ of ${\rm {\bf A}}\in
{\mathbb C}^{m\times n} $.
[@ho]\[kyrc2\] If ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n} $, then $${\rm {\bf
A}}^{ +} = {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\lambda \to 0}} {\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} + \lambda {\rm
{\bf I}}} \right)^{ - 1} = {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\lambda\to 0}}
\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}} + \lambda {\rm {\bf I}}}
\right)^{ - 1}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *},$$ where $\lambda \in {\mathbb
R} _{ +} $, and ${\mathbb R} _{ +} $ is the set of positive real numbers.
[@ho]\[kyrc3\] If ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n} $, then the following statements are true.
- If $\rm{rank}\,{\rm {\bf A}} = n$, then ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +}
= \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)^{ - 1}{\rm
{\bf A}}^{ * }$ .
- If $\rm{rank}\,{\rm {\bf A}} =
m$, then ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\rm {\bf A}}^{ * }\left( {{\rm
{\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} } \right)^{ - 1}.$
- If $\rm{rank}\,{\rm {\bf A}} = n = m$, then ${\rm {\bf
A}}^{ +} = {\rm {\bf A}}^{ - 1}$ .
[@ho]\[kyrc4\] Let $d_{r}$ be the sum of principal minors of order $r$ of ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$. Then its characteristic polynomial $ p_{{\rm {\bf A}}}\left( {t}
\right)$ can be expressed as $ p_{{\rm {\bf A}}}\left( {t}
\right) = \det \left( { t{\rm {\bf I}} - {\rm {\bf A}}} \right) =
t^{n} - d_{1} t^{n - 1} + d_{2} t^{n - 2} - \ldots + \left( { - 1}
\right)^{n}d_{n}. $
Denote by ${\rm {\bf a}}_{.j} $ and ${\rm {\bf a}}_{i.} $ the $j$th column and the $i$th row of ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb
C}^{m\times n} $ respectively. In the same way, denote by ${\rm
{\bf a}}^{\ast}_{.j} $ and ${\rm {\bf a}}^{\ast}_{i.} $ the $j$th column and the $i$th row of Hermitian adjoint matrix ${\rm {\bf
A}}^{\ast}$. Let ${\rm {\bf A}}_{.j} \left( {{\rm {\bf b}}}
\right)$ denote the matrix obtained from ${\rm {\bf A}}$ by replacing its $j$th column with some vector ${\rm {\bf b}}$, and let ${\rm {\bf A}}_{i.} \left( {{\rm {\bf b}}} \right)$ denote the matrix obtained from ${\rm {\bf A}}$ by replacing its $i$th row with ${\rm {\bf b}}$.
\[kyrc5\] If ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r}
$, then $
{\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}\,\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)_{.\,i} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{ *} } \right) \le r.
$
[*Proof*]{}. Let ${\rm {\bf P}}_{i\,k} \left( {-a_{j\,k}} \right)\in {\mathbb
C}^{n\times n} $, $(k \ne i )$, be the matrix with $-a_{j\,k} $ in the $(i, k)$ entry, 1 in all diagonal entries, and 0 in others. It is the matrix of an elementary transformation. It follows that $$\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)_{.\,i} \left(
{{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,j}^{ *} } \right) \cdot {\prod\limits_{k \ne
i} {{\rm {\bf P}}_{i\,k} \left( {-a_{j\,k}} \right) = {\mathop
{\left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{{\sum\limits_{k \ne j} {a_{1k}^{ *} a_{k1}} } } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill
& {a_{1j}^{ *} } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {{\sum\limits_{k \ne
j } {a_{1k}^{ *} a_{kn}}}} \hfill \\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{\ldots} \hfill \\
{{\sum\limits_{k \ne j} {a_{nk}^{ *} a_{k1}} } } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill
& {a_{nj}^{ *} } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {{\sum\limits_{k \ne
j } {a_{nk}^{ *} a_{kn}}}} \hfill \\
\end{array}} }
\right)}\limits_{i-th}}}}.$$ The obtained above matrix has the following factorization. $${\mathop {\left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{{\sum\limits_{k \ne j} {a_{1k}^{ *} a_{k1}} } } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill
& {a_{1j}^{ *} } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {{\sum\limits_{k \ne
j } {a_{1k}^{ *} a_{kn}} } } \hfill \\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{\ldots} \hfill \\
{{\sum\limits_{k \ne j} {a_{nk}^{ *} a_{k1}} } } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill
& {a_{nj}^{ *} } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {{\sum\limits_{k \ne
j } {a_{nk}^{ *} a_{kn}} } } \hfill \\
\end{array}} } \right)}\limits_{i-th}} =$$ $$= \left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_{11}^{ *} } \hfill & {a_{12}^{ *} } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{a_{1m}^{ *} } \hfill \\
{a_{21}^{ *} } \hfill & {a_{22}^{ *} } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{a_{2m}^{ *} } \hfill \\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill
\\
{a_{n1}^{ *} } \hfill & {a_{n2}^{ *} } \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{a_{nm}^{ *} } \hfill \\
\end{array}} } \right){\mathop {\left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_{11}} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {0} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{a_{n1}} \hfill \\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{\ldots} \hfill \\
{0} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {1} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {0} \hfill
\\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{\ldots} \hfill \\
{a_{m1}} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {0} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{a_{mn}} \hfill \\
\end{array}} } \right)}\limits_{i-th}} j-th.$$ Denote by ${\rm {\bf \tilde {A}}}: = {\mathop
{\left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{a_{11}} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {0} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{a_{1n}} \hfill \\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{\ldots} \hfill \\
{0} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {1} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {0} \hfill
\\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{\ldots} \hfill \\
{a_{m1}} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {0} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill &
{a_{mn}} \hfill \\
\end{array}} } \right)}\limits_{i-th}} j-th$. The matrix ${\rm {\bf \tilde {A}}}$ is obtained from ${\rm {\bf A}}$ by replacing all entries of the $j$th row and of the $i$th column with zeroes except that the $(j, i)$ entry equals 1. Elementary transformations of a matrix do not change its rank. It follows that ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)_{.\,i} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{ *} } \right) \le \min
{\left\{ {{\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ * },{\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf \tilde {A}}}}
\right\}}$. Since ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf \tilde {A}}} \ge {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}\,{\rm
{\bf A}} = {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} $ and ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{
* }{\rm {\bf A}} = {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}$ the proof is completed.$\blacksquare$
The following lemma is proved in the same way.
If ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r} $, then $ {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} }
\right)_{i\,.} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{j\,.}^{ *} } \right) \le
r.$
\[kyrc6\] The Moore-Penrose inverse ${\rm {\bf A}}^{+}$ of ${\rm {\bf A}}\in
{\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r} $ can be represented as follows $$\label{eq1}
\begin{array}{l}
{\rm {\bf A}}^{
+}=\left({\frac{l_{ij}}{{d_{r} ({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}})}}}
\right)_{n\times m},\,
\mbox{where}
\\
l_{ij} = {\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,\, n} {\left\{ {i}
\right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}})_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{ *} )} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta}
} \right|}}},\,\,\,
d_{r} ({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}) =
{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r, \,n}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}},
\end{array}$$ or $$\label{eq2}
\begin{array}{l}
{\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} =\left({\frac{{r_{ij}}}{{d_{r}
({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )}}} \right)_{n\times
m},\,
\mbox{where} \\
r_{ij} =
{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in I_{r,\, m} {\left\{ {j} \right\}}}
{{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ * })_{j\,.} ({\rm
{\bf a}}_{i\,.}^{ *} )} \right)_{\alpha} ^{\alpha} }
\right|}}},\,\,\, d_{r} ({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} ) =
{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in I_{r, \,m} } {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} } \right)_{\alpha }^{\alpha} } \right|}}} .
\end{array}$$
[*Proof*]{}. At first we shall obtain the representation (\[eq1\]). If $\lambda \in {\mathbb R} _{ +} $, then the matrix $\left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n} $ is Hermitian and ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}\left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)=n$. Hence, there exists its inverse $$\left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)^{ - 1} = {\frac{{1}}{{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} +
{\rm {\bf A}}^{ * }{\rm {\bf A}}} \right)}}}\left(
{{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{L_{11}} \hfill & {L_{21}} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {L_{n\,1}} \hfill
\\
{L_{12}} \hfill & {L_{22}} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {L_{n\,2}} \hfill
\\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill
\\
{L_{1\,n}} \hfill & {L_{2\,n}} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {L_{n\,n}} \hfill
\\
\end{array}} } \right),$$ where $L_{ij} $ $(\forall i,j=\overline{1,n})$ is a cofactor in $\lambda {\rm {\bf
I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}$. By Lemma \[kyrc2\], ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\lambda \to 0}}
\left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ * }{\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)^{ - 1}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} $, so that $$\label{eq3} {\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} ={\mathop {\lim} \limits_{\lambda
\to 0}}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)_{.1} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,1}^{ *} } \right)}{{\det
\left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)}}
& \ldots & \frac{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)_{.\,1} \left( {{\rm {\bf
a}}_{.\,m}^{ *} } \right)}{{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} +
{\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)}}\\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
\frac{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm
{\bf A}}} \right)_{.\,n} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,1}^{ *} }
\right)}{{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *}
{\rm {\bf A}}} \right)}} &
\ldots &
\frac{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}}} \right)_{.\,n} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,m}^{ *} }
\right)}{{\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *}
{\rm {\bf A}}} \right)}}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ From Theorem \[kyrc4\] we get $$\det \left( {\lambda{\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *}
{\rm {\bf A}}} \right) = \lambda ^{n} + d_{1} \lambda ^{n - 1} +
d_{2} \lambda ^{n - 2} + \ldots + d_{n},$$ where $d_{r} $ $(\forall r=\overline{1,n-1})$ is a sum of principal minors of ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}$ of order $r$ and $d_{n}=\det {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}$. Since ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}} = {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}
= r$, then $d_{n} = d_{n - 1} = \ldots = d_{r + 1} = 0$ and $$\label{eq4}\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *}
{\rm {\bf A}}} \right) = \lambda ^{n} + d_{1} \lambda ^{n - 1} +
d_{2} \lambda ^{n - 2} + \ldots + d_{r} \lambda ^{n - r}.$$ In the same way, we have for arbitrary $ 1\leq i \leq n$ and $1\leq j\leq m $ from Theorem \[kyrc4\] $$\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)_{.\,i} \left( {{\rm {\bf
a}}_{.j}^{ *} } \right) = l_{1}^{\left( {ij} \right)} \lambda ^{n
- 1} + l_{2}^{\left( {ij} \right)} \lambda ^{n - 2} + \ldots +
l_{n}^{\left( {ij} \right)},$$ where for an arbitrary $1\leq k \leq n - 1$, $l_{k}^{\left( {ij}
\right)} = {\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{k,\,n} {\left\{ {i}
\right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}})_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{ *} )} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta}
} \right|}}}$, and $l_{n}^{\left( {i\,j} \right)} = \det
\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)_{.\,i} \left(
{{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,j}^{ *} } \right)$. By Lemma \[kyrc5\], ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)_{.\,i}
\left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,j}^{ *} } \right) \le r$ so that if $
k>r$, then ${{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}})_{\,.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{ *} )} \right)_{\beta}
^{\beta} } \right|}}= 0$, $(\forall \beta \in J_{k,\,n} {\left\{
{i} \right\}}, \forall i = \overline {1,n}, \forall j = \overline
{1,m})$. Therefore if $r + 1 \le k < n$, then $l_{k}^{\left( {ij}
\right)} = {\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{k,\,n} {\left\{ {i}
\right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}})_{\,.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{ *} )} \right)_{\beta}
^{\beta} } \right|}}}= 0$ and $l_{n}^{\left( {i\,j} \right)} =
\det \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)_{.\,i}
\left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,j}^{ *} } \right) = 0$, $\left( {\forall
i = \overline {1,n},\, \forall j = \overline {1,m}} \right)$. Finally we obtain $$\label{eq5}
\det \left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}} + {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}}} \right)_{.\,i} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,j}^{ *} } \right) =
l_{1}^{\left( {i\,j} \right)} \lambda ^{n - 1} + l_{2}^{\left(
{i\,j} \right)} \lambda ^{n - 2} + \ldots + l_{r}^{\left( {ij}
\right)} \lambda ^{n - r}.$$
By replacing the denominators and the numerators of the fractions in entries of matrix (\[eq3\]) with the expressions (\[eq4\]) and (\[eq5\]) respectively, we get $${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\mathop {\lim} \limits_{\lambda \to 0}}
\begin{pmatrix}
{{\frac{{l_{1}^{\left( {11} \right)} \lambda ^{n - 1} + \ldots +
l_{r}^{\left( {11} \right)} \lambda^{n - r}}}{{\lambda ^{n} +
d_{1} \lambda ^{n - 1} + \ldots + d_{r} \lambda ^{n - r}}}}}
& \ldots & {{\frac{{l_{1}^{\left( {1m} \right)} \lambda ^{n
- 1} + \ldots + l_{r}^{\left( {1m} \right)} \lambda ^{n -
r}}}{{\lambda ^{n} + d_{1} \lambda
^{n - 1} + \ldots + d_{r} \lambda ^{n - r}}}}} \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
{{\frac{{l_{1}^{\left( {n1} \right)} \lambda ^{n - 1} + \ldots +
l_{r}^{\left( {n1} \right)} \lambda ^{n - r}}}{{\lambda ^{n} +
d_{1} \lambda ^{n - 1} + \ldots + d_{r} \lambda ^{n - r}}}}} &
\ldots & {{\frac{{l_{1}^{\left( {nm} \right)} \lambda ^{n - 1} +
\ldots + l_{r}^{\left( {nm} \right)} \lambda ^{n - r}}}{{\lambda
^{n} + d_{1} \lambda ^{n - 1} + \ldots + d_{r} \lambda ^{n -
r}}}}}
\end{pmatrix}=$$ $$= \left( {{\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{{\frac{{l_{r}^{\left( {11} \right)}} }{{d_{r}} }}} \hfill & {\ldots}
\hfill & {{\frac{{l_{r}^{\left( {1m} \right)}} }{{d_{r}} }}} \hfill \\
{\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill & {\ldots} \hfill \\
{{\frac{{l_{r}^{\left( {n1} \right)}} }{{d_{r}} }}} \hfill & {\ldots}
\hfill & {{\frac{{l_{r}^{\left( {nm} \right)}} }{{d_{r}} }}} \hfill \\
\end{array}} } \right).$$ From here the representation (\[eq1\]) of ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} $ follows by denoting $l_{r}^{\left( {ij} \right)} = l_{ij} $.
We obtain the representation (\[eq2\]) in the same way. $\blacksquare$ \[section\]
\[rem1\] If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} =
n$, then from Lemma \[kyrc3\] we get ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} =
\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)^{ - 1}{\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} $. Representing $({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})^{-1}$ by the classical adjoint matrix, we have $$\label{eq6} {\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\frac{{1}}{{\det ({\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})}}}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})_{.1} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.1}^{ *} } \right)}&
\ldots & {\det ({\rm
{\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})_{.1} \left( {{\rm {\bf
a}}_{.\;m}^{ *} } \right)}\\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})_{.\,n} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,1}^{ *} } \right)}
& \ldots
& {\det ({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})_{.\,n} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,m}^{ *} } \right)}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ If $n < m$, then (\[eq2\]) is valid.
\[rem2\] As above, if ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = m$, then $$\label{eq7} {\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\frac{{1}}{{\det ({\rm {\bf
A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )}}}\begin{pmatrix}
{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )_{1\,.} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{1\,.}^{ *} } \right)}
& \ldots &
{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )_{m\,.} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{1\,.}^{ *} } \right)} \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )_{1\,.} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{n\,.}^{ *} } \right)}
& \ldots &
{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )_{m\,.} \left( {{\rm {\bf
a}}_{n\,.}^{ *} } \right)}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ If $n > m$, then (\[eq1\]) is valid as well.
The representation (\[eq1\]) can be obtained from Theorem \[kyrc1\] by using the Binet-Cauchy formula. We use another method, which is the same for the determinantal representations of the Moore-Penrose inverse by (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]), and of the Drazin inverse by (\[eq11\]).
To obtain an entry of ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +}$ by Theorem \[kyrc1\] one calculates $(C^{r}_{n}C^{r}_{m}+C^{r-1}_{n-1}C^{r-1}_{m-1})$ determinants of order $r$. Whereas by (\[eq1\]) we calculate as much as $(C^{r}_{n}+C^{r-1}_{n-1})$ determinants of order $r$ or we calculate the total of $(C^{r}_{m}+C^{r-1}_{m-1})$ determinants by (\[eq2\]). Therefore the calculation of entries of ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} $ by Theorem \[kyrc6\] is easier than by Theorem \[kyrc1\].
\[section\]
\[kyrc7\] If ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r}$ and $r < \min
{\left\{ {m,n} \right\}}$ or $r = m < n $, then the projection matrix ${\rm {\bf P}} = {\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} {\rm {\bf A}}$ can be represented as $${\rm {\bf P}} = \left({\frac{{p_{ij}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)}}}\right)_{n\times n},$$ where ${\rm {\bf d}}_{.\,j} $ denotes the $j$th column of $({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})$ and, for arbitrary $1\leq i,j \leq n $, $p_{ij} ={\sum\limits_{\beta \in
J_{r,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{
*} {\rm {\bf A}})_{\,.\,i} ({\rm {\bf d}}_{.j} )} \right)_{\beta}
^{\beta} } \right|}}}$.
[*Proof*]{}. Representing the Moore - Penrose inverse ${\rm
{\bf A}}^{+}$ by (\[eq1\]), we obtain $${\rm {\bf P}}={\frac{{1}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm
{\bf A}}} \right)}}}\begin{pmatrix}
l_{11} & l_{12} & \ldots & l_{1m} \\
l_{21} & l_{22} & \ldots & l_{2m} \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
l_{n1} & l_{n2} & \ldots & l_{nm}
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & \ldots & a_{1n} \\
a_{21} & a_{22} & \ldots & a_{2n} \\
\ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\
a_{m\,1} & a_{m\,2} & \ldots & a_{m\,n}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Therefore, for arbitrary $1\leq i,j\leq n$ we get $$\begin{array}{c}
p_{i\,j}=\sum\limits_{k}
{{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,\,
n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *}
{\rm {\bf A}})_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,k}^{ *} )}
\right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}} \cdot a_{k\,j}=\\
=\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,\,
n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} \sum\limits_{k}
{{ {{\left|
{\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *}
{\rm {\bf A}})_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,k}^{ *}\cdot a_{k\,j} )}
\right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}}={\sum\limits_{\beta \in
J_{r,\,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}})_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf d}}_{.j}^{ *} )}
\right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}.\blacksquare
\end{array}$$
Using the representation (\[eq2\]) of the Moore - Penrose inverse the following corollary can be proved in the same way.
\[kyrc8\] If ${\rm
{\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r}$, where $r < \min {\left\{
{m,n} \right\}}$ or $r = n < m$, then a projection matrix ${\rm {\bf Q}} = {\rm
{\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} $ can be represented as $${\rm {\bf Q}} = \left({\frac{{q_{ij}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} } \right)}}}\right)_{m\times m},$$ where ${\rm {\bf g}}_{i.} $ denotes the $i$th row of $({\rm {\bf
A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )$ and, for arbitrary $1\leq i,j \leq m $, $q_{i\,j} ={\sum\limits_{\alpha \in I_{r,m} {\left\{ {j}
\right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}} {\rm {\bf A}}^{
*})_{j.}\, ({\rm {\bf g}}_{i.}\, )} \right)_{\alpha} ^{\alpha} }
\right|}}} $.
By definition of the classical adjoint $Adj({\rm {\bf A}})$ for an arbitrary invertible matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times
n}$ one may put $Adj({\rm {\bf A}})\cdot{\rm {\bf A}}=\det{\rm {\bf A}}\cdot{\rm {\bf I}}_{n}$. If ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}$ and ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf
A}} = n$, then by Lemma \[kyrc3\], ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} {\rm
{\bf A}} = {\rm {\bf I}}_{n}$. Representing the matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} $ by (\[eq6\]) as ${\rm
{\bf A}}^{ +} = {\frac{{{\rm {\bf L}}}}{{\det \left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right)}}}$, we obtain ${\rm {\bf L}}{\rm {\bf A}} = \det \left(
{{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}} \right) \cdot {\rm {\bf I}}_{n}
$. This means that the matrix ${\rm {\bf L}}$ is a left analogue of $Adj({\rm {\bf A}})$ , where ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{n}$. If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = m$, then by Lemma \[kyrc3\], ${\rm
{\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\rm {\bf I}}_{m}$. Representing the matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} $ by (\[eq7\]) as ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} = {\frac{{{\rm
{\bf R}}}}{{\det \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} }
\right)}}}$, we obtain ${\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf R}} = {\rm {\bf
I}}_{m} \cdot \det \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} }
\right)$. This means that the matrix ${\rm {\bf R}}$ is a right analogue of $Adj({\rm {\bf A}})$, where ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{m}$.
\[kyrc9\] If ${\rm} {\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r} $ and $r<\min\{m, n\}$, then by (\[eq1\]) we have ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +}
= {\frac{{{\rm {\bf L}}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm
{\bf A}}} \right)}}}$, where ${\rm {\bf L}} = \left( {l_{ij}} \right)\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times m}$. From Corollary \[kyrc7\] we get ${\rm
{\bf L}}{\rm {\bf A}} = d_{r} \left( {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf
A}} \right) \cdot {\rm {\bf P}}$. The matrix ${\rm {\bf P}}$ is idempotent. All eigenvalues of an idempotent matrix chose from 1 or 0 only. Thus, there exists an unitary matrix ${\rm {\bf U}}$ such that ${\rm {\bf L}}{\rm {\bf A}} = d_{r} \left( {\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}} \right) {\rm {\bf U}} {{\rm {\bf
diag}}\left( {{\rm 1},\ldots,{\rm 1},{\rm 0},\ldots ,{\rm 0}}
\right)} {\rm {\bf U}}^{ *} $, where $
{{\rm {\bf diag}}\left( {{\rm 1},\ldots,{\rm 1},{\rm
0},\ldots ,{\rm 0}} \right)} \in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$ is a diagonal matrix. Therefore, the matrix ${\rm {\bf L}}$ can be considered as a left analogue of $Adj({\rm {\bf A}})$, where ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb
C}^{m\times n}_{r}$.
In the same way, if ${\rm} {\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{m\times n}_{r} $ and $r<\min\{m, n\}$, then by (\[eq2\]) we have ${\rm {\bf A}}^{
+} = {\frac{{{\rm {\bf R}}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm
{\bf A}}^{ *} } \right)}}}$, where ${\rm {\bf R}} = \left(
{r_{ij}} \right)\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times m}$. From Corollary \[kyrc8\] we get ${\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf R}} = d_{r} \left(
{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} \right) \cdot {\rm {\bf Q}}$. The matrix ${\rm {\bf Q}}$ is idempotent. There exists an unitary matrix ${\rm {\bf V}}$ such that ${\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf R}} =
d_{r} \left( {\rm {\bf A}} {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} \right) {\rm {\bf
V}} {{\rm {\bf diag}}\left( {{\rm 1},\ldots ,{\rm 1},{\rm
0},\ldots,{\rm 0}} \right)}{\rm {\bf V}}^{ *} $, where $ {{\rm
{\bf diag}}\left( {{\rm 1},\ldots ,{\rm 1},{\rm 0},\ldots,{\rm 0}}
\right)} \in {\mathbb C}^{m\times m}$. Therefore, the matrix ${\rm {\bf R}}$ can be considered as a right analogue of $Adj({\rm {\bf A}})$ in this case.
An analogue of the classical adjoint matrix for the Drazin inverse
==================================================================
[@ca; @dr] Let ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n} $ with $ Ind{\kern
1pt} {\rm {\bf A}}=k$, where a nonnegative integer $Ind{\kern
1pt} {\rm {\bf A}}:= {\mathop {\min} \limits_{k \in N \cup
{\left\{ {0} \right\}}} }{\kern 1pt} {\left\{ {{\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf
A}}^{k + 1} = {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{k}} \right\}}$. Then the matrix ${\rm {\bf X}}$ satisfying $$\label{eq8} {\rm {\bf A}}^{k+1}{\rm
{\bf X}}={\rm {\bf
A}}^{k};\,\,
{\rm {\bf X}}{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf X}}={\rm {\bf X}};\,\, {\rm
{\bf A}}{\rm {\bf X}}={\rm {\bf X}}{\rm {\bf A}}$$ is called the Drazin inverse of ${\rm {\bf A}}$ and is denoted by ${\rm {\bf X}}={\rm
{\bf A}}^{D}$. In particular, if $Ind{\kern 1pt} {\rm {\bf A}}=1$, then the matrix ${\rm {\bf X}}$ in (\[eq8\]) is called the group inverse and is denoted by ${\rm {\bf X}}={\rm {\bf A}}^{{\rm \#}
}$.
If $Ind{\kern 1pt}
{\rm {\bf A}}=0$, then ${\rm {\bf A}}$ is nonsingular, and ${\rm
{\bf A}}^{D}\equiv {\rm {\bf A}}^{-1}$.
The Drazin inverse can be represented explicitly by the Jordan canonical form as follows.
[@ca] If ${\rm {\bf A}} \in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$ with $Ind{\kern 1pt} {\rm {\bf A}} = k $ and $$\label{eq9}
{\rm {\bf A}} = {\rm {\bf P}}\begin{pmatrix}
{\rm {\bf C}} & {\rm {\bf 0}} \\
{\rm {\bf 0}}& {\rm {\bf N}}
\end{pmatrix} {\rm {\bf P}}^{ - 1},$$ where ${\rm {\bf C}}$ is nonsingular, ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf C}} =
{\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{k}$, and ${\rm {\bf N}}$ is nilpotent of order $k$, then $${\rm {\bf A}}^{D} = {\rm {\bf P}}\begin{pmatrix}
{\rm {\bf C}}^{ - 1} & {\rm {\bf 0}} \\
{\rm {\bf 0}}& {\rm {\bf 0}}
\end{pmatrix} {\rm {\bf P}}^{ - 1}.$$
We use the following theorem about the limit representation of the Drazin inverse.
[@ca]\[kyrc10\] If ${\rm {\bf A}}
\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$, then $${\rm {\bf A}}^{D} = {\mathop {\lim} \limits_{\lambda \to 0}}
\left( {\lambda {\rm {\bf I}}_n + {\rm {\bf A}}^{k + 1}} \right)^{
- 1}{\rm {\bf A}}^{k},$$ where $k = Ind{\kern 1pt} {\rm {\bf A}}$ and $\lambda \in {\mathbb
R} _{ +} $.
Denote by ${\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{(k)} $ and ${\rm {\bf
a}}_{i.}^{(k)} $ the $j$th column and the $i$th row of ${\rm
{\bf A}}^{k} $ respectively.
\[kyrc11\] If ${\rm {\bf A}} \in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$ with $Ind{\kern 1pt} {\rm {\bf A}} = k $, then $$\label{eq10} {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}_{.{\kern 1pt} i}^{k + 1} \left(
{{\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{\left( {k} \right)}} \right) \le {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm
{\bf A}}^{k + 1}, \quad \forall i,j = \overline {1,n}.$$
[*Proof*]{}. The proof of this lemma is similar to that of Lemma \[kyrc5\].
In the following theorem we introduce a determinantal representation of the Drazin inverse.
\[kyrc12\] If $Ind{\kern 1pt} {\rm {\bf A}} = k $ and ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf
A}}^{k + 1} = {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{k}=r \le n$ for an arbitrary matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n} $, then $$\label{eq11}
\begin{array}{l}
{\rm {\bf A}}^{D} = \left({\frac{{d_{ij}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm
{\bf A}}^{k + 1}} \right)}}}\right)_{n\times n},
\\
\mbox{where}\\
d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k + 1}} \right) =
{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,n}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}^{k + 1}} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta }} \right|}}},\\
d_{ij} = {\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}}
{{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}_{.\,i}^{k + 1} \left( {{\rm {\bf
a}}_{.j}^{\left( {k} \right)}} \right)} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta}
} \right|}}}, \,\,\left( {\forall i,j = \overline {1,n}} \right).
\end{array}$$
[*Proof*]{}. The proof of this theorem is analogous to that of Theorem \[kyrc6\] by using Theorem \[kyrc4\], Lemma \[kyrc11\], and Theorem \[kyrc10\].
In the following corollaries we introduce determinantal representations of the group inverse ${\rm {\bf A}}^{{\rm \#} }$ and the matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}^{D}{\rm {\bf A}}$ respectively.
If $Ind{\kern 1pt} {\rm {\bf A}} = 1 $ and ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf
A}}^{2} = {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}=r \le n$ for an arbitrary matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n} $, then $${\rm {\bf A}}^{\rm \#} = \left({\frac{{g_{ij}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm
{\bf A}}^{2}} \right)}}}\right)_{n\times n},$$ where $d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{2}} \right) =
{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,n}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}^{2}} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta }} \right|}}}$, $ g_{ij} =
{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left|
{\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}_{.\,i}^{2} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}}
\right)} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}$, $\left( {\forall
i,j = \overline {1,n}} \right). $
[*Proof*]{}. The proof follows from Theorem \[kyrc12\] in view of $k=1$.
If $Ind{\kern 1pt} {\rm {\bf A}} = k $ and ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{k
+ 1} = {\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{k}=r \le n$ for an arbitrary matrix ${\rm {\bf A}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n} $, then $${\rm {\bf A}}^{D}{\rm {\bf A}} = \left({\frac{{v_{ij}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm
{\bf A}}^{k+1}} \right)}}}\right)_{n\times n},$$ where $ v_{ij} =
{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left|
{\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}_{.\,i}^{k+1} \left( {{\rm {\bf
a}}_{.j}}^{(k+1)} \right)} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}$, $\left( {\forall i,j = \overline {1,n}} \right). $
[*Proof*]{}. Representing the Drazin inverse ${\rm {\bf
A}}^{D}$ by (\[eq11\]) we obtain $${\rm {\bf A}}^{D}{\rm {\bf A}}= \left({\frac{{d_{ij}}}{{d_{r}
\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k+1}} \right)}}}\right)_{n\times n}\cdot
\left( a_{ij}\right)_{n\times n}= \left({\frac{{v_{ij}}}{{d_{r}
\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k+1}} \right)}}}\right)_{n\times n}.$$ Here for arbitrary $1\leq i,j\leq n$ we have $$\begin{array}{c}
v_{i\,j}=\sum\limits_{s}
{{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,\,
n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{
k+1})_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,s}^{ (k)} )}
\right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}} a_{s\,j}=\\
=\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,\,
n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} \sum\limits_{s}
{{ {{\left|
{\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{k+1}
)_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,s}^{(k)} \cdot a_{s\,j} )}
\right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}}={\sum\limits_{\beta \in
J_{r,\,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf
A}}^{ k+1} )_{.\,i} ({\rm {\bf a}}_{.j}^{(k+1)} )}
\right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}}. \blacksquare
\end{array}$$
The matrix $({\rm {\bf A}}^{D}{\rm {\bf A}})$ is idempotent. Similarly to the case of Remark \[kyrc9\], the matrix ${\rm {\bf
D}}=\left(d_{ij}\right)_{n\times n}$ can be considered as an analogue of the classical adjoint matrix, where ${\rm {\bf
D}}={d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k+1}} \right)}{\rm {\bf
A}}^{D}$.
Cramer rules for generalized inverse solutions
===============================================
Suppose in a complex system of linear equations: $$\label{eq12} {\rm {\bf A}} \cdot {\rm {\bf x}} = {\rm {\bf y}}$$ the coefficient matrix ${\rm {\bf A}} \in {\mathbb C}^{m\times
n}_{r}$ and a column of constants ${\rm {\bf y}} = \left( {y_{1}
,\ldots ,y_{m} } \right)^{T}\in {\mathbb C}^{m}$. The least squares solution of the system (\[eq12\]) is the vector ${\rm {\bf x}}^{0}\in\mathbb{C}^{n} $ satisfying $${\left\| {{\rm
{\bf x}}^{0}} \right\|} = {\mathop {\min} \limits_{{\rm {\bf
\tilde {x}}} \in\mathbb{C}^{n}} } {\left\{ {{\left\| {{\rm {\bf
\tilde {x}}}} \right\|}\,\vert\, {\left\| {{\rm {\bf A}} \cdot
{\rm {\bf \tilde {x}}} - {\rm {\bf y}}} \right\|} = {\mathop
{\min} \limits_{{\rm {\bf x}} \in \mathbb{C}^{n}} }{\left\| {{\rm
{\bf A}} \cdot {\rm {\bf x}} - {\rm {\bf y}}} \right\|}}
\right\}},$$ where $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ is an $n$-dimension complex vector space.
[@ho] The vector ${\rm {\bf x}} = {\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} {\rm
{\bf y}}$ is the least squares solution of the system (\[eq12\]).
\[kyrc13\] The following statements are true for the system of linear equations (\[eq12\]).
- If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = n$, then the components of the least squares solution ${\rm {\bf x}}=\left( {{x^{0}_{1}} ,\ldots ,x^{0}_{n} }
\right)^{T}$ are obtained by the formula $$\label{eq13} x_{j}^{0} = {\frac{{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm
{\bf A}})_{.\,j} \left( {{\rm {\bf f}}} \right)}}{{\det {\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}}}, \quad \left( {\forall j = \overline
{1,n}} \right),$$ where ${\rm {\bf f}} = {\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf y}}$.
- If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = r \le m < n$, then $$\label{eq14} x_{j}^{0} = {\frac{{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,n}
{\left\{ {j} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm
{\bf A}})_{.\,j} ({\rm {\bf f}} )} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} }
\right|}}}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} {\rm {\bf A}}}
\right)}}}, \quad \left( {\forall j = \overline {1,n}} \right).$$
[*Proof.*]{} i) If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = n$, then we can represent ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +} $ by (\[eq7\]). By multiplying ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +}$ into ${\rm {\bf y}}$ we get (\[eq13\]).
ii\) If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = k \le m < n$, then ${\rm {\bf
A}}^{ +} $ can be represented by (\[eq1\]). By multiplying ${\rm {\bf A}}^{ +}$ into ${\rm {\bf y}}$ the least squares solution of the linear system (\[eq12\]) is given by components as in (\[eq14\]). $\blacksquare$
Using (\[eq3\]) and (\[eq8\]), we can obtain another representation of the Cramer rule for the least squares solution of a linear system.
The following statements are true for a system of linear equations written in the form ${\rm
{\bf x}}\cdot {\rm {\bf A}} = {\rm {\bf y}}$.
- If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = m$, then the components of the least squares solution ${\rm {\bf x}}^{0}={\rm {\bf y}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{+}$ are obtained by the formula $$x_{i}^{0} = {\frac{{\det ({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )_{i\,.}
\left( {{\rm {\bf g}}} \right)}}{{\det {\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf
A}}^{ *} }}}, \quad \left( {\forall i = \overline {1,m}} \right),$$ where ${\rm {\bf g}} = {\rm {\bf y}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} $.
- If ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}} = r \le n< m$, then $$x_{i}^{0} = {\frac{{\sum\limits_{\alpha \in I_{r,m} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}}
{{\left| {\left( {({\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} )_{\,i\,.}
({\rm {\bf g}} )} \right)_{\alpha} ^{\alpha} } \right|}}}}{{d_{r}
\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf A}}^{ *} } \right)}}}, \quad \left(
{\forall i = \overline {1,m}} \right).$$
[*Proof*]{}. The proof of this theorem is analogous to that of Theorem \[kyrc13\].
The obtained formulas of the Cramer rule for the least squares solution differ from similar formulas in [@ben2; @ch; @ji; @wa1; @wa2; @wei]. They give a closer approximation to the Cramer rule for consistent nonsingular systems of linear equations.
In some situations, however, people pay more attention to the Drazin inverse solution of singular linear systems [@ch; @wei]. Consider a general system of linear equations (\[eq12\]), where ${\rm {\bf A}} \in
{\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$ and ${\rm {\bf x}}$, ${\rm {\bf y}}$ are vectors in ${\mathbb C}^{n}$. $R({\rm {\bf A}})$ denotes the range of ${\rm {\bf A}}$ and $N({\rm {\bf A}})$ denotes the null space of ${\rm {\bf A}}$. The characteristic of the Drazin inverse solution ${\rm {\bf A}}^{D}\rm {\bf y}$ is given in [@wei] by the following theorem.
\[kyrc14\] Let ${\rm {\bf A}} \in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$ with $Ind(A) = k$. Then ${\rm {\bf A}}^{D}{\rm {\bf y}}$ is both the unique solution in $R({\rm {\bf A}}^{k})$ of $$\label{eq15}
{\rm {\bf A}}^{k+1}\rm {\bf x} = {\rm {\bf A}}^{k}{\rm {\bf y}},$$ and the unique minimal ${\rm {\bf P}}$-norm least squares solution of (\[eq12\]).
The ${\rm {\bf P}}$-norm is defined as $\|{\rm
{\bf x}}\|_{{\rm {\bf P}}} = \|{\rm {\bf P}}^{-1}{\rm {\bf x}}\|$ for ${\rm {\bf x}}\in {\mathbb C}^{n}$, where ${\rm {\bf P}}$ is a nonsingular matrix that transforms ${\rm {\bf A}}$ into its Jordan canonical form (\[eq9\]).
Since (\[eq15\]) is analogous to the normal system ${\rm {\bf
A}}^{\ast}{\rm {\bf A}}{\rm {\bf x}}={\rm {\bf A}}^{\ast}{\rm {\bf
y}}$, the system (\[eq15\]) is called the generalized normal equations of (\[eq12\]), (see [@wei]).
We obtain the Cramer rule for the ${\rm {\bf P}}$-norm least squares solution of (\[eq12\]) in the following theorem.
Let ${\rm {\bf A}} \in {\mathbb C}^{n\times n}$ with $Ind({\rm
{\bf A}}) = k$. Then the unique minimal ${\rm {\bf P}}$-norm least squares solution ${\rm {\bf \widehat{x}}}=(\widehat{x}_{1},
\ldots,\widehat{x}_{n})^{T}$ of the system (\[eq12\]) is given by $$\label{eq16} \widehat{x}_{i} = {\frac{{{\sum\limits_{\beta \in
J_{r,\,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}_{.{\kern 1pt} i}^{k + 1} \left( {{\rm {\bf g}}} \right)}
\right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}} }}}{{{\sum\limits_{\beta \in
J_{r,n}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k + 1}} \right)_{\beta}
^{\beta} } \right|}}} }}} \quad \forall i = \overline {1,n},$$ where ${\rm {\bf g}} = {\rm {\bf A}}^{k}{\rm {\bf y}}.$
[*Proof*]{}. Representing the Drazin inverse by (\[eq11\]) and by virtue of Theorem \[kyrc14\], we have $${\rm {\bf \widehat{x}}} =\begin{pmatrix}
\widehat{x}_{1} \\
\ldots \\
\widehat{x}_{n}
\end{pmatrix}={\rm {\bf A}}^{D}{\rm {\bf y}}=\frac{1}{d_{r}
\left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k+1} } \right)}\begin{pmatrix}
\sum\limits_{s = 1}^{n} {d_{1s} y_{s}} \\
\ldots \\
\sum\limits_{s = 1}^{n} {d_{ns} y_{s}}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Therefore, $$\widehat{x}_{i} = {\frac{{1}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k +
1}} \right)}}}{\sum\limits_{s = 1\,\,}^{n} {{\sum\limits_{\beta
\in \, J_{r,n} {\left\{ {i} \right\}}} {{\left| {\left( {{\rm {\bf
A}}_{.{\kern 1pt} i}^{k + 1} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,s}^{\left(
{k} \right)}} \right)} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|}}} }}
\cdot y_{s} =$$ $$= {\frac{{1}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k + 1}}
\right)}}}{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,\,n} {\left\{ {i}
\right\}}} {\,{\sum\limits_{\,s = 1\,\,}^{n} {{\left| {\left(
{{\rm {\bf A}}_{.\,i}^{k + 1} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,s}^{\left(
{k} \right)}} \right)} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} } \right|} \cdot
y_{s}} } }}=$$ $$= {\frac{{1}}{{d_{r} \left( {{\rm {\bf A}}^{k + 1}}
\right)}}}{\sum\limits_{\beta \in J_{r,\,n} {\left\{ {i}
\right\}}} {\;{\sum\limits_{\,s = 1\,\,}^{n} {{\left| {\left(
{{\rm {\bf A}}_{.\,i}^{k + 1} \left( {{\rm {\bf a}}_{.\,s}^{\left(
{k} \right)} \cdot y_{s}} \right)} \right)_{\beta} ^{\beta} }
\right|}}} }}.$$ From this (\[eq16\]) follows immediately. $\blacksquare$
Examples
========
1\. Let us consider the system of linear equations. $$\label{eq17}
\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
2x_1-5x_3+4x_4=1, \\
7x_1-4x_2-9x_3+1.5x_4=2, \\
3x_1-4x_2+7x_3-6.5x_4=3, \\
x_1-4x_2+12x_3-10.5x_4=1.
\end{array}\right.$$ The coefficient matrix of the system is the matrix ${\rm \bf
A}=\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 0 & -5 & 4 \\
7 & -4 & -9 & 1.5 \\
3 & -4 & 7 & -6.5 \\
1 & -4 & 12 & -10.5
\end{pmatrix}$. We calculate the rank of ${\rm {\bf A}}$ which is equal to 3, and we have $${\rm \bf A}^{\ast}=\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 7 & 3 & 1 \\
0 & -4 & -4 & -4 \\
-5 & -9 & 7 & 12 \\
4 & 1.5 & -6.5 & -10.5
\end{pmatrix}, {\rm \bf A}^{*}{\rm \bf A}=\begin{pmatrix}
63 & -44 & -40 & -11.5 \\
-44 & 48 & -40 & 62 \\
-40 & -40 & 299 & -205 \\
-11.5 & 62 & -205 & 170.75
\end{pmatrix}.$$ At first we obtain entries of ${\rm \bf A}^{+}$ by (\[eq1\]): $$\begin{array}{c}
d_{3}({\rm \bf A}^{*}{\rm \bf A})=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & -44 & -40 \\
-44 & 48 & -40 \\
-40 & -40 & 299
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & -44 & -11.5 \\
-44 & 48 & 62 \\
-11.5 & 62 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|+ \\
+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & -40 & -11.5 \\
-40 & 299 & -205 \\
-11.5 & -205 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
48 & -40 & 62 \\
-40 & 299 & -205 \\
62 & -205 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|=102060,
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
l_{11}=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
2 & -44 & -40 \\
0 & 48 & -40 \\
-5 & -40 & 299
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
2 & -44 & -11.5 \\
0 & 48 & 62 \\
4 & 62 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
2 & -40 & -11.5 \\
-5 & 299 & -205 \\
4 & -205 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|=\\
=25779,
\end{array}$$ and so forth. Continuing in the same way, we get $${\rm \bf A}^{+}=\frac{1}{102060}\begin{pmatrix}
25779 & -4905 & 20742 & -5037 \\
-3840 & -2880 & -4800 & -960 \\
28350 & -17010 & 22680 & -5670 \\
39558 & -18810 & 26484 & -13074
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Now we obtain the least squares solution of the system (\[eq17\]) by the matrix method. $${\rm \bf x}^{0}=
\begin{pmatrix}
x^0_{11} \\
x^0_{21} \\
x^0_{31} \\
x^0_{41}
\end{pmatrix}=\frac{1}{102060}\begin{pmatrix}
25779 & -4905 & 20742 & -5037 \\
-3840 & -2880 & -4800 & -960 \\
28350 & -17010 & 22680 & -5670 \\
39558 & -18810 & 26484 & -13074
\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
2 \\
3 \\
1
\end{pmatrix}=$$
$$=\frac{1}{102060}\begin{pmatrix}
73158 \\
-24960 \\
56700 \\
68316
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{12193}{17010}\\
-\frac{416}{1071} \\
\frac{5}{9} \\
\frac{5693}{8505}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Next we get the least squares solution of the system (\[eq17\]) by the Cramer rule (\[eq14\]), where $${\rm \bf f}=\begin{pmatrix}
2 & 7 & 3 & 1 \\
0 & -4 & -4 & -4 \\
-5 & -9 & 7 & 12 \\
4 & 1.5 & -6.5 & -10.5
\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
2 \\
3 \\
1
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
26\\
-24 \\
10 \\
-23
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus we have $$x^0_1=\frac{1}{102060}\left(
\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
26 & -44 & -40 \\
-24 & 48 & -40 \\
10 & -40 & 299
\end{array}\right|+
\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
26 & -44 & -11.5 \\
-24 & 48 & 62 \\
-23 & 62 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|+\right.$$ $$\left.+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
26 & -40 & -11.5 \\
10 & 299 & -205 \\
23 & -205 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|\right)=
\frac{73158}{102060}=\frac{12193}{17010};$$ $$x^0_2=\frac{1}{102060}\left(\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & 26 & -40 \\
-44 & -24 & -40 \\
-40 & 10 & 299
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & 26 & -11.5 \\
-44 & -24 & 62 \\
-11.5 & -23 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|+\right.$$$$\left.+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
-24 & -40 & 62 \\
10 & 299 & -205 \\
-23 & -205 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|\right)=\frac{-24960}{102060}=-\frac{416}{1071};$$ $$x^0_3=\frac{1}{102060}\left(\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & -44 & 26 \\
-44 & 48 & -24 \\
-40 & -40 & 10
\end{array}\right|
+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & 26 & -11.5 \\
-40 & 10 & -205 \\
-11.5 & -23 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|+\right.$$$$\left.+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
48 & -24 & 62 \\
-40 & 10 & -205 \\
62 & -23 & 170.75
\end{array}\right|\right)=\frac{56700}{102060}=\frac{5}{9};$$ $$x^0_4=\frac{1}{102060}\left(\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & -44 & 26 \\
-44 & 48 & -24 \\
-11.5 & 62 & -23
\end{array}\right| \\
+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
63 & -40 & 26 \\
-40 & 299 & 10 \\
-11.5 & -205 & -23
\end{array}\right|+\right.$$ $$\left.+\left|\begin{array}{ccc}
48 & -40 & -24 \\
-40 & 299 & 10 \\
62 & -205 &-23
\end{array}\right|\right)=\frac{68316}{102060}=\frac{5693}{8505}.$$
2\. Let us consider the following system of linear equations. $$\label{eq18}
\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4=1, \\
x_2-x_3+x_4=2, \\
x_1-x_2+x_3+2x_4=3, \\
x_1-x_2+x_3+x_4=1.
\end{array}\right.$$ The coefficient matrix of the system is the matrix ${\rm \bf
A}=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 1 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & 2 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$. It is easy to verify the following: $${\rm \bf
A}^{2}=\begin{pmatrix}
3 & -4 & 4 & 3 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 0 \\
4 & -5 & 5 & 4 \\
3 & -4 & 4 & 3
\end{pmatrix},\,\,{\rm \bf
A}^{3}=\begin{pmatrix}
10 & -14 & 14 & 10 \\
-1 & 2 & -2 & -1 \\
13 & -18 & 18 & 13 \\
10 & -14 & 14 & 10
\end{pmatrix},$$ and ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm \bf A}=3$, ${\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm {\bf A}}^{2}={\mathop{\rm rank}\nolimits}{\rm \bf A}^{3}=2$. This implies $k=Ind({\rm {\bf A}})=2$. We obtain entries of ${\rm \bf A}^{D}$ by (\[eq11\]). $$\begin{array}{c}
d_{2}({\rm \bf A}^{3})=\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 & -14 \\
-1 & 2
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 & 14 \\
13 & 18
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 & 10 \\
10 & 10
\end{array}\right|\\
+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
2 & -2 \\
-18 & 18
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
2 & -1 \\
-14 & 10
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
18 & 13 \\
14 & 10
\end{array}\right|=8,
\end{array}$$ $$d_{11}=\left|\begin{array}{cc}
3 & -14 \\
0 & 2
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
3 & 14 \\
4 & 18
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
3 & 10 \\
3 & 10
\end{array}\right|=4,$$ and so forth. Continuing in the same way, we get ${\rm \bf
A}^{D}=\begin{pmatrix}
0.5 & 0.5 & -0.5 & 0.5 \\
1.75 & 2.5 & -2.5 & 1.75 \\
1.25 & 1.5 & -1.5 & 1.25 \\
0.5 & 0.5 & -0.5 & 0.5
\end{pmatrix}.$ Now we obtain the Drazin inverse solution ${\rm {\bf
\widehat{x}}}$ of the system (\[eq18\]) by the Cramer rule (\[eq16\]), where $${\rm \bf g}={\rm \bf
A}^{2}{\rm {\bf y}}=\begin{pmatrix}
3 & -4 & 4 & 3 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 0 \\
4 & -5 & 5 & 4 \\
3 & -4 & 4 & 3
\end{pmatrix}\cdot\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
2 \\
3 \\
1
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
10\\
-1 \\
13 \\
10
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Thus we have $$\widehat{x}_1=\frac{1}{8}\left(
\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 & -14 \\
-1 & 2
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 & 14 \\
13 & 18
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 & 10 \\
10 & 10
\end{array}\right|\right)=\frac{1}{2},$$ $$\widehat{x}_2=\frac{1}{8}\left(
\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 &10 \\
-1 & -1
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & -2 \\
13 & 18
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & -1 \\
10 & 10
\end{array}\right|\right)=1,$$ $$\widehat{x}_3=\frac{1}{8}\left(
\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 &10 \\
13 & 13
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
2 & -1 \\
-18 & 13
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
13 & 13 \\
10 & 10
\end{array}\right|\right)=1,$$ $$\widehat{x}_4=\frac{1}{8}\left(
\left|\begin{array}{cc}
10 & 10 \\
10 & 10
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
2 & -1 \\
-14 & 10
\end{array}\right|+\left|\begin{array}{cc}
18 & 13 \\
14 & 10
\end{array}\right|\right)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
[**Acknowledgment.**]{} The author would like to thank Professor Chi-Kwong Li and the referee for their useful suggestions.
[10]{}
R. B. Bapat, K. P. S. Bhaskara, K. Manjunatha Prasad, Generalized inverses over integral domains, *Linear Algebra Appl.* [**140**]{} (1990), 181–196. A. Ben-Israel, Generalized inverses of marices: a perspective of the work of Penrose, *Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.* [**100**]{} (1986), 401-425. A. Ben-Israel, A Cramer rule for least-norm solutions of consistent linear equations, *Linear Algebra Appl.* [**43**]{} (1982), 223-226. S. L. Campbell and C. D. Meyer Jr., *Generalized Inverse of Linear Transformations*, Pitman, London, (1979). D. Carl, C. D. Meyer Jr., Limits and the index of a square matrix, *SIAM J. Appl. Math.* [**26**]{}, no. [**3**]{} (1974), 506-515. Y. Chen, A Cramer rule for solution of the general restricted linear equation, *Linear and Multilinear Algebra* [**34**]{} (1993), 177-186 M.P. Drazin, Pseudoinverses in associative rings and semigroups, *Amer. Math. Monthly* [**65**]{} (1958), 506-515. R. Gabriel, Das verallgemeinerte inverse eineer matrix, deren elemente einem beliebigen Körper angehören, *J.Reine angew math.* [**234**]{} (1967), 107-122. R. A. Horn, C. R. Johnson, *The Matrix analysis*, Cambridge University Press, (1986). J. Ji, Explicit expressions of the generalized inverses and condensed Cramer rules, *Linear Algebra Appl.* [**404**]{} (2005), 183-192. E. H. Moore, On reciprocal of the general algebraic matrix. *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**26**]{} (1920), 394-395. P. S. Stanimirovic’, General determinantal representation of pseudoinverses of matrices, *Mat. Vesnik* [**48**]{} (1996), 1-9. P.S. Stanimirovic’, D.S. Djordjevic’, Full-rank and determinantal representation of the Drazin inverse, *Linear Algebra Appl.* [**311**]{} (2000), 131-151. G. Wang, A Cramer rule for minimum-norm(T) least-square(S) solution of inconsistent linear equations, *Linear Algebra Appl.* [**74**]{} (1986), 213-218. G. Wang, A Cramer rule for finding the solution of a class of singular equations, *Linear Algebra Appl.* [**116**]{} (1989), 27-34. Y. M. Wei, H. B. Wu, Additional results on index splittings for Drazin inverse solutions of singular linear systems, *The Electronic Journal of Linear Algebra* [**8**]{} (2001), 83-93. H. J. Werner, On extension of Cramer’s rule for solutions of restricted linear systems, *Linear and Multilinear Algebra* [**15**]{} (1984), 319-330.
[^1]: Pidstrygach Institute for Applied Problems of Mechanics and Mathematics, str.Naukova 3b, Lviv, Ukraine, 79005, [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study equilibrium time correlations for the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation on a one-dimensional lattice and unravel three dynamical regimes. There is a high temperature regime with density and energy as the only two conserved fields. Their correlations have zero velocity and spread diffusively. In the low temperature regime umklapp processes are rare with the consequence that phase differences appear as an additional (almost) conserved field. In an approximation where all umklapp is suppressed, while the equilibrium state remains untouched, one arrives at an anharmonic chain. Using the method of nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics we establish that the DNLS equilibrium time correlations have the same signature as a generic anharmonic chain, in particular KPZ broadening for the sound peaks and Lévy 5/3 broadening for the heat peak. In the, so far not sharply defined, ultra-low temperature regime the integrability of the dynamics becomes visible. As an illustration we simulate the completely integrable Ablowitz-Ladik model and confirm ballistic broadening of the time correlations.'
author:
- 'Christian B. Mendl [^1] $^\dagger$ and Herbert Spohn [^2]'
date: 'May 12, 2015'
title: 'Low temperature dynamics of the one-dimensional discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
The one-dimensional discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation (DNLS) is widely used as theoretical description of nonlinear optical wave guides [@CLS03], semiclassical approximation to the dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates [@HaFi14], electronic transport in biomolecules [@Sc2003] and more, as discussed in the surveys [@Kevrekidis2009; @FrLiOpPo11]. The DNLS has a surprisingly rich dynamical behavior. Most studies are concerned with finite energy solutions, which physically corresponds to zero temperature. In this article we focus on the dynamics at non-zero temperatures, a topic which lies in the domain of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics.
DNLS governs the dynamics of a complex-valued wave field denoted by $\psi_j$ with $j \in \mathbb{Z}$, the one-dimensional lattice, and is defined through the hamiltionian $$\label{eq:nonintNLS_hamiltonian0}
H = \sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}\big( \tfrac{1}{2m} \lvert\psi_{j+1} - \psi_j\rvert^2 + \tfrac{1}{2}\,g\,\lvert\psi_j\rvert^4\big)\,.$$ We will consider the defocusing case with $g > 0$. Kulkarni and Lamacraft [@KulkarniLamacraft2013] recently simulated the DNLS dynamics at density $\bar{\rho} = 1$, $m=1$, $g =1$, and temperature $\beta^{-1} = 0.005$. They discovered that the density-density time correlations in thermal equilibrium have symmetrically located sound peaks, which travel ballistically and broaden as $t^{2/3}$, consistent with the predictions based on the KPZ (alias stochastic Burgers) equation. As further amplified in [@Kulkarni2015], one writes down a pair of coupled noisy Burgers equations for the left and right moving modes. Since the peaks separate linearly in time, it is argued that they decouple and each peak is governed by a scalar noisy Burgers equation, for which the exact scaling exponent and shape function is known [@PrSp2004; @FeSp06; @ImSa13; @BCFV14]. In contrast, the high temperature DNLS has diffusive transport, as confirmed through molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of a steady state with stochastic boundary conditions forcing a flux of density and energy [@IubiniLepriPoliti2012]. Measured are the Onsager coefficients relating the linear response in the flux to the forcing. As we will argue, there is no sharp transition but the borderline between low and high temperatures is roughly characterized by $$\label{eq:lt_parameter_regime0}
\beta g \bar{\rho}^2 \sim 4\,,\qquad \tfrac{1}{m} \beta \bar{\rho} \sim 1 \,.$$ Increasing the temperature even further one reaches the infinite temperature line, in dependence on the density, which borders the region of negative temperature states, realized through the appropriate microcanonical ensemble. There one observes interesting coarsening processes which are carried by the motion and coalescence of breathers [@IuPoPo13].
In our contribution we will develop a global picture for positive temperature states, more tightly linked to DNLS than the previous discussions [@KulkarniLamacraft2013; @Kulkarni2015]. The central dynamical concept are umklapp processes, at which the phase difference between neighboring sites crosses the values $\pm \pi$. At high temperatures umklapp happens frequently. Density and energy are the only conserved fields and their correlations spread diffusively with no systematic drift. However, in the equilibrium ensemble at low temperatures the phase differences are small, of the order $1/\sqrt{\beta}$. Umklapp is an activated dynamical process and occurs only with a frequency of the order $\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \Delta E}$, with $\Delta E$ a suitable energy barrier. As the temperature is lowered, the field of phase differences becomes almost conserved. The conservation law for phase difference degrades as $\mathrm{e}^{-t/\tau}$ with a life time $\tau$ proportional to $\mathrm{e}^{\beta \Delta E}$. For all practical purposes, in particular for MD simulations, the phase differences are locally conserved, once $\beta$ is in the domain with a border line specified by . Thus one arrives at a system of three local conservation laws.
The described dynamical mechanism is familiar from second sound in liquid helium. There is no first sound for DNLS. But sound propagation is enabled through the appearance of an additional conserved field. In one spatial dimension such a transition is not sharp.
In fact there is a third regime, baptized ultra-low, whose precise border has still to be explored. In the low temperature regime there are three sharp peaks and for them we expect universal scaling laws with the dependence on the microscopic interactions lumped together in a few non-universal coefficients. In the ultra-low regime the integrability of the dynamics becomes visible. The density-density time correlations have now in addition, or instead, broader structures which self-similarly expand on a scale linear in time.
For the low temperature regime we elucidate the universal features, using the method of nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics. For this purpose our main tool is an effective low temperature hamiltonian, build such that the equilibrium ensemble remains unchanged while umklapp is completely suppressed. Hence phase difference, density, and energy are strictly conserved. In the well understood case of an anharmonic chain [@SpohnAHC2014], there are also three conserved fields, stretch, momentum, and energy. The equilibrium state is of product form in the lattice index $j$. The DNLS hamiltonian contains however a nearest neighbor interaction, which complicates considerably the computation of the coupling constants for the normal mode representation used in nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics. Still we manage to ensure that the self-coupling of the heat mode vanishes, while the corresponding coefficients for the sound modes are different from zero. With this input the spreading and shape of the three peaks are predicted to be identical to the ones of a generic anharmonic chain, up to model-dependent non-universal coefficients.
In essence, our predictions are based on conservation laws and a sufficiently chaotic nonintegrable dynamics. With this view, one would expect that our results are also applicable to one-dimensional quantum systems. In fact, quite some time ago Andreev [@An80; @Sa80] studied low temperature one-dimensional Fermi fluids and argued already that the sound peaks broaden as $t^{2/3}$, which turns out to be the same scaling exponent as for DNLS. We refer to [@PuZw05] for more recent studies. One-dimensional quantum fluids in the continuum are not readily accessible to quantum simulations. On the other hand, by quantizing the DNLS hamiltonian one arrives at the Bose-Hubbard model on a one-dimensional lattice. The propagating sound peaks are expected to be visible at low temperatures and density of order one, which are parameters more favorable for quantum simulations. Of course, more optimistically one would hope to be able to realize such propagating sound peaks in an cold atom experiment.
In view of the ultra-low temperature regime, we simulate the Ablowitz-Ladik model, which is an innocent modification of the DNLS dynamics, but known to be completely integrable. For this model, in a certain sense, every conserved mode generates a peak. Thus heuristically the correlations should be extended and widen ballistically. For the continuum NLS the same time correlation structure is expected to appear. The underlying lattice is essential for our findings.
To provide a brief summary: First the high temperature regime is studied and simulated at $\beta = 1$, with all other parameters as before. We then transform to action-angle variables and determine the low temperature Hamiltonian. For it we compute the nonlinear coupling coefficients in the normal mode representation and determine the Landau-Placzek ratios. Thereby the predictions for the shape functions and the non-universal coefficients are made available, which are then compared with MD simulations of DNLS at $\beta = 15$. For the ultra-low temperature regime we set $\beta = 200$. In a final chapter we discuss the Ablowitz-Ladik model.
One-dimensional DNLS, basic properties {#sec2}
======================================
Our starting point is the complex-valued field $\psi_j$ governed by the DNLS hamiltonian $$\label{eq:nonintNLS_hamiltonian}
H = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\big( \tfrac{1}{2m} \lvert\psi_{j+1} - \psi_j\rvert^2 + \tfrac{1}{2}\,g\,\lvert\psi_j\rvert^4\big)$$ with mass $m > 0$ and coupling constant $g > 0$, i.e., a *defocusing* nonlinearity. We impose periodic boundary conditions, $\psi_{N} = \psi_{0}$. Our interest will be in random initial data distributed according to a thermal Gibbs state, for which we will take the limit $N\to \infty$ at a suitable stage. The dynamics is defined through $$\mathrm{i} \, \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \psi_j = \partial_{\psi_j^*} H\,,$$ where $^*$ denotes complex conjugate. Then $$\label{eq:nonintNLS}
\mathrm{i} \, \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \psi_j = -\tfrac{1}{2 m} \Delta \psi_{j} + g\,\lvert\psi_j\rvert^2\,\psi_j$$ with the lattice Laplacian $\Delta = -\partial ^\mathrm{T}\partial$ and $\partial \psi_j = \psi_{j+1} - \psi_j$. The kinetic energy is chosen such that in the limit of zero lattice spacing one arrives at the continuum nonlinear Schödinger equation. One could also expand the square, resulting in a hopping term plus a contribution proportional to the particle number, $$\mathsf{N} = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \lvert\psi_j\rvert^2\,.$$ The sign of the hopping term does not play a role, since it can be flipped through the gauge transformation $\psi_j \mapsto \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \pi j} \psi_j $.
The DNLS has two obvious locally conserved fields, density and energy, $$\label{eq:density_energy_def}
\rho_j = \lvert\psi_j\rvert^2\,,\qquad e_j = \tfrac{1}{2m} \lvert\psi_{j+1} - \psi_j\rvert^2 + \tfrac{1}{2}\,g\,\lvert\psi_j\rvert^4\,.$$ According to the discussion in [@Ablowitz2004], the DNLS is nonintegrable and one expects density and energy to be the only locally conserved fields. They satisfy the conservation laws $$\begin{split}
\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \rho_j(t) + \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j+1}(t) - \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j}(t) &= 0\,,\\[1ex]
\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} e_j(t) + \mathcal{J}_{e,j+1}(t) - \mathcal{J}_{e,j}(t) &= 0\,,
\end{split}$$ with density current $$\mathcal{J}_{\rho,j} = \tfrac{1}{2m} \mathrm{i} \big( \psi_{j-1}\,\partial \psi_{j-1}^* - \psi_{j-1}^*\,\partial\psi_{j-1} \big)$$ and energy current $$\mathcal{J}_{e,j} = \tfrac{1}{4 m^2} \mathrm{i} \big(\Delta\psi_{j}^* \,\partial\psi_{j-1} - \Delta\psi_{j}\,\partial\psi_{j-1}^* \big) + g \lvert\psi_j\rvert^2 \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j}\,.$$
Canonically conjugate variables are introduced by splitting the wave function into its real and imaginary part as $$\psi_j = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (q_j + \mathrm{i} p_j)\,.$$ In these variables, the hamiltonian reads $$\label{eq:nonintNLS_hamiltonian_pq}
H = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \Big( \tfrac{1}{4 m} \big( (\partial q_j)^2 + (\partial p_j)^2 \big) + \tfrac{1}{8}\,g \big(q_j^2+p_j^2\big)^2 \Big)\,.$$ The dynamics governed by Eq. is then identical to the hamiltonian system $$\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} q_j = \partial_{p_j}H\,, \quad \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} p_j = -\partial_{q_j} H\,.$$ Note that $H$ is symmetric under the interchange $q_j \leftrightarrow p_j$.
It will be convenient to make a canonical (symplectic) change of variables to polar coordinates as $$\varphi_j = \mathrm{arctan}(p_j/q_j), \quad \rho_j = \tfrac{1}{2} \big(p_j^2+q_j^2\big)\,,$$ which is equivalent to the representation $$\psi_j = \sqrt{\rho_j}\, \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \varphi_j}\,.$$ In the new variables the phase space becomes $(\rho_j, \varphi_j) \in \mathbb{R}_+ \times S^1$, with $S^1$ the unit circle. The corresponding hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:polarHamiltonian}
H &= \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \Big( \tfrac{1}{2 m} \big( \sqrt{\rho_{j+1}\,\rho_j}\,2\,(1 - \cos(\varphi_{j+1} - \varphi_j)) + (\sqrt{\rho_{j+1}} - \sqrt{\rho_j})^2 \big) + \tfrac{1}{2}\,g\,\rho_j^2 \Big) \\
\label{eq:polarHamiltonian1}
&= \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \big( {-}\tfrac{1}{m} \sqrt{\rho_{j+1}\,\rho_j}\, \cos(\varphi_{j+1} - \varphi_j) + \tfrac{1}{m} \rho_j + \tfrac{1}{2}\,g\,\rho_j^2 \big)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The equations of motion read then $$\label{eq:motionDNLS}
\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \varphi_j = -\partial_{\rho_j} H\,, \quad \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \rho_j = \partial_{\varphi_j} H\,.$$ From the continuity of $\psi_j(t)$ when moving through the origin, one concludes that at $\rho_j(t)= 0$ the phase jumps from $\varphi_j(t) $ to $ \varphi_j(t) + \pi$. The $\varphi_j$’s are angles and therefore position-like variables, while the $\rho_j$’s are actions and hence momentum-like variables. The hamiltonian depends only on phase differences which implies the invariance under the global shift $\varphi_j \mapsto \varphi_j + \phi$.
Equilibrium time correlations at high temperatures {#sec3}
==================================================
We consider the DNLS in thermal equilibrium, as described by the canonical ensemble $$\label{eq:ensembleDNLS}
Z_N(\mu,\beta)^{-1}\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta(H - \mu \mathsf{N})} \prod_{j=-N/2}^{N/2-1} {\mathrm{d}}\psi_j {\mathrm{d}}\psi_j^*$$ with inverse temperature $\beta$ and chemical potential $\mu$, $\beta > 0$, $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$. For the theory we take the limit $N \to \infty$. Numerically $N$ will be set to $4096$. Some of the derivations are done first at finite volume. Notationally we do not distinguish between finite $N$ and $N = \infty$, assuming that it will be understood from the context. Our interest is the propagation of small perturbations at large space-time scales, which are encoded by time correlations of the conserved fields, in our case density and energy, $$\label{eq:S_rho_e_def}
S_{\rho \rho}(j,t) = \langle \rho_j(t); \rho_0(0) \rangle\,, \quad S_{\rho e}(j,t) = \langle \rho_j(t);e_0(0)\rangle\,,\quad S_{ee}(j,t) = \langle e_j(t);e_0(0)
\rangle\,.$$ Here $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes the average and $\langle \cdot;\cdot \rangle$ the second cumulant with respect to the canonical state . $S(j,t)$ is defined on the entire lattice $\mathbb{Z}$. By invariance under reversal of time and space, $S_{\rho e}(j,t) = S_{e \rho}(j,t)$.
The canonical ensemble is even under complex conjugation of $\psi_j$, while the density and energy currents are of the form $\mathrm{i}(z - z^*)$. Hence $$\langle \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j}\rangle = 0\,, \quad \langle \mathcal{J}_{e,j}\rangle = 0\,.$$ If the dynamics is sufficiently chaotic, this property signals diffusive transport. More precisely we denote by $u_\rho$ the random deviation of the density from the uniform equilibrium density and by $u_e$ the one for the energy density. Then linear fluctuating hydrodynamics asserts that the random deviations are governed by the linear Langevin equation $$\label{eq:linearLangevin}
\partial_t u_\alpha +\partial_x\big(-\partial_x (D\vec{u}\,)_\alpha - (B\vec{\xi}\,)_\alpha\big)= 0\,,$$ $\alpha = \rho,e$. Here $D$ is the $2\times 2$ diffusion matrix, $B$ the noise strength matrix, and $\xi_\alpha(x,t)$ are two independent normalized space-time white noises. We define the static covariance matrix through $$\label{eq:sum_rule}
C_{\alpha\alpha'} = \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} S_{\alpha\alpha'}(j,0) \,,$$ from which it follows that $C = C^\mathrm{T}$, $C > 0$. The assumed fluctuation dissipation relation reads then $$2 D C = B B^\mathrm{T}\,,$$ which implies that the Onsager matrix $D C$ is a symmetric, strictly positive matrix. In particular $D$ has strictly positive eigenvalues. The covariance of the stationary process for reads $$\langle u_{\alpha}(x,t) u_{\alpha'}(0,0)\rangle = S_{\alpha\alpha'}(x,t) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} {\mathrm{d}}k\, \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}2\pi k x} \big(\mathrm{e}^{-(2\pi k)^2 D\,t}\, C \big)_{\alpha\alpha'}\,.$$ Working out the Fourier transform, one arrives at the prediction $$\label{eq:S_heat_equation}
S(j, t) \simeq \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi D\, t}} \, \mathrm{e}^{-j^2/(4 D\,t)} \,C\,.$$ The square root of $D$ is unambiguous, since $D$ has strictly positive eigenvalues.
In Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta1\] we show the results of a MD simulation for $N=4096$, $m=1$, $g=1$, $\beta=1$, and $\langle \rho_j \rangle = 1$. The black dashed curves show the right side of , with $C$ determined by the sum rule and $D$ fitted numerically, under the constraint of $D C$ being symmetric. The numerical entries of $C$ are $$C =
\begin{pmatrix}
0.580 & 0.907 \\
0.907 & 1.848 \\
\end{pmatrix} \,,$$ and we record $D$ in the following table:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$t$ $256$ $512$ $1024$ $1536$
----- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
$D$ $\begin{pmatrix} $\begin{pmatrix} $\begin{pmatrix} $\begin{pmatrix}
3.145 & -0.353 \\ 3.137 & -0.364 \\ 3.103 & -0.356 \\ 3.079 & -0.350 \\
2.509 & 0.822 \\ 2.415 & 0.853 \\ 2.350 & 0.876 \\ 2.298 & 0.897 \\
\end{pmatrix}$ \end{pmatrix}$ \end{pmatrix}$ \end{pmatrix}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values for $D$ drift only little in time, which supports the diffusive scaling exponent $\frac{1}{2}$, consistent with linear fluctuating hydrodynamics. In Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta1\] only the largest time, $t = 1536$, is shown.
Dynamics at low temperatures {#sec4}
============================
In the MD simulations [@KulkarniLamacraft2013] the parameters of the hamiltonian are the same as used here, but $\beta = 200$ at system size $N = 16384$. For the density-density correlations a behavior very different from the one reported in Sect. \[sec3\] is observed, in exhibiting ballistic propagation and non-diffusive spreading. A main goal of our contribution is to understand and predict such low temperature properties on the basis of nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics. The argument is involved and we choose to first illustrate our method for the case of coupled rotators (CR), for which the dependence on the analogue of $\rho_j$ is much simpler.
#### Coupled rotators.
The CR hamiltonian reads $$H_\mathrm{CR} = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \big(\tfrac{1}{2} p_j^2 - \cos(\varphi_{j+1} - \varphi_j)\big)\,.$$ Here $\varphi_j \in S^1$ is the angle and $p_j \in \mathbb{R}$ the angular momentum of rotator $j$. We impose periodic boundary conditions as $\varphi_{N} = \varphi_0$. When compared to , the prefactor $\tfrac{1}{m}\sqrt{\rho_{j+1}\,\rho_j}$ has been set equal to $1$ and the constraint $\rho_j \geq 0$ is ignored. Angular momentum and energy are the only locally conserved fields for $H_\mathrm{CR}$. Under the canonical equilibrium measure their average currents vanish as $N \to \infty$, signaling diffusive transport at high temperatures, as has been confirmed through MD simulations [@DasDhar2015; @LLLHL2015].
At zero temperature, there is the one-parameter family of ground states with $\varphi_j = \bar{\varphi}$, $p_j= 0$. When heating up, under the canonical equilibrium measure, the phase $\varphi_j$ jumps to $\varphi_{j+1}$ with a jump size $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{\beta})$. For a more quantitative version, let us introduce the phase difference $\tilde{r}_j = \Theta(\varphi_{j+1} -\varphi_j)$, where $\Theta$ is $2\pi$-periodic and $\Theta(x) = x$ for $\lvert x \rvert \leq \pi$. Since $\Theta$ has a jump discontinuity, $\tilde{r}_j $ is not conserved. In a more pictorial language, the event that $\lvert\varphi_{j+1}(t) -\varphi_j(t)\rvert =\pi$ is called an umklapp for phase difference $\tilde{r_j}$ or an umklapp process to emphasize its dynamical character. At low temperatures a jump of size $\pi$ has a small probability of order $e^{-\beta\Delta V}$ with $\Delta V = 2$ the height of the potential barrier. Hence $\tilde{r}_j$ is locally conserved up to umklapp processes occurring with a very small frequency only, see [@DasDhar2015] for a numerical validation.
In the low temperature regime it is tempting to use an approximation, where the potential $V(x) = -\cos x$ is Taylor expanded at the minimum $x=0$. But such procedure would underestimate the regime of low temperatures, as can be seen from the example of a potential, still with $\Delta V = 2$, but several shallow minima. The proper small parameter is $\beta^{-1}$ such that $\beta \Delta V \gtrsim 2$, where $2$ is chosen to have a safety margin. To arrive at an optimal low temperature hamiltonian, we first parametrize the angles $\varphi_0, \dots, \varphi_{N-1}$ through $r_j = \varphi_{j+1} -\varphi_j$ with $r_j \in [-\pi,\pi]$. To distinguish, we denote the angles in this particular parametrization by $\phi_j$. The dynamics governed by $H_{\mathrm{CR}}$ corresponds to periodic boundary conditions at $r_j = \pm \pi$. For a low temperature description we impose instead specular reflection, i.e., if $r_j = \pm\pi$, then $p_j$, $p_{j+1}$ are scattered to $p_j' = p_{j+1}$, $p_{j+1}' = p_j$. By fiat all umklapp processes are now suppressed, while between two umklapp events the CR dynamics and the low temperature dynamics are identical. The corresponding hamiltonian reads $$H_{\mathrm{CR,lt}} = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \big(\tfrac{1}{2} p_j^2 + \tilde{V}(\phi_{j+1} - \phi_j)\big)$$ with $$\tilde{V}(x) = -\cos x \ \ \text{for} \ \ \lvert x \rvert \leq \pi\,,\qquad \tilde{V}(x) = \infty \ \ \text{for}\ \ \lvert x \rvert > \pi\,.$$ As before, periodic boundary conditions $\phi_{N} = \phi_0$ are understood. The pair $(\phi_j,p_j)$ are canonically conjugate variables. Note that as weights $\exp[-\beta H_{\mathrm{CR}}] = \exp[-\beta H_{\mathrm{CR,lt}}]$. Thus all equilibrium properties of the coupled rotators remain untouched.
The hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{CR,lt}$ is a variant of the hard collision model with square well potential, see [@MeSp14], thus a conventional anharmonic chain. The dynamics governed by $H_\mathrm{CR,lt}$ has three conserved fields, the stretch $r_j = \phi_{j+1} - \phi_j$, the momentum $p_j$ and the energy $e_j = \tfrac{1}{2}p_j^2 + \tilde{V}(r_j)$. To study its equilibrium time correlations the methods and results from [@SpohnAHC2014] apply directly. Because of $\phi_0 = \phi_{N}$, one has $\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} r_j = 0$. The model is in the dynamical phase characterized by an even potential at zero pressure.
We claim that, for $\beta \Delta V \gtrsim 2$, the CR equilibrium time correlations are well approximated by those of $H_\mathrm{CR,lt}$, provided the time of comparison is not too long. The latter correlations can be obtained within the framework of nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics. Thereby one arrives at fairly explicit dynamical predictions for the low temperature regime of the CR model.
#### Low temperature approximation for DNLS.
We return to the DNLS hamiltonian and restrict ourselves to the case $\mu > 0$. As can be inferred from the hamiltonian , in the limit $\beta \to \infty$ the canonical measure converges to the one-parameter family of ground states with $\rho_j = \bar{\rho} = \mu/g$, $\varphi_j = \bar{\varphi}$ and $\bar{\varphi}$ uniformly distributed on $S^1$. As for CR, we introduce $\tilde{r}_j = \Theta(\varphi_{j+1} -\varphi_j)$. In the context of Bose-Einstein condensates $\tilde{v}_j = \tfrac{1}{m} \tilde{r}_j$ is called the superfluid velocity. At low temperatures, $\rho_j-\bar{\rho}$ is confined by an essentially harmonic potential, hence $\lvert\rho_j-\bar{\rho}\rvert = \mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{\beta}\,)$ and the phase $\varphi_j$ jumps to $\varphi_{j+1}$ with a jump size $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{\beta}\,)$, also.
The low temperature hamiltonian is constructed in such a way that the equilibrium ensemble remains unchanged while all umklapp processes are suppressed. To achieve our goal we follow verbatim the CR blueprint. Now $(\phi_j,\rho_j)$ are a pair of canonically conjugate variables, only $\rho_j \geq 0$ instead of $p_j \in \mathbb{R}$. The phases are parametrized such that $\varphi_{j+1} - \varphi_j$ lies in the interval $[-\pi,\pi]$. Umklapp is a point at the boundary of this interval. Thus the proper low temperature hamiltonian reads $$H_{\mathrm{lt}} = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \big( \sqrt{\rho_{j+1}\,\rho_j} \, U(\phi_{j+1} - \phi_j) + V(\rho_j) \big)\,,$$ where $$U(x) = -\tfrac{1}{m} \cos(x) \ \ \text{for}\ \ \lvert x \rvert \leq \pi \,,\qquad U(x) = \infty \ \ \text{for}\ \ \lvert x \rvert > \pi\,,$$ and $$V(x) = \tfrac{1}{m} x + \tfrac{1}{2} g\, x^2 \ \ \text{for}\ \ x \geq 0\,,\qquad V(x) = \infty \ \ \text{for}\ \ x < 0\,.$$ For some computations it will be convenient to replace the hard collision potentials $U$, $V$ by a smooth variant, for which the infinite step is replaced by a rapidly diverging smooth potential. The dynamics is governed by $$\label{eq:motionHlt}
\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \phi_j = - \partial_{\rho_j} H_{\mathrm{lt}}\,,\qquad\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \rho_j = \partial_{\phi_j} H_{\mathrm{lt}}\,,$$ including the specular reflection of $\rho_j$ at $\rho_j= 0$ and of $r_j$ at $r_j = \pm \pi$. As for CR, between two umklapp events the true and the low temperature dynamics are identical. Also as weights $\exp[-\beta H] = \exp[-\beta H_{\mathrm{lt}}]$, which is a salient feature of our approximation.
There are two potential barriers, $\Delta U$ and $\Delta V$. The minimum of $V(x) -\tfrac{1}{m}x - \mu x$ is at $\bar{\rho} = \mu/g$, hence $\Delta V = \tfrac{1}{2}g\bar{\rho}^2$. The minimum of $U$ is at $\phi_{j+1} - \phi_j = 0$ and, setting $\rho_j = \bar{\rho}$, one arrives at $\Delta U = \tfrac{2}{m} \bar{\rho}$. Thus the low temperature regime is characterized by $$\label{eq:lt_parameter_regime}
\tfrac{1}{2} \beta \bar{\rho}^2 \gtrsim 2\,,\qquad \tfrac{2}{m} \beta \bar{\rho} \gtrsim 2\,.$$ In this parameter regime we expect the equilibrium time correlations based on $H_{\mathrm{lt}}$ to well approximate the time correlations of the exact DNLS.
As for a conventional anharmonic chain we introduce the stretch $r_j = \phi_{j+1} - \phi_j$. Then the conserved fields are $\rho_j$, $r_j$, and the energy $$e_j = \sqrt{\rho_{j+1}\,\rho_j}\,U(r_j) + V(\rho_j) \,.$$ This local energy differs from the one introduced in by the term $\tfrac{1}{2m}(\rho_{j+1} - \rho_j)$. In the expressions below such a difference term drops out and in the final result we could use either one. The local conservation laws and their currents read, for the density $$\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \rho_j + \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j+1} - \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j} = 0$$ with local density current $$\label{eq:current_z}
\mathcal{J}_{\rho,j} = \sqrt{\rho_{j-1}\,\rho_{j}} \, U'(r_{j-1})\,,$$ for the stretch $$\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} r_j + \mathcal{J}_{r,j+1} - \mathcal{J}_{r,j} = 0$$ with local stretch current $$\label{eq:current_r}
\mathcal{J}_{r,j} = \tfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{\rho_{j+1}/\rho_j}\,U(r_j) + \tfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{\rho_{j-1}/\rho_j}\,U(r_{j-1}) + V'(\rho_j)\,,$$ and for the energy $$\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} e_j + \mathcal{J}_{e,j+1} - \mathcal{J}_{e,j} = 0$$ with local energy current $$\label{eq:current_energy}
\mathcal{J}_{e,j} = \tfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{\rho_{j-1}\,\rho_{j+1}}\,\big( U(r_{j-1})U'(r_j) + U'(r_{j-1}) U(r_j) \big) + \sqrt{\rho_{j-1}\,\rho_j}\,U'(r_{j-1}) V'(\rho_j) \, .$$ To shorten notation, we set $\vec{g}_j = (\rho_j,r_j,e_j)$ and $\vec{\mathcal{J}}_j = \big( \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j}, \mathcal{J}_{r,j}, \mathcal{J}_{e,j} \big)$.
To stress again, the low temperature hamiltonian $H_\mathrm{lt}$ serves only as an input to nonlinear fluctuating dynamics. Our MD simulations will use DNLS throughout.
The coupling coefficients for fluctuating hydrodynamics {#sec5}
=======================================================
To arrive at predictions for the dynamics based on $H_\mathrm{lt}$ we will adopt the method from [@SpohnAHC2014]. In contrast to a standard anharmonic chain, the hamiltonian, written in terms of stretches, is no longer a sum of one-particle terms. At first sight this seems to complicate matters considerably. But, there is a surprising identity for the three average currents, which allows us to still obtain the nonlinear coupling coefficients in a concise form.
#### The case of general $\mu,\nu$.
The chemical potential $\mu$ is the dual variable for $\rho_j$ and we introduce $\nu$ as the dual variable for $r_j$. Since $\phi_0 = \phi_N$, one has $\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} r_j = 0$. Hence, by the equivalence of ensembles, the equilibrium state is actually at $\nu = 0$. But for the quadratic expansion of the Euler currents it is more convenient to first work with general $\nu$, setting $\nu=0$ at the end. The canonical ensemble of $H_{\mathrm{lt}}$ for a finite system with $N$ lattice sites and periodic boundary conditions is given by $$\label{eq:ensembleDNLS_lt}
Z_N(\mu,\nu,\beta)^{-1}\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \left( H - \mu \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \rho_j - \nu \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} r_j \right)} \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} {\mathrm{d}}\rho_j\, {\mathrm{d}}r_j\,$$ with the normalizing partition function $$Z_N(\mu,\nu,\beta) = \int_{({\mathbb{R_+}\times[-\pi,\pi]})^N} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \left( H - \mu \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \rho_j - \nu \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} r_j \right)} \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} {\mathrm{d}}\rho_j\, {\mathrm{d}}r_j\,.$$ On purpose, the index “lt” has been omitted, since $H$ and $H_{\mathrm{lt}}$ define the same measure. The canonical free energy is defined as $$\label{eq:F_def}
F(\mu,\nu,\beta) = - \beta^{-1} \lim_{N \to\infty} \tfrac{1}{N} \log Z_N(\mu,\nu,\beta)\,.$$ The averages of $\rho_j$, $r_j$, $e_j$ are $$\label{eq:avr_derivF}
\begin{split}
\rho &= \langle \rho_j \rangle = - \partial_{\mu} F(\mu,\nu,\beta), \qquad \mathsf{r} = \langle r_j \rangle = - \partial_{\nu} F(\mu,\nu,\beta), \\[1ex]
\mathsf{e} &= \lim_{N \to \infty} \tfrac{1}{N} \langle H \rangle = \partial_{\beta} (\beta\,F(\mu,\nu,\beta)) + \mu\,\rho + \nu\,\mathsf{r}\,,
\end{split}$$ independent of $j$ by translation invariance. By convexity of $F$, these relations define the inverse mapping $(\rho,\mathsf{r},\mathsf{e}) \mapsto (\mu(\rho,\mathsf{r},\mathsf{e}), \nu(\rho,\mathsf{r},\mathsf{e}), \beta(\rho,\mathsf{r},\mathsf{e}))$. As discussed in Appendix \[sec:average\_currents\], the average currents turn out to be $$\label{eq:current_avr}
\big\langle \vec{\mathcal{J}_j} \big\rangle = \langle ( \mathcal{J}_{\rho,j}, \mathcal{J}_{r,j}, \mathcal{J}_{e,j} ) \rangle = (\nu, \mu, \mu\,\nu) = \vec{\mathsf{j}}\,.$$ The product form of the energy current will be crucial in what follows.
Taking derivatives with respect to $\mu$, $\nu$, $\beta$ generates sums over $j$. We therefore introduce the shorthand $${\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}= \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \langle f_j; h_0 \rangle$$ with $\langle \cdot; \cdot \rangle$ denoting the second cumulant. Here $f_0$ refers to some local function and $f_j$ is the same function shifted by $j$. At the end of the computation one wants to take $N \to \infty$. Infinite volume correlation functions, such as $\langle f_j; h_0 \rangle = \langle f_j\,h_0 \rangle - \langle f_j \rangle \langle h_0 \rangle$, decay exponentially fast to zero. Hence all our formulas hold also for infinite volume. Note that in this case $${\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}= \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \langle f_j; h_0 \rangle\,.$$ With such notation the static susceptibility matrix is defined through $$C_{\alpha\alpha'} = {\langle\!\langle}g_{\alpha,0}; g_{\alpha',0} {\rangle\!\rangle}\,,\quad
C = \begin{pmatrix}
{\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\
{\langle\!\langle}r_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& {\langle\!\langle}r_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\
{\langle\!\langle}e_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& {\langle\!\langle}e_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& {\langle\!\langle}e_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\end{pmatrix} \,,$$ $\alpha, \alpha' = 1, 2, 3$, where the vector $\vec{g}_j$ of the field variables is defined below Eq. .
The following relations hold, $$\label{eq:davr_cumulant2}
\partial_{\mu} \langle f_0 \rangle = \beta {\langle\!\langle}f_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\,, \quad \partial_{\nu} \langle f_0 \rangle = \beta {\langle\!\langle}f_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\,, \quad
\partial_{\beta} \langle f_0 \rangle = - {\langle\!\langle}f_0; e_0 - \mu\, \rho_0- \nu\, r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\,.$$ In matrix notation, $$\label{eq:davr_cumulant2_matrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{\mu}\\ \partial_{\nu}\\ \partial_{\beta}
\end{pmatrix} \langle f_0 \rangle=
\begin{pmatrix}\beta & 0 & 0\\ 0 & \beta & 0 \\ \mu & \nu & -1 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} {\langle\!\langle}f_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\ {\langle\!\langle}f_0; r_0{\rangle\!\rangle}\\ {\langle\!\langle}f_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\end{pmatrix} \,.$$ Hence, using , one deduces that $$\label{eq:current_field_corr}
{\langle\!\langle}\mathcal{J}_{\alpha,0}; g_{\alpha',0} {\rangle\!\rangle}= \frac{1}{\beta} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & \nu \\ 1 & 0 & \mu \\ \nu & \mu & 2 \mu\,\nu \end{pmatrix}\,.$$
Setting $${\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; \ell_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}= \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \langle f_0; h_0; \ell_j \rangle\,,\qquad
{\langle\!\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; \ell_0 {\rangle\!\rangle\!\rangle}= \sum_{i,j=0}^{N-1} \langle f_0; h_i; \ell_j \rangle$$ for the third cumulant, one obtains $$\label{eq:dcumulant2_cumulant3}
\begin{split}
\partial_{\mu} \langle f_0; h_0 \rangle &= \beta {\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\,, \quad
\partial_{\nu} \langle f_0; h_0 \rangle = \beta {\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\,, \\
\partial_{\beta} \langle f_0; h_0 \rangle &= - {\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; e_0 - \mu\, \rho_0 - \nu\, r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\,.
\end{split}$$ Employing , one arrives at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:J1_cumulant3}
\mathcal{H}^{\rho}_{\alpha \gamma} = {\langle\!\langle\!\langle}\mathcal{J}_{1,0}; g_{\alpha,0}; g_{\gamma,0} {\rangle\!\rangle\!\rangle}&= \frac{1}{\beta^2} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 2\nu \end{pmatrix}, \\
\label{eq:J2_cumulant3}
\mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{r}}_{\alpha \gamma} = {\langle\!\langle\!\langle}\mathcal{J}_{2,0}; g_{\alpha,0}; g_{\gamma,0}{\rangle\!\rangle\!\rangle}&= \frac{1}{\beta^2} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 2\mu \end{pmatrix}, \\
\label{eq:J3_cumulant3}
\mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{e}}_{\alpha \gamma} = {\langle\!\langle\!\langle}\mathcal{J}_{3,0}; g_{\alpha,0}; g_{\gamma,0}{\rangle\!\rangle\!\rangle}&= \frac{1}{\beta^2} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 2 \nu \\ 1 & 0 & 2 \mu \\ 2 \nu & 2 \mu & 6 \mu\,\nu \end{pmatrix}\,.\end{aligned}$$
To write down the equations of nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics, one needs the average currents expanded to second order at the uniform background values $(\bar{\rho}, \bar{\mathsf{r}}, \bar{\mathsf{e}})$. To streamline our formulas, we denote the deviation from the background as $\vec{u} = (u_1,u_2,u_3)$ $= (\rho - \bar{\rho}, \mathsf{r} - \bar{\mathsf{r}}, \mathsf{e} - \bar{\mathsf{e}})$. The background values will be suppressed in our notation. To linear order, $$A_{\alpha \alpha'} = \partial_{u_{\alpha'}} \mathsf{j}_\alpha = \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{\rho} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \nu \\
\partial_{\rho} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \mu \\
\partial_{\rho} (\mu\,\nu) & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} (\mu\,\nu) & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} (\mu\,\nu)
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We use the identity $$\label{eq:derivative_product}
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{\mu} \rho & \partial_{\mu} \mathsf{r} & \partial_{\mu} \mathsf{e} \\
\partial_{\nu} \rho & \partial_{\nu} \mathsf{r} & \partial_{\nu} \mathsf{e} \\
\partial_{\beta} \rho & \partial_{\beta} \mathsf{r} & \partial_{\beta} \mathsf{e} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{\rho} \mu & \partial_{\rho} \nu & \partial_{\rho} \beta \\
\partial_{\mathsf{r}} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \beta \\
\partial_{\mathsf{e}} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \beta \\
\end{pmatrix} = \mathbbm{1}$$ to express derivatives of $\mu$, $\nu$, $\beta$ by derivatives of $\rho$, $\mathsf{r}$, $\mathsf{e}$. Applying to the left matrix the relation leads to $$\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{\mu} \rho & \partial_{\mu} \mathsf{r} & \partial_{\mu} \mathsf{e} \\
\partial_{\nu} \rho & \partial_{\nu} \mathsf{r} & \partial_{\nu} \mathsf{e} \\
\partial_{\beta} \rho & \partial_{\beta} \mathsf{r} & \partial_{\beta} \mathsf{e}
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}\beta & 0 & 0\\ 0 & \beta & 0 \\ \mu & \nu & -1 \end{pmatrix} C.$$ By matrix inversion, one thus obtains the right matrix in Eq. as $$\label{eq:coordJacobi_formula}
\begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{\rho} \mu & \partial_{\rho} \nu & \partial_{\rho} \beta \\
\partial_{\mathsf{r}} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \beta \\
\partial_{\mathsf{e}} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \beta \\
\end{pmatrix} =
\frac{1}{\beta}\, C^{-1} \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
\mu & \nu & -\beta \\
\end{pmatrix} \,.$$ Furthermore $$\label{eq:Aformula}
A = \frac{1}{\beta} \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & \nu \\ 1 & 0 & \mu \\ \nu & \mu & 2 \mu\,\nu \end{pmatrix} C^{-1},$$ where we have used that $C$ is symmetric. In particular, we confirm the general relations $$A\,C = C\,A^{\mathrm{T}}\,,\qquad {\langle\!\langle}\mathcal{J}_{\alpha,0}; g_{\alpha',0} {\rangle\!\rangle}= (A C)_{\alpha \alpha'} \,,$$ compare with Appendix 1f of [@SpohnAHC2014].
For the second order expansion we start from the chain rule, $$\begin{pmatrix} \partial_{\rho} f\\ \partial_{\mathsf{r}} f\\ \partial_{\mathsf{e}} f \end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
\partial_{\rho} \mu & \partial_{\rho} \nu & \partial_{\rho} \beta \\
\partial_{\mathsf{r}} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \beta \\
\partial_{\mathsf{e}} \mu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \nu & \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \beta \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \partial_{\mu} f\\ \partial_{\nu} f\\ \partial_{\beta} f \end{pmatrix} .$$ The Jacobi matrix on the right can be obtained from Eq. , and together with Eqs. and , one arrives at $$\begin{pmatrix} \partial_{\rho} \langle f_0 \rangle \\ \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \langle f_0 \rangle \\ \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \langle f_0 \rangle \end{pmatrix} = C^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} {\langle\!\langle}f_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\ {\langle\!\langle}f_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\ {\langle\!\langle}f_0; e_0{\rangle\!\rangle}\end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\begin{pmatrix} \partial_{\rho} \langle f_0; h_0 \rangle \\ \partial_{\mathsf{r}} \langle f_0; h_0 \rangle \\ \partial_{\mathsf{e}} \langle f_0; h_0 \rangle \end{pmatrix} = C^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} {\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\ {\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\ {\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\end{pmatrix} \,.$$ In index notation, $$\partial_{u_{\alpha}} \langle f_0 \rangle = \sum_{\alpha'=1}^3 (C^{-1})_{\alpha \alpha'} \, {\langle\!\langle}f_0; g_{\alpha',0} {\rangle\!\rangle}\quad\text{and}\quad
\partial_{u_{\alpha}} \langle f_0; h_0 \rangle = \sum_{\alpha'=1}^3 (C^{-1})_{\alpha \alpha'} \, {\langle\!\langle}f_0; h_0; g_{\alpha',0} {\rangle\!\rangle}\,.$$ This relation allows us to obtain second derivatives as $$\partial_{u_{\alpha}} \partial_{u_{\gamma}} \langle f_0 \rangle =\sum_{\alpha',\gamma'=1}^{3} (C^{-1})_{\alpha \alpha'} (C^{-1})_{\gamma \gamma'} \, {\langle\!\langle\!\langle}f_0; g_{\alpha',0}; g_{\gamma',0} {\rangle\!\rangle\!\rangle}\,.$$ In particular, according to Eqs. – , we obtain the Hessians of the currents $$\label{eq:current_Hessian}
H^{\alpha}_{\gamma \gamma'} = \partial_{u_{\gamma}} \partial_{u_{\gamma'}} \mathsf{j}_\alpha = \big(C^{-1}\, \mathcal{H}^{\alpha}\, C^{-1}\big)_{\gamma \gamma'} \,.$$ As required, the matrices on the right are symmetric, since $C$ is symmetric.
A matrix $R$ is introduced in [@SpohnAHC2014] for the transformation to normal modes. Specifically, $R$ diagonalizes $A$ and satisfies $$\label{eq:Rproperties}
R A R^{-1} = \mathrm{diagonal}, \quad R C R^{\mathrm{T}} = \mathbbm{1}\,.$$ Inserting Eq. into the definition of the coupling matrices, $$G^{\alpha} = \tfrac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha'=1}^3 R_{\alpha \alpha'}\, R^{-\mathrm{T}} H^{\alpha'} R^{-1} \,,$$ and using that $C^{-1} R^{-1} = R^{\mathrm{T}}$ leads to $$\label{eq:Gformula}
G^{\alpha} = \tfrac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha'=1}^3 R_{\alpha \alpha'}\, R\, \mathcal{H}^{\alpha'} R^{\mathrm{T}} \,.$$
#### Special case $\nu = 0$.
The next step is to take $\nu = 0$, which implies $\mathsf{r} = \langle r_j \rangle = 0$, $\langle r_j; \rho_0 \rangle = 0$, and $\langle r_j; e_0 \rangle = 0$. The inverse matrix of $C$ simplifies to $$C^{-1} = \frac{1}{\Gamma} \begin{pmatrix}
{\langle\!\langle}e_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& 0 & -{\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-{\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& 0 & {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\end{pmatrix} +
\frac{1}{{\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}} \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ with $$\Gamma = {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}{\langle\!\langle}e_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}- {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^2 \,.$$ Note that $\Gamma$ is invariant under $e_0 \to e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0$.
Using Eq. for $A$ at $\nu = 0$ results in $$A = \frac{1}{\beta\, \Gamma} \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
{\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}& 0 & -{\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix} +
\frac{1}{\beta\, {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}} \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \mu & 0
\end{pmatrix} \,.$$ The eigenvalues of $A$ are $(-c, 0, c)$ with $c$ the adiabatic sound speed, $$\label{eq:sound_speed_sq}
c = \frac{1}{\beta}\, (\Gamma {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle})^{-1/2}\, {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^{1/2} \,.$$
Through the relations the matrices $A$ and $C$ determine $R$ up to a global sign. One obtains $$\label{Rmatrix}
R = \begin{pmatrix} \langle\tilde{\psi}_{-1}\vert \\ \langle\tilde{\psi}_0\vert \\ \langle\tilde{\psi}_{1}\vert \end{pmatrix}\,,$$ where the notation $\langle\,\cdot\,\vert$ denotes a row vector, and $$\begin{split}
\tilde{\psi}_0 &= {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0) {\rangle\!\rangle}^{-1/2} \begin{pmatrix} -\mu \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \,,\\
\tilde{\psi}_{\sigma} &= {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^{-1/2} \, (2\,\Gamma)^{-1/2} \begin{pmatrix} {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\ 0 \\ -{\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\end{pmatrix} + (2\, {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0) {\rangle\!\rangle})^{-1/2} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \sigma \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}
\end{split}$$ for $\sigma = \pm 1$. The corresponding inverse matrix, containing the eigenvectors of $A$ as columns, is given by $$R^{-1} = \big( \vert \psi_{-1}\rangle\, \vert \psi_0\rangle\, \vert \psi_{1}\rangle \big)$$ with $$\begin{split}
\psi_0 &= {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^{-1/2} \begin{pmatrix} {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\\ 0 \\ {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\end{pmatrix} \,,\\
\psi_{\sigma} &= {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^{-1/2} \, \big(\tfrac{1}{2}\, \Gamma\big)^{1/2} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ \mu \end{pmatrix} + \big(\tfrac{1}{2}\, {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\big)^{1/2} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \sigma \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \,.
\end{split}$$
Finally, the $G$ coupling matrices can be determined by inserting $R$ into Eq. . First, we calculate the entries of $R\, \mathcal{H}^{\rho} R^{\mathrm{T}}$, $$\begin{split}
\langle \tilde{\psi}_0 \vert \mathcal{H}^{\rho} \vert \tilde{\psi}_0 \rangle &= 0 \,,\\
\langle \tilde{\psi}_0 \vert \mathcal{H}^{\rho} \vert \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma} \rangle &= \beta^{-2}\, \big(2\, {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\big)^{-1/2}\, \sigma \,,\\
\langle \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma} \vert \mathcal{H}^{\rho} \vert \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma'} \rangle &= - \beta^{-2}\, \big({\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, \Gamma \big)^{-1/2}\, {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, \delta_{\sigma \sigma'}\, \sigma
\end{split}$$ for $\sigma, \sigma' = \pm 1$. The entries of $R\, \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{r}} R^{\mathrm{T}}$ are $$\begin{split}
\langle \tilde{\psi}_0 \vert \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{r}} \vert \tilde{\psi}_0 \rangle &= 0 \,,\\
\langle \tilde{\psi}_0 \vert \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{r}} \vert \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma} \rangle &= \beta^{-2}\, (2\,\Gamma)^{-1/2} \,,\\
\langle \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma} \vert \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{r}} \vert \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma'} \rangle &= - \beta^{-2}\, \Gamma^{-1} \, {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\end{split}$$ and the entries of $R\, \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{e}} R^{\mathrm{T}}$ are $$\begin{split}
\langle \tilde{\psi}_0 \vert \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{e}} \vert \tilde{\psi}_0 \rangle &= 0 \,,\\
\langle \tilde{\psi}_0 \vert \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{e}} \vert \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma} \rangle &= \beta^{-2}\, \big(2\, {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\big)^{-1/2}\, \mu\, \sigma \,,\\
\langle \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma} \vert \mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{e}} \vert \tilde{\psi}_{\sigma'} \rangle &= \beta^{-2}\, \big({\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, \Gamma \big)^{-1/2}\, {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - 2\,\mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}\, \delta_{\sigma \sigma'}\, \sigma \,.
\end{split}$$
Using Eq. and , one obtains for the coupling matrices $$G^0 = \frac{c}{2 \beta}\, {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^{-1/2} \begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$$ and $$\begin{split}
G^1 &= \frac{c}{2 \beta}\, {\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^{-1/2} \left(\Upsilon \begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 3 \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \right)\,,
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{eq:upsilon_def}
\Upsilon = - {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}(2 \Gamma)^{-1/2}\,.$$ The matrix $G^{-1}$ is determined by $G^{-1} = -(G^1)^{\mathcal{T}}$, where ${}^\mathcal{T}$ denotes the transpose relative to the anti-diagonal. As it has to be, the $G$ coupling matrices are symmetric.
Note that the thermodynamic averages and cumulants appearing in this paragraph can be obtained as appropriate derivatives of the free energy $F(\mu,\nu,\beta)$ with respect to $\mu$, $\nu$ and $\beta$, see Eqs. and . For example, evaluated at $\nu = 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle\!\langle}e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}&= - \partial_{\beta}^2\, (\beta F) \,,\\
{\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 - \mu\,\rho_0{\rangle\!\rangle}&= \partial_{\beta} \partial_{\mu} F\,,\\
{\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; \rho_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}{\langle\!\langle}e_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}- {\langle\!\langle}\rho_0; e_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}^2
&= \beta^{-1}\, \partial_{\beta}^2(\beta F)\,\partial_\mu^2 F - (\partial_{\beta} \partial_{\mu} F)^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ Also expressions involving $r_0$, as for example ${\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}$, can be written as derivative of $F$ with respect to $\nu$ evaluated at $\nu = 0$. The numerical computation of $F(\mu,\nu,\beta)$ will be described below.
We have arrived at two important qualitative results. Firstly, $G_{00}^0 = 0$ always and, secondly $G^1_{11} > 0$, at least for low temperatures, as to be discussed below, and most likely in the regime characterized by Eq. .
#### Asymptotic scaling.
We define the low temperature correlator by $$S_\mathrm{lt}(j,t) = \big\langle \lvert \rho_{j}(t),r_j(t),e_j(t)\rangle;\langle \rho_{0}(0),r_0(0),e_0(0)\rvert \big\rangle_{\mu,\beta}$$ as a $3 \times 3$ matrix, denoting by $\lvert\cdot\rangle$ the column vector and by $\langle \cdot \rvert$ its transpose. The average is with respect to the thermal state at $\nu = 0$ and the dynamics is governed by $H_\mathrm{lt}$, compare with . We want to relate $S_\mathrm{lt}$ to the DNLS correlator defined by $$\label{eq:S_def}
S(j,t) = \big\langle \lvert \rho_{j}(t),\tilde{r}_j(t),e_j(t)\rangle;\langle \rho_{0}(0),\tilde{r}_0(0),e_0(0)
\rvert\big\rangle_{\mu,\beta}\,.$$ Now the dynamics is generated by the DNLS hamiltonian $H$, compare with . In we only considered the correlator for $(\rho_j, e_j)$. But now we include also the phase difference $\tilde{r}_j = \Theta(\varphi_{j+1} - \varphi_j)$. We claim that, under the condition , in approximation $$S(j,t) \simeq S_\mathrm{lt}(j,t)\,.$$
The asymptotics of the correlator on the right can be obtained from nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics. We use the matrix $R$, see , to transform to normal modes and define $$\label{eq:sharp}
S^{\sharp}_{\mathrm{lt}}(j,t) = R\,S_{\mathrm{lt}}(j,t)\,R^\mathrm{T}\,,\qquad S^{\sharp}(j,t) = R\,
S(j,t)\,R^\mathrm{T} \,.$$ $S^{\sharp}_{\mathrm{lt}}(j,t)$ is approximately diagonal with matrix elements $$S^\sharp_{\mathrm{lt},\alpha\alpha'}(j,t) \simeq \delta_{\alpha\alpha'}f_\alpha(j,t)\,.$$ The scaling form of $f_{\alpha}(j,t)$ is explained in [@SpohnAHC2014; @MeSp13]. For the sound peak one finds $$\label{eq:sound_peak_scaling}
f_\sigma(x,t)\simeq (\lambda_\mathrm{s} t)^{-2/3} f_{\mathrm{KPZ}} \big((\lambda_\mathrm{s} t)^{-2/3}(x- \sigma ct)\big)\,,$$ $\sigma = \pm 1$, with the non-universal scaling coefficient $$\lambda_\mathrm{s} = 2 \sqrt{2}\, \lvert G^\sigma_{\sigma\sigma} \rvert \,.$$ The universal scaling function $f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}$ is tabulated in [@PrSp2004], denoted there by $f$. $f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}\geq 0$, $\int {\mathrm{d}}x \, f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}(x) = 1$, $f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}(x) = f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}(-x)$, $\int {\mathrm{d}}x\, x^2\, f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}(x) \simeq 0.510523$. $f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}$ looks like a Gaussian with a large $\lvert x \rvert$ decay as $\exp[-0.295 \lvert x \rvert^{3}]$. Plots are provided in [@PrSp2000; @PrSp2004]. The shape function for the heat peak is more easily written in Fourier space, $$\label{eq:heat_peak_scaling}
\hat{f}_0(k,t)\simeq \mathrm{e}^{-\lvert k \rvert^{5/3} \lambda_\mathrm{h} t}\,,$$ with the non-universal coefficient $$\lambda_\mathrm{h} = \lambda_\mathrm{s}^{-2/3}\, (G^0_{\sigma\sigma})^2\, (4 \pi)^2 \int^\infty_0 {\mathrm{d}}t\, t^{-2/3} \,\cos (2 \pi c t) \int_{\mathbb{R}} {\mathrm{d}}x\, f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}(x)^2\,.$$
#### Numerical evaluation of the free energy.
To compute the partition function $$Z_N(\mu,\nu,\beta) = \int \mathrm{e}^{-\beta\left(H - \mu \mathsf{N} - \nu \sum_j \tilde{r}_j \right)} \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} {\mathrm{d}}\psi_j {\mathrm{d}}\psi_j^* \,,$$ we first switch to polar coordinates $(\rho_j, \varphi_j)$. For the case $\nu = 0$ we explicitly calculate the $\varphi_j$ integrals [@RasmussenPRL2000], i.e., we integrate with respect to $\tilde{r}_j$ on $[-\pi, \pi]$. This leads to $$Z_N(\mu,0,\beta) = \int \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} K(\rho_{j+1}, \rho_j) \, {\mathrm{d}}\rho_j$$ with the *transfer operator* or kernel $K(x, y) = K_1(x, y) K_0(y)$ and $$\label{eq:transfer_operator}
K_1(x, y) = 2\pi I_0\big(\beta \tfrac{1}{m} \sqrt{x\,y}\big)\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \frac{1}{2m} (x + y)} \,, \qquad
K_0(y) = \mathrm{e}^{\beta \frac{1}{2} \mu^2/g}\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \frac{1}{2} g \left(y - \frac{\mu}{g}\right)^2}
\,.$$ $I_0$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind. Then $$\label{eq:lambda_max_limit}
\lim_{N \to \infty} \tfrac{1}{N} \log Z_N(\mu,0,\beta) = \log(\lambda_{\max}(K))\,,$$ where $\lambda_{\max}$ denotes the largest eigenvalue. We follow the ideas in [@Nystrom1930; @Bornemann2010] and use a Nyström-type discretization for the kernel. Given a Gauss quadrature rule as $$\label{eq:quadrature_rule}
\int_0^{\infty} f(\rho)\,\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \frac{1}{2} g \left(\rho - \frac{\mu}{g}\right)^2} {\mathrm{d}}\rho \approx \sum_{i=1}^n w_i\,f(x_i)$$ with positive weights $w_i$ and base points $x_i$ [@GolubWelsch], we construct the symmetric matrix $$\big( K_1(x_i, x_{i'})\,\sqrt{w_i\,w_{i'}} \big)_{i,i'=1}^n$$ and calculate its largest eigenvalue, denoted $\lambda_1$. Then $$\log(\lambda_{\max}(K)) \approx \beta\,\tfrac{1}{2} \tfrac{\mu^2}{g} + \log \lambda_1 \,.$$ Numerically, we observe exponential convergence with respect to the number of quadrature points. At $\beta = 15$ and $\mu = 1$ for example, $n = 16$ points suffice for double precision accuracy. For non-zero $\nu$ we proceed analogously. The angular integral is no longer given by a special function and we have to determine it numerically.
Based on , one then obtains thermodynamic averages and cumulants as appropriate derivatives of the canonical free energy $$F(\mu,\nu,\beta) = - \beta^{-1} \lim_{N \to\infty} \tfrac{1}{N} \log Z_{N}(\mu,\nu,\beta)$$ with respect to $\mu$, $\nu$, and $\beta$. For example, we determine $\mu$ numerically such that $\langle \rho_j \rangle = 1$, as summarized in the following table for several values of $\beta$:
$\beta$ 1 2 5 10 15 20 100 200
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- ----------
$\mu$ 1.05627 1.18426 1.08815 1.03863 1.02489 1.01839 1.003562 1.001774
![The chemical potential $\mu$ as a function of $\beta$ such that $\langle \rho_j \rangle = 1$, for the DNLS with parameters $m = 1$ and $g = 1$.[]{data-label="fig:nonintegrable_mu_beta"}](Z_transfer_operator_mu_beta_plot){width="40.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:nonintegrable\_mu\_beta\] visualizes $\mu$ as a function of $\beta$.
#### Low temperature expansion.
For the special case $\nu = 0$, we expand the entries of $C$, $A$, $R$, $\vec{G}$ in terms of $\beta^{-1}$ at fixed value of the average density $\bar{\rho}$. For that purpose, we expand the hamiltonian around the ground state by regarding $r_j$ and $z_j = \rho_j - \bar{\rho}$ as small. We switch to the moving frame, which corresponds to replacing $H$ by $\check{H} = H - g \bar{\rho}\,(\mathsf{N} - \bar{\rho} N) - \tfrac{1}{2} g \bar{\rho}^2 N$ with the ground state energy subtracted. Taylor expansion up to third order results in $$\check{H} = \check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}} + \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \Big( {-}\tfrac{1}{16 m \bar{\rho}^2} (z_{j+1}+z_j) (z_{j+1}-z_j)^2 + \mathcal{O}(r_j^4) + \mathcal{O}(z_j^2\, r_j^2) + \mathcal{O}(z_j^4) \Big)\,.$$ The expansion hamiltonian $\check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}}$ is given by $$\label{eq:Heff}
\check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}} = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \mathfrak{e}_j, \qquad \mathfrak{e}_j = \tfrac{1}{2m} r_j^2\,\big(\bar{\rho} + \tfrac{1}{2}(z_j + z_{j+1})\big) + \tfrac{1}{8 m \bar{\rho}}(z_{j+1}-z_j)^2 + \check{V}(z_j)$$ with potential $$\check{V}(x) = \tfrac{1}{2} g\, x^2 \quad \text{for}\quad x > -\bar{\rho}\,,\qquad \check{V}(x) = \infty \quad \text{for}\quad x \leq -\bar{\rho}\,.$$ The boundary condition enforces the constraint $z_j \ge -\bar{\rho}$. Note that the expansion does not depend on $\bar{\varphi}$. Clearly $\check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}}$ is stable and we have found a state of minimal energy. The term cubic in $z_j$ is unstable, but will be stabilized by higher order terms in the expansion. These are expected to be small corrections to the quantum pressure $\tfrac{1}{8 m \bar{\rho}}(z_{j+1}-z_j)^2$ and hence will be neglected.
The conserved fields of $\check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}}$ are $z_j$, $r_j$, $\mathfrak{e}_j$. Eventually we want to relate them to the original field variables. $z_j$ transforms to $\rho_j$ since the constant shift by $\bar{\rho}$ drops out from the cumulants below. Concerning the local energy, $$e_j \simeq \mathfrak{e}_j + g \bar{\rho}\,z_j + \tfrac{1}{2} g \bar{\rho}^2\,, \quad \text{that is}, \quad \mathfrak{e}_j \simeq e_j - g \bar{\rho}\,\rho_j + \mathrm{const} \,,$$ such that in a cumulant $\mathfrak{e}_j$ approximates $e_j - \mu\,\rho_j$.
We use $\check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}}$ to evaluate the partition function $$\check{Z}_N(\check{\mu},\beta) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{2N}} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta \left( \check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}} - \check{\mu} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} z_j \right)} \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} {\mathrm{d}}z_j\, {\mathrm{d}}r_j\,.$$ The $r_j$ integrals can be obtained in closed form, and for the $z_j$ integrals we proceed as $$\int_{\mathbb{R}} {\mathrm{d}}z\, \tfrac{\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \frac{1}{2} z^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi / \beta}} \, f(z) \approx \int_{\mathbb{R}} {\mathrm{d}}z\, \tfrac{\mathrm{e}^{-\beta \frac{1}{2} z^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi / \beta}} \, \big( f(0) + f'(0)\,z + \tfrac{1}{2} f''(0)\,z^2 + \dots \big) = f(0) + \tfrac{1}{2\beta}\, f''(0) + \dots \,.$$ One obtains $$\langle z_j \rangle = \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} - \tfrac{1}{2 g} \big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-1}\, \beta^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \,.$$ Setting $\langle z_j \rangle = 0$ then yields $$\label{eq:mu_asymptotic}
\check{\mu} = (2 \bar{\rho}\,\beta)^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \,.$$ To leading order the average energy is given by $$\langle \mathfrak{e}_j \rangle = \tfrac{\check{\mu}^2}{2 g} + \Big( 1 - \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{2 g} \big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-1} \Big) \beta^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \,,$$ and inserting results in $$\langle \mathfrak{e}_j \rangle = \beta^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \quad \text{for } \langle z_j \rangle = 0 \,.$$ Using relations analogous to , one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle\!\langle}z_0; z_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}&= \tfrac{1}{g}\, \beta^{-1} + \tfrac{1}{2 g^2} \big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-2}\, \beta^{-2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3}) \,, \\
{\langle\!\langle}z_0; \mathfrak{e}_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}&= \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g}\, \beta^{-1} - \tfrac{\bar{\rho}}{2 g} \big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-2}\, \beta^{-2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3}) \,, \\
{\langle\!\langle}\mathfrak{e}_0; \mathfrak{e}_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}&= \tfrac{\check{\mu}^2}{g}\, \beta^{-1} + \tfrac{1}{2} \Big( 1 + \bar{\rho}^2 \big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-2} \Big) \beta^{-2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3}) \,,\end{aligned}$$ and inserting results in $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle\!\langle}z_0; z_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}&= \tfrac{1}{g}\, \beta^{-1} + \tfrac{1}{2} (g \bar{\rho}\,\beta)^{-2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3}) \,, \\
{\langle\!\langle}z_0; \mathfrak{e}_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}&= 0 + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3}) \,, \\
{\langle\!\langle}\mathfrak{e}_0; \mathfrak{e}_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}&= \beta^{-2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3})\end{aligned}$$ for $\langle z_j \rangle = 0$. It follows that $${\langle\!\langle}\mathfrak{e}_0 - \check{\mu}\,z_0; \mathfrak{e}_0 - \check{\mu}\,z_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}= \beta^{-2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3})$$ and $$\Gamma = \tfrac{1}{g}\, \beta^{-3} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-4}) \,.$$ The variance of the stretch is $${\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}= m \big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-1}\,\beta^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \,, \quad {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}= \tfrac{m}{\bar{\rho}} \beta^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \text{ for } \langle z_j \rangle = 0 \,.$$ We have collected all ingredients to calculate the remaining thermodynamic quantities. One obtains for the square of the sound speed $$c^2 = \tfrac{1}{m} ( \check{\mu} + g\,\bar{\rho}) + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-1}), \qquad c^2 = \tfrac{1}{m} g\,\bar{\rho} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-1}) \quad \text{for } \langle z_j \rangle = 0 \,.$$ The coupling matrix $G^0$ is $$G^0 = \tfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{\tfrac{1}{m} ( \check{\mu} + g\,\bar{\rho})} \begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-1})$$ and the inner term of $G^1$ defined in is $$\Upsilon = \tfrac{1}{2} \big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-1} (2 g\,\beta)^{-1/2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3/2}) \,.$$ In particular, $G^1_{11} > 0$ as asserted above.
The square of the matrix elements of $R^{-1}$ are the Landau-Placzek ratios. For the central column of $R^{-1}$ one obtains $$\begin{split}
\psi_0 &= \big( -\tfrac{1}{2} ( \check{\mu} + g\,\bar{\rho} )^{-1}, 0, 1 - \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{2} ( \check{\mu} + g\,\bar{\rho} )^{-1} \big)^{\mathrm{T}} \beta^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \,,\\
\psi_0 &= \big( -\tfrac{1}{2 g \bar{\rho}}, 0, 1 \big)^{\mathrm{T}} \beta^{-1} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-2}) \quad \text{for } \langle z_j \rangle = 0 \,,
\end{split}$$ and for the left and right column $$\psi_{\sigma} = \Big((2 g\,\beta)^{-1/2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3/2}) \Big) \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ \check{\mu} \end{pmatrix} + \Big(\big( \tfrac{\check{\mu}}{g} + \bar{\rho} \big)^{-1/2} (2 \beta / m)^{-1/2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3/2}) \Big)\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \sigma \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \,,$$ $$\psi_{\sigma} = \begin{pmatrix} (2 g\,\beta)^{-1/2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3/2}) \\[1ex] (2 \bar{\rho}\,\beta/m)^{-1/2}\, \sigma + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-3/2}) \\[1ex] \tfrac{1}{\bar{\rho}} (8 g)^{-1/2}\,\beta^{-3/2} + \mathcal{O}(\beta^{-5/2}) \end{pmatrix} \quad \text{for } \langle z_j \rangle = 0 \,.$$ In particular our results imply that, to leading order in $\beta^{-1}$, the peak weights for the $\rho$-$\rho$ correlations are given by $$\big( (2 g \beta)^{-1}, (2 g \bar{\rho} \beta)^{-2}, (2 g \beta)^{-1} \big) \,,$$ for the $r$-$r$ correlations by $$(2 \bar{\rho}\,\beta/m)^{-1} (1, 0, 1)\,,$$ and for the $\mathfrak{e}$-$\mathfrak{e}$ correlations by $$\big( (8 g \bar{\rho}^2)^{-1} \beta^{-3}, \beta^{-2}, (8 g \bar{\rho}^2)^{-1} \beta^{-3} \big) \,.$$
In the simulations [@KulkarniLamacraft2013] the $\rho$-$\rho$ correlations showed no heat peak, which came unexpected at first glance. From our low temperature expansion one concludes that the heat peak is suppressed by a relative factor of $1/\beta$, $1/\beta = 0.005$ in [@KulkarniLamacraft2013].
Molecular dynamics simulations {#sec6}
==============================
#### Time evolution.
To solve the DNLS differential equation numerically, the symplectic fourth-order symmetric Runge-Kutta-Nyström method $\mathrm{SRKN}^b_6$ by Blanes and Moan [@BlanesMoan2002] is found to be very useful, see also [@HairerLubichWanner2006]. It can be regarded as generalization of the Strang splitting technique. Specifically, a canonical approach for solving the DNLS is to split the hamiltonian into a kinetic and nonlinear part, $H = T + U$, with $$T = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \tfrac{1}{2m} \lvert\psi_{j+1} - \psi_{j}\rvert^2 \,, \qquad U = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \tfrac{1}{2}\,g\,|\psi_j|^4 \,.$$ Then the flow over time $t$ (separately induced by $T$ and $U$) is exactly given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^T_t: \ \hat{\psi}_k &\mapsto \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\,(1 - \cos(2 \pi k/N))\,t/m} \, \hat{\psi}_k \,,\\
\Phi^U_t: \ \psi_j &\mapsto \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}\,g\,\lvert \psi_j \rvert^2\, t} \, \psi_j \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\psi}_k = (\mathcal{F} \psi)_k$ denotes the discrete Fourier coefficient $k$ of $(\psi_j)_{j=0,\dots,N-1}$. The symmetric Runge-Kutta-Nyström method approximates a time step $h$ by the composition $$\Psi_h = \Phi^U_{b_{s+1} h} \circ \Phi^T_{a_s h} \circ \dots \circ \Phi^U_{b_2 h} \circ \Phi^T_{a_1 h} \circ \Phi^U_{b_1 h}$$ with appropriate coefficients $a_i$, $b_i$. They satisfy the symmetry conditions $a_{s+1-i} = a_i$ and $b_{s+2-i} = b_i$. In our case the number of stages $s = 6$, and the numerical values of $a_i$ and $b_i$ for $\mathrm{SRKN}^b_6$ are tabulated in [@BlanesMoan2002]. In the simulations below the system size (number of lattice sites) is always $N = 4096$, and the time step $h = \frac{1}{4}$.
#### Thermodynamic equilibration.
For each simulation run, we draw an initial state from the canonical ensemble $$Z_N(\mu,\beta)^{-1}\, \mathrm{e}^{-\beta(H - \mu \mathsf{N})} \prod_{j=0}^{N-1} {\mathrm{d}}p_j\, {\mathrm{d}}q_j$$ for a given inverse temperature $\beta$ and chemical potential $\mu$, where $H$ is the DNLS hamiltonian . To obtain such a state, we discretize the following fictitious overdamped Langevin dynamics [@CancesLegollStoltz2007] (also known as biased random-walk) $$\begin{split}
{\mathrm{d}}p_j(\tau) &= - \partial_{p_j} (H - \mu \mathsf{N})\,{\mathrm{d}}\tau + \sqrt{\tfrac{2}{\beta}}\,{\mathrm{d}}W_{p,j}(\tau) \,, \\
{\mathrm{d}}q_j(\tau) &= - \partial_{q_j} (H - \mu \mathsf{N})\,{\mathrm{d}}\tau + \sqrt{\tfrac{2}{\beta}}\,{\mathrm{d}}W_{q,j}(\tau) \,, \quad j = 0,\dots,N-1
\end{split}$$ where $W_{p,j}(\tau)_{\tau \ge 0}$ and $W_{q,j}(\tau)_{\tau \ge 0}$ are standard Wiener processes. Numerically, we use the Euler-Maruyama method with step size $\Delta \tau$, $$\begin{split}
p_j^{n+1} &= p_j^n - \Delta\tau\,\partial_{p_j} (H - \mu \mathsf{N}) + \sqrt{\tfrac{2 \Delta\tau}{\beta}}\,G_{p,j}^n \,,\\
q_j^{n+1} &= q_j^n - \Delta\tau\,\partial_{q_j} (H - \mu \mathsf{N}) + \sqrt{\tfrac{2 \Delta\tau}{\beta}}\,G_{q,j}^n \,,
\end{split}$$ where the $G_{p,j}^n$ and $G_{q,j}^n$ are independent standard Gaussian variables. In our implementation, we set $\Delta \tau = \frac{1}{64}$ and perform $1024$ such steps. We start with a sample drawn from the canonical ensemble of the quadratic hamiltonian $H_2$, which is obtained from $\check{H}_{\mathrm{ex}}$ of by dropping the cubic term $r_j^2(z_j + z_{j+1})$. $H_2$ is diagonalized by Fourier transformation.
#### Low temperature dynamics.
Numerically we simulate the original DNLS , with initial states drawn from the canonical ensemble of $H$, and determine $S^{\sharp}(j,t)$, compare with and . We average over $10^6$ simulation runs. Due to the periodic boundary conditions, the sum of the stretches $\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \tilde{r}_j$ is necessarily zero or a multiple of $2\pi$. At low temperatures there are no umklapp processes, the sum is zero, meaning that with respect to $\tilde{r}_j$ one simulates a microcanonical ensemble. Since in our theory the canonical average is used, we shift the numerical $S_{\tilde{r}\tilde{r}}(j,t)$ a posteriori by the small value $\frac{1}{N} {\langle\!\langle}r_0; r_0 {\rangle\!\rangle}$.
Following the proposal in [@DasDhar2015], the violation of the conservation law for $\tilde{r}_j$ could be measured quantitatively by considering $$\Gamma(t) = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} S_{\tilde{r} \tilde{r}}(j,t) = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \langle \tilde{r}_j(t); \tilde{r}_0(0) \rangle\,.$$ At low temperatures, $\tilde{r}_j = r_j$ and $\Gamma(t) = 0$, for practical purposes. However at high temperatures $\Gamma(t)$ increases and reaches its canonical average value for large $t$. A similar consistency check is based on the matrix sum rule $$\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} S^{\sharp}(j,t) = \mathbbm{1} \,,$$ which holds only if the fields are conserved. For the numerical simulations with $\beta = 15$ (see below), the difference is $\simeq 0.03$ with respect to the $3 \times 3$ matrix $2$-norm at all recorded times $t$.
![Equilibrium two-point correlations $S^{\sharp}_{11}(j,t)$ of the discrete NLS with $m = 1$ and $g = 1$, showing the right-moving sound peak at different time points. Initial states have been drawn from the canonical ensemble with parameters $\beta = 15$ and $\mu = 1.02489$. The gray vertical lines show the theoretically predicted sound speed $c$, and the dashed red lines are rescaled KPZ functions.[]{data-label="fig:canonical_beta15_sound"}](analysis_NLS_canonical_beta15_S_sound){width="80.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta15\_sound\] visualizes the right-moving sound peak of $S^{\sharp}_{11}(j,t)$ at different time points, with initial states drawn from the canonical ensemble of $H$ with parameters $\beta = 15$ and $\mu = 1.02489$. Following , the red dashed lines are KPZ functions scaled as $$(\lambda_{\mathrm{s}} t)^{-2/3} f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}\big((\lambda_{\mathrm{s}} t)^{-2/3} (x - c t)\big)$$ with $c = 0.9556$ the theoretical sound speed determined by . The nonuniversal coefficients $\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}$ have been fitted to minimize the expression $$\label{eq:L1dist_KPZ}
\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \big\lvert S^{\sharp}_{11}(j,t) - (\lambda_{\mathrm{s}} t)^{-2/3} f_{\mathrm{KPZ}}\big((\lambda_{\mathrm{s}} t)^{-2/3} (j - c t)\big)\big\rvert \,.$$ At the optimal value of $\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}$ the error in is approximately $0.1$ and the largest term in the sum is approximately $2.5 \times 10^{-4}$ at $t = 1536$, thus confirming the scaling exponent and the shape function. The optimal values are recorded in the following table:
$t$ $256$ $512$ $1024$ $1536$ theory
------------------------ ------- ------- -------- -------- --------
$\lambda_{\mathrm{s}}$ 0.921 1.083 1.186 1.190 0.2846
Up to the largest accessible time, the value seems to stabilize. However, the theoretical KPZ scaling prediction $$\lambda_{\mathrm{s}} = 2 \sqrt{2}\,\big\lvert G^{\sigma}_{\sigma\sigma} \big\rvert \,,$$ shown as last entry in the table, still deviates by a factor $4$. Such discrepancy, almost perfect scaling plot and substantial deviation for the non-universal coefficients, has been noted before. We refer to [@HS15] for a discussion.
The (relatively broad) heat mode for the same simulations is visualized in Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta15\_heat\]. One notices some feedback from the sound modes, which seems to weaken as time progresses. According to , mode coupling predicts $$\label{eq:fLevy}
S^{\sharp}_{00}(j,t) = (\lambda_{\mathrm{h}} t)^{-3/5} f_{{\mathrm{L},5/3}}((\lambda_{\mathrm{h}} t)^{-3/5} j)$$ with $f_{\mathrm{L},\alpha}$ the symmetric $\alpha$-stable distribution, also known as $\alpha$-Lévy distribution, and shown as dashed orange lines in Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta15\_heat\]. The coefficients $\lambda_{\mathrm{h}}$ are obtained by minimizing $$\label{eq:L1dist_heat}
\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \big\lvert S^{\sharp}_{00}(j,t) - (\lambda_{\mathrm{h}} t)^{-3/5} f_{\mathrm{L},5/3}\big((\lambda_{\mathrm{h}} t)^{-3/5} j\big)\big\rvert \,,$$ with the result
$t$ $256$ $512$ $1024$ $1536$
------------------------ ------- ------- -------- --------
$\lambda_{\mathrm{h}}$ 17.8 21.7 22.7 22.4
\
\
To probe the domain of validity for nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics we move to even lower temperatures and set $\beta = 200$, still at $\langle \rho_j \rangle = 1$, which are the same parameters as in [@KulkarniLamacraft2013]. In the top row of Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta200\] we display the density-density correlation. The central peak has dissolved into a bump with rapid oscillations and weakly subballistic spreading. The actual heat peak would have a relative amplitude smaller by a factor of $0.005$ and is thus not visible. The two sound peaks are well separated from the central bump. In [@KulkarniLamacraft2013] their structure has been studied in detail for sizes roughly double compared to the one used for Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta200\]. There, $k$, $\omega$ space is used, which obstructs a direct comparison. But the numerical evidence [@Kulkarni2015] points towards quantitative validity of KPZ scaling. Apparently each sound peak is still governed by a scalar noisy Burgers equation. The energy-energy correlations look very similar to the one in the top row of Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta200\].
Also other linear combinations of the conserved fields can be considered. In the middle row of Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta200\] we display $S_{11}^\sharp$. As expected only the right sound peak is left, but the central bump remains as before. The bottom row of Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta200\] visualizes $S_{00}^\sharp$. Now the central bump with rapid oscillations has disappeared, giving space for a structure which might be the remnant of the heat peak. On the other side, peaks like the sound peak pop up. Apparently, we see structures which are not accounted for by the hydrodynamic fluctuation theory.
At such ultra-low temperatures, the dynamics is no longer sufficiently chaotic, as implicitly assumed when deriving fluctuating hydrodynamics. For a more precise dynamical underpinning the obvious candidate is the harmonic approximation with hamiltonian $H_2$, compare with last paragraph of Sect. \[sec5\]. In MD simulations of the dynamics for $H_2$ at the same parameters, one also observes structures of a similar form as the central bump. A direct comparison seems to be difficult. The best studied example of chain dynamics at ultra-low temperatures is the FPU $\beta$-chain, size order $10^3$ and times up to $10^6$, however at a temperature still a factor $10^{-1}$ lower than studied here [@Benettin2013]. For the FPU $\beta$-chain the harmonic approximation is only a small part of the full story, which cautions us to move to rapid conjectures. As a general rule, for integrable systems one is left with a case by case study. To provide an additional piece of evidence we study an integrable version of DNLS in the following section.
The integrable Ablowitz-Ladik model
===================================
The Ablowitz-Ladik (AL) model [@AL1976summary; @Ablowitz2004] is an *integrable* version of the lattice NLS: $$\label{eq:ALmodel}
\mathrm{i} \, \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \psi_j = -\tfrac{1}{2 m} \Delta \psi_j + \tfrac{1}{2}\, g\,\lvert\psi_j\rvert^2 \left(\psi_{j+1} + \psi_{j-1}\right) \,.$$ It is well known [@Ablowitz2004 section 3.4] that has a hamiltonian structure with non-canonical Poisson brackets. Specifically, the hamiltonian in our variables is $$\label{eq:Hal}
H^{\mathrm{al}} = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} e^{\mathrm{al}}_j \quad \text{with} \quad e^{\mathrm{al}}_j = -\tfrac{1}{2m} (u_{j+1}\,u_j + v_{j+1}\,v_j) - \tfrac{1}{g\,m^2} \log\!\big( 1 - \tfrac{1}{2}\,g m (u_j^2 + v_j^2)\big)$$ where we split the wavefunction into its real and imaginary part as $$\psi_j = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (u_j + \mathrm{i} v_j)\,.$$ Note that the logarithmic term in requires $\frac{1}{2}\,g m (u_j^2 + v_j^2) = g m \lvert \psi_j \rvert^2 < 1$. The system can then be written as $$\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} u_j = c_j\, \partial_{v_j} H^{\mathrm{al}}, \quad \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} v_j = - c_j\, \partial_{u_j} H^{\mathrm{al}}$$ with $$c_j = 1 - \tfrac{1}{2}\,g m (u_j^2 + v_j^2) \,.$$
Due to integrability, the Ablowitz-Ladik model has an infinite number of conservation laws. We just mention the density $$\rho^{\mathrm{al}}_j = \tfrac{1}{2} \big(\psi_{j+1}\,\psi_j^* + \psi_{j+1}^*\,\psi_j \big) = \tfrac{1}{2} (u_{j+1}\,u_j + v_{j+1}\,v_j)$$ with its corresponding current $$\mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{al}}_{\rho,j} = \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{2} \big( \tfrac{1}{2m} - \tfrac{1}{2} g \lvert\psi_j\rvert^2 \big) \big( \psi_{j-1}\,\psi_{j+1}^* - \psi_{j-1}^*\,\psi_{j+1} \big),$$ for which the following conservation law holds, $$\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \rho^{\mathrm{al}}_j + \mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{al}}_{\rho,j+1} - \mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{al}}_{\rho,j} = 0.$$ The local quantity $$w_j^{\mathrm{al}} = \log(c_j) = \log\big(1 - g m \, \lvert\psi_j\rvert^2 \big)$$ is also conserved, with current $$\mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{al}}_{w,j} = \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\, g \left(\psi_{j-1}^*\, \partial \psi _{j-1} - \psi_{j-1}\, \partial \psi_{j-1}^* \right).$$ Energy is locally conserved with energy current $$\mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{al}}_{e,j} = -\tfrac{1}{m} \big( \mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{al}}_{\rho,j} + \tfrac{1}{g m} \mathcal{J}^{\mathrm{al}}_{w,j} \big).$$
#### Canonical variables and numerical procedure.
We apply the ideas in [@HairerLubichWanner2006; @Tang2007] to derive a hamiltonian structure with canonical Poisson brackets. First, one can absorb the central oscillation by defining, compare with [@Tang2007], $$\chi_j(t) = \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} t / m} \psi_j(t),$$ which transforms into $$\label{eq:ALmodel_mod}
\mathrm{i} \, \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} \chi_j = \big( {-\tfrac{1}{2 m}} + \tfrac{1}{2}\,g\,\lvert\chi_j\rvert^2 \big) \left(\chi_{j+1} + \chi_{j-1}\right).$$ We define $$\sigma(x) = \left(-\frac{\log(1-x)}{x}\right)^{1/2} \quad \text{for} \quad x \in (-\infty,1)$$ and set $$\label{eq:chi2pq}
\begin{split}
q_j &= \sqrt{2}\,\mathrm{Re}(\chi_j)\,\sigma\big(g m\,\lvert\chi_j\rvert^2\big), \\
p_j &= \sqrt{2}\,\mathrm{Im}(\chi_j)\,\sigma\big(g m\,\lvert\chi_j\rvert^2\big).
\end{split}$$ Then is equivalent to the hamiltonian system $$\label{eq:AL_canonical}
\tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} p_j = - \partial_{q_j} \tilde{H}^{\mathrm{al}}, \quad \tfrac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t} q_j = \partial_{p_j} \tilde{H}^{\mathrm{al}}$$ with the hamiltonian $$\tilde{H}^{\mathrm{al}} = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} - \tfrac{1}{2m}\,\tau\!\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\,g m \big(p_{j+1}^2 + q_{j+1}^2\big)\right) \tau\!\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\,g m \big(p_j^2 + q_j^2\big)\right) \left(p_{j+1}\,p_j + q_{j+1}\,q_j\right)$$ and $$\tau(x) = \left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-x}}{x} \right)^{1/2} = 1 - \tfrac{1}{4}\,x + \mathcal{O}(x^2) \quad \text{for} \quad x \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Note that $\tilde{H}^{\mathrm{al}}$ is symmetric under $p_j \leftrightarrow q_j$. The inverse transform to is $$\label{eq:pq2chi}
\chi_j = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big[ q_j\,\tau\!\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\,g m \big(p_j^2+q_j^2\big)\right) + \mathrm{i}\, p_j\,\tau\!\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\,g m \big(p_j^2+q_j^2\big)\right) \big].$$
We apply the Störmer-Verlet scheme [@HairerLubichWanner2006] to numerically integrate , and use Newton iterations to solve the resulting nonlinear systems of equations. For evaluating correlation functions we transform back to the physical coordinates $\psi_j$. Since the procedure is computationally more demanding compared to the nonintegrable DNLS, we use a smaller system size $N = 1024$ for the Ablowitz-Ladik model, and correspondingly a smaller maximum correlation time $t = 512$. We average over $10^5$ simulation runs.
Different from the DNLS, we equilibrate the system by simulating long Hamiltonian trajectories and calculating correlation functions for consecutive, disjoint time intervals of the trajectory. We set $m = g = 1$, and choose an initial state such that the average density $\langle \rho^{\mathrm{al}}_j \rangle \approx \frac{1}{2}$ in order to satisfy the constraint $g m \lvert \psi_j \rvert^2 < 1$.
#### MD simulation results.
Fig. \[fig:AL\_beta15\] shows the equilibrium time-correlations of the Ablowitz-Ladik model at inverse temperature $\beta = 15$. The correlations have been shifted by a constant to correct for deviations due to the finite number of samples. As for the nonintegrable DNLS, left and right sound peaks are clearly visible. However, the energy correlations have a sharp cut-off, and the energy peak structure differs from the one of DNLS.
Due to integrability, one expects ballistic spreading of the correlation functions. As quantitative test, we fit Gaussian functions to the right density peaks by minimizing $$\label{eq:ALdensityGaussFit}
\sum_{j=0}^{N/2-1} \big\lvert S_{\rho \rho}(j,t) - n_{\rho}\, (\lambda_{\rho} t)^{-1} f_{\mathrm{G}}\big((\lambda_{\rho} t)^{-1} (j - c_{\rho} t)\big)\big\rvert \,.$$ Here $n_{\rho}$ is a normalization constant, and the three parameters $\lambda_{\rho}$, $c_{\rho}$, $n_{\rho}$ are optimized numerically, as shown in the following table:
$t$ $128$ $256$ $512$
------------------ -------- -------- --------
$\lambda_{\rho}$ 0.0642 0.0639 0.0636
$c_{\rho}$ 0.422 0.421 0.420
The values hardly drift with time, which supports the scaling exponent $-1$ in .
Fig. \[fig:AL\_beta200\] shows the very low temperature ($\beta = 200$) equilibrium time-correlations of the Ablowitz-Ladik model, with two time points $t = 256$ and $t = 512$ superimposed. As for the nonintegrable DNLS at $\beta = 200$, the correlations show quickly oscillating features.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
Our arguments required some length. So let us first summarize what has been accomplished. The DNLS has three dynamical regimes. At density $1$ we explore a single temperature in each regime. At $\beta = 1$, and certainly for smaller $\beta$, the dynamics is characterized by diffusive transport of density and energy. This is the high temperature regime, which is very well confirmed by our numerical simulations. Proceeding towards lower temperatures we subdivide into the regimes of low and ultra-low temperatures.
In the low temperature regime the dynamics is still sufficiently chaotic, but the field of phase differences is conserved, although only with high accuracy. The three conservation laws have equilibrium time correlations whose structure is identical to the one known from generic anharmonic chains. On the theoretical level, the main effort is to obtain the coupling coefficients needed as an input to nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics. Without these coefficients, predictions would be mere guess work. Once the couplings are known one can take over the results from [@SpohnAHC2014]. The second order expansion of the DNLS Euler currents is more difficult than for anharmonic chains. The reason why we still arrive at fairly explicit results, valid over the entire low temperature regime, relies on the very special structure of the Euler currents, to recall $\langle \mathcal{J}_{\rho}\rangle_{\mu,\nu,\beta} = \nu $, $\langle \mathcal{J}_r\rangle_{\mu,\nu,\beta} = \mu $, $\langle \mathcal{J}_e\rangle_{\mu,\nu,\beta} = \mu\,\nu $. The Euler currents of anharmonic chains have a very different form. For example $\mathcal{J}_r$ would be the momentum which is itself conserved. Still, from the linearized DNLS Euler currents one derives two symmetric sound peaks moving with velocity $\pm c$ and a heat peak standing still. The heat peak broadens as $t^{3/5}$ with a Lévy $\tfrac{5}{3}$ shape function and the sound peaks broaden as $t^{2/3}$ with KPZ shape function. In the low temperature regime, no matter what the small initial perturbation, and independent of the temperature, one will always obtain a linear combination of these three universal peaks in the long time limit. In our molecular dynamics simulations at $\beta = 15$, the scaling of the sound peaks agrees well with the theory. The heat peak data are still noisy, but show already the characteristic slow spatial decay. For the density-density correlation function the contribution from the heat peak is a factor $\beta^{-1}$ smaller when compared to the sound peak amplitude.
In the ultra-low temperature regime the integrable structure of the dynamics becomes visible. At $\beta = 200$ one observes structures which indicate already substantial contributions from regular motion. Peaks tend to broaden ballistically. The peak structure depends on the particular observable and and on temperature. Universal behavior is lost. As illustrated in the top row of Fig. \[fig:canonical\_beta200\], KPZ scaling and integrable correlation structure may coexist. Thus to identify the precise border line of the ultra-low temperature regime seems to be more difficult than distinguishing between the low and high temperature regimes.
The next, but challenging, goal is to numerically obtain comparable low temperature features for the quantized version of the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation, which is the Bose-Hubbard hamiltonian.
#### Acknowledgements.
HS thanks Manas Kulkarni and David Huse for stimulating discussions, which started his interest in DNLS. CM thankfully acknowledges computing resources of the Leibniz-Rechenzentrum.
Speed of sound, $R$ matrix and $G$ couplings
============================================
We record the theoretical $c$, $R$, and $G$ for the DNLS at our simulation parameters, where we set $m = 1$, $g = 1$. The matrix $G^{-1}$ is specified by the relation $G^{-1} = - (G^{1})^{\mathcal{T}}$, with ${}^\mathcal{T}$ denoting the transpose relative to the anti-diagonal. The entries are rounded to four digits for visual clarity.
At $\beta = 15$ and $\mu = 1.02489$, the speed of sound is $c = 0.9556$ and $$R =
\begin{pmatrix}
1.6450 & -2.6311 & 1.0529 \\
-15.0222 & 0 & 14.6575 \\
1.6450 & 2.6311 & 1.0529 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,, \quad
R^{-1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
0.1835 & -0.0264 & 0.1835 \\
-0.1900 & 0 & 0.1900 \\
0.1881 & 0.0412 & 0.1881 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ as well as $$G^{1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
-0.0335 & 0 & 0.0335 \\
0 & 0 & 0.4669 \\
0.0335 & 0.4669 & 0.1006 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\quad
G^{0} =
\begin{pmatrix}
-0.4669 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.4669 \\
\end{pmatrix}. \\$$
At $\beta = 200$ and $\mu = 1.001774$, the speed of sound is $c = 0.9970$ and $$R =
\begin{pmatrix}
6.3731 & -9.9733 & 3.6170 \\
-201.8000 & 0 & 201.4426 \\
6.3731 & 9.9733 & 3.6170 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,, \quad
R^{-1} = 0.1 \times
\begin{pmatrix}
0.5002 & -0.0180 & 0.5002 \\
-0.5013 & 0 & 0.5013 \\
0.5011 & 0.0316 & 0.5011 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ as well as $$G^{1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
-0.009 & 0 & 0.009 \\
0 & 0 & 0.5021 \\
0.009 & 0.5021 & 0.0270 \\
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\quad
G^{0} =
\begin{pmatrix}
-0.5021 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0.5021 \\
\end{pmatrix}. \\$$
Average currents {#sec:average_currents}
================
We establish the relations . To repeat, the average currents for $H_\mathrm{lt}$ differ from the ones for $H$, the latter having zero average always. Since our expressions for the currents contain derivatives, we use the smooth version of $U$, $V$. Then the Boltzmann factor $\exp[-\beta(H_\mathrm{lt} - \mu \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} \rho_j - \nu \sum_{j=0}^{N-1}r_j)]$ vanishes at $\rho_j = 0$ and $r_j = \pm \pi$. However the Boltzmann factor no longer agrees with the one where $H_\mathrm{lt}$ is replaced by $H$.
For the density current we obtain $$\begin{split}
\langle\mathcal{J}_{\rho,j}\rangle &= \big\langle \sqrt{\rho_{j-1} \rho_{j}}\,U'(r_{j-1}) \big\rangle \\
&= -\beta^{-1} Z_{\mathrm{lt}}^{-1} \int \big(\partial_{r_{j-1}} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta H_\mathrm{lt}} \big) \big(\mathrm{e}^{\beta\mu \sum_j \rho_j + \beta \nu \sum_j r_j} \big) = \nu\,,
\end{split}$$ where we used partial integration in the last step. Correspondingly for the stretch current, $$\begin{split}
\langle\mathcal{J}_{r,j}\rangle &= \Big\langle \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{\rho_{j+1}/\rho_j}\,U(r_j) + \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{\rho_{j-1}/\rho_j}\,U(r_{j-1}) + V'(\rho_j)\Big\rangle \\
&= -\beta^{-1} Z_{\mathrm{lt}}^{-1} \int \big(\partial_{\rho_{j}} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta H_\mathrm{lt}} \big) \big( \mathrm{e}^{\beta\mu \sum_j \rho_j + \beta \nu \sum_j r_j} \big) = \mu \,.
\end{split}$$ For the energy current there are more terms to be considered, $$\begin{split}
\langle\mathcal{J}_{e,j}\rangle &= \big\langle V'(\rho_j)\sqrt{\rho_{j-1}\rho_j}\,U'(r_{j-1}) + \tfrac{1}{2} \sqrt{\rho_{j-1}\rho_{j+1}}\,\big(U(r_{j-1})U'(r_j) + U'(r_{j-1}) U(r_j) \big) \big\rangle \\[1ex]
&= -\beta^{-1} Z_{\mathrm{lt}}^{-1} \int \Big[ V'(\rho_j)\big(\partial_{r_{j-1}} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta H_\mathrm{lt}}\big) + \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{\rho_{j-1}\rho_{j+1}} \\
&\quad\times \Big\{ U(r_{j-1}) \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{\rho_{j}\,\rho_{j+1}}} \big(\partial_{r_j} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta H_\mathrm{lt}}\big) + U(r_{j}) \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{\rho_{j-1}\,\rho_{j}}} \big( \partial_{r_{j-1}} \mathrm{e}^{-\beta H_\mathrm{lt}} \big) \Big\} \Big] \, \mathrm{e}^{\beta\mu \sum_j \rho_j + \beta \nu \sum_j r_j} \\
&= \nu \, Z_{\mathrm{lt}}^{-1} \int \Big[ V'(\rho_j) + \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{\rho_{j+1}/\rho_j}\,U(r_j) + \tfrac{1}{2}\sqrt{\rho_{j-1}/\rho_j}\,U(r_{j-1}) \Big] \mathrm{e}^{-\beta (H_\mathrm{lt} - \mu \sum_j \rho_j - \nu \sum_j r_j)} \\
&= \mu\,\nu\,.
\end{split}$$ Taking the limit to an infinitely high potential step, we conclude that the $H_\mathrm{lt}$-currents satisfy . The zero $H$-currents would be obtained through a different limit, in which the potential barriers are removed.
[10]{}
D. N. Christodoulides, F. Lederer, and Y. Silberberg. [[Discretizing light behaviour in linear and nonlinear waveguide lattices]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01936). , 424:817–823, 2003.
H. Veksler and S. Fishman. . , 2014.
A. Scott. . Oxford University Press, 2003.
P. G. Kevrekidis. . Springer Tracts in Modern Physics. Springer, 2009.
R. Franzosi, R. Livi, G.-L. Oppo, and A. Politi. [[Discrete breathers in Bose-Einstein condensates]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0951-7715/24/12/R01). , 24:R89, 2011.
M. Kulkarni and A. Lamacraft. [[Finite-temperature dynamical structure factor of the one-dimensional Bose gas: From the Gross-Pitaevskii equation to the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang universality class of dynamical critical phenomena]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.021603). , 88:021603(R), 2013.
M. Kulkarni, D. A. Huse, and H. Spohn. . , 2015.
M. Prähofer and H. Spohn. [[Exact scaling functions for one-dimensional stationary KPZ growth]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOSS.0000019810.21828.fc). , 115:255–279, 2004.
P. L. Ferrari and H. Spohn. [[Scaling limit for the space-time covariance of the stationary totally asymmetric simple exclusion process]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00220-006-1549-0). , 265:1–44, 2006.
T. Imamura and T. Sasamoto. [[Stationary correlations for the 1D KPZ equation]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-013-0710-3). , 150:908–939, 2013.
A. Borodin, I. Corwin, P. L. Ferrari, and B. Vető. . , 2014.
S. Iubini, S. Lepri, and A. Politi. [[Nonequilibrium discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.86.011108). , 86:011108, 2012.
S. Iubini, A. Politi, and P. Politi. [[Coarsening dynamics in a simplified DNLS model]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-013-0896-4). , 154:1057–1073, 2014.
H. Spohn. [[Nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics for anharmonic chains]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-014-0933-y). , 154:1191–1227, 2014.
A. F. Andreev. . , 51:1038, 1980.
K. V. Samokhin. [[Lifetime of excitations in a clean Luttinger liquid]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/10/31/002). , 10:L533, 1998.
M. Punk and W. Zwerger. [[Collective mode damping and viscosity in a 1D unitary Fermi gas]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/8/8/168). , 8:168, 2006.
M. J. Ablowitz, B. Prinari, and A. D. Trubatch. . Cambridge University Press, 2004.
S. Das and A. Dhar. . , 2015.
Y. Li, S. Liu, N. Li, P. Hänggi, and B. Li. [[1D momentum-conserving systems: the conundrum of anomalous versus normal heat transport]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/4/043064). , 17:043064, 2015.
C. B. Mendl and H. Spohn. [[Current fluctuations for anharmonic chains in thermal equilibrium]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2015/03/P03007). , 2015:P03007, 2015.
C. B. Mendl and H. Spohn. [[Dynamic correlators of FPU chains and nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.230601). , 111:230601, 2013.
M. Prähofer and H. Spohn. [[Universal distributions for growth processes in $1+1$ dimensions and random matrices]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4882). , 84:4882–4885, 2000.
K. Ø. Rasmussen, T. Cretegny, P. G. Kevrekidis, and N. Gr[ø]{}nbech-Jensen. [[Statistical mechanics of a discrete nonlinear system]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.3740). , 84:3740–3743, 2000.
E. J. Nyström. [[Über die praktische Auflösung von Integralgleichungen mit Anwendungen auf Randwertaufgaben]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02547521). , 54:185–204, 1930.
F. Bornemann. [[On the numerical evaluation of Fredholm determinants]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-09-02280-7). , 79:871–915, 2010.
G. H. Golub and J. H. Welsch. . , 23:221–230, 1969.
S. Blanes and P. C. Moan. [[Practical symplectic partitioned Runge-Kutta and Runge-Kutta-Nyström methods]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0427(01)00492-7). , 142:313–330, 2002.
E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner. . Springer, 2006.
E. Cancès, F. Legoll, and G. Stoltz. [[Theoretical and numerical comparison of some sampling methods for molecular dynamics]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/m2an:2007014). , 41:351–389, 2007.
H. Spohn. . Lecture Notes in Physics, to appear.
G. Benettin, H. Christodoulidi, and A. Ponno. [[The Fermi-Pasta-Ulam problem and its underlying integrable dynamics]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-013-0760-6). , 152:195–212, 2013.
M. J. Ablowitz and J. F. Ladik. . , 55:213–229, 1976.
Y. Tang, J. Cao, X. Liu, and Y. Sun. [[Symplectic methods for the Ablowitz-Ladik discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation]{}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/40/10/012). , 40:2425–2437, 2007.
[^1]: Present address: Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials, Stanford University, 476 Lomita Mall, California 94305, USA
[^2]: Zentrum Mathematik and Physik Department, Technische Universität München, Boltzmannstra[ß]{}e 3, 85747 Garching bei München, Germany. Email: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Game semantics describe the interactive behavior of proofs by interpreting formulas as games on which proofs induce strategies. Such a semantics is introduced here for capturing dependencies induced by quantifications in first-order propositional logic. One of the main difficulties that has to be faced during the elaboration of this kind of semantics is to characterize definable strategies, that is strategies which actually behave like a proof. This is usually done by restricting the model to strategies satisfying subtle combinatorial conditions, whose preservation under composition is often difficult to show. Here, we present an original methodology to achieve this task, which requires to combine advanced tools from game semantics, rewriting theory and categorical algebra. We introduce a diagrammatic presentation of the monoidal category of definable strategies of our model, by the means of generators and relations: those strategies can be generated from a finite set of atomic strategies and the equality between strategies admits a finite axiomatization, this equational structure corresponding to a polarized variation of the notion of bialgebra. This work thus bridges algebra and denotational semantics in order to reveal the structure of dependencies induced by first-order quantifiers, and lays the foundations for a mechanized analysis of causality in programming languages.'
author:
- 'Samuel Mimram[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'these.bib'
title: 'The Structure of First-Order Causality'
---
Denotational semantics were introduced to provide useful abstract invariants of proofs and programs modulo cut-elimination or reduction. In particular, game semantics, introduced in the nineties, have been very successful in capturing precisely the interactive behavior of programs. In these semantics, every type is interpreted as a *game* (that is as a set of *moves* that can be played during the game) together with the rules of the game (formalized by a partial order on the moves of the game indicating the dependencies between them). Every move is to be played by one of the two players, called *Proponent* and *Opponent*, who should be thought respectively as the program and its environment. The interactions between these two players are sequences of moves respecting the partial order of the game, called *plays*. In this setting, a program is characterized by the set of plays that it can exchange with its environment during an execution and thus defines a *strategy* reflecting the interactive behavior of the program inside the game specified by the type of the program.
The notion of *pointer game*, introduced by Hyland and Ong [@hyland-ong:full-abstraction-pcf], gave one of the first fully abstract models of PCF (a simply-typed extended with recursion, conditional branching and arithmetical constants). It has revealed that PCF programs generate strategies with partial memory, called *innocent* because they react to Opponent moves according to their own *view* of the play. Innocence is in this setting the main ingredient to characterize *definable* strategies, that is strategies which are the interpretation of a PCF term, because it describes the behavior of the purely functional core of the language ($\lambda$-terms), which also corresponds to proofs in propositional logic. This seminal work has lead to an extremely successful series of semantics: by relaxing in various ways the innocence constraint on strategies, it became suddenly possible to generalize this characterization to PCF programs extended with imperative features such as references, control, non-determinism, etc.
Unfortunately, these constraints are quite specific to game semantics and remain difficult to link with other areas of computer science or algebra. They are moreover very subtle and combinatorial and thus sometimes difficult to work with. This work is an attempt to find new ways to describe the behavior of proofs.
#### Generating instead of restricting.
In this paper, we introduce a game semantics capturing dependencies induced by quantifiers in first-order propositional logic, forming a strict monoidal category called ${\mathbf{Games}}$. Instead of characterizing definable strategies of the model by restricting to strategies satisfying particular conditions, we show here that we can equivalently use a kind of converse approach. We show how to *generate* definable strategies by giving a *presentation* of those strategies: a finite set of definable strategies can be used to generate all definable strategies by composition and tensoring, and the equality between strategies obtained this way can be finitely axiomatized.
What we mean precisely by a presentation is a generalization of the usual notion of presentation of a monoid to monoidal categories. For example, consider the additive monoid $\mathbb{N}^2=\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}$. It admits the presentation $\pangle{\;p,q\;|\;qp=pq\;}$, where $p$ and $q$ are two *generators* and $qp=pq$ is a relation between two elements of the free monoid $M$ on $\{p,q\}$. This means that $\mathbb{N}^2$ is isomorphic to the free monoid $M$ on the two generators, quotiented by the smallest congruence $\equiv$ ([wrt]{} multiplication) such that $qp\equiv pq$. More generally, a (strict) monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ (such as ${\mathbf{Games}}$) can be presented by a *polygraph*, consisting of typed generators in dimension 1 and 2 and relations in dimension 3, such that the category $\mathcal{C}$ is monoidally equivalent to the free monoidal category on the generators, quotiented by the congruence generated by the relations.
#### Reasoning locally.
The usefulness of our construction is both theoretic and practical. It reveals that the essential algebraic structure of dependencies induced by quantifiers is a polarized variation of the well-known structure of bialgebra, thus bridging game semantics and algebra. It also proves very useful from a technical point of view: this presentation allows us to reason locally about strategies. In particular, it enables us to deduce a posteriori that these strategies actually *compose*, which is not trivial, and it also enables us to deduce that the strategies of the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$ are *definable* (one only needs to check that generators are definable). Finally, the presentation gives a finite description of the category, that we can hope to manipulate with a computer, paving the way for a series of new tools to automate the study of semantics of programming languages.
#### A game semantics capturing first-order causality.
Game semantics has revealed that proofs in logic describe particular strategies to explore formulas, or more generally sequents. Namely, a formula (or a sequent) is a syntactic tree expressing in which order its connectives must be introduced in cut-free proofs. In this sense, it can be seen as the rules of a game whose moves correspond to connectives. For instance, consider a sequent of the form $$\label{eq:ex-formula}
{\forall{x}.} P\quad\vdash\quad{\forall{y}.}{\exists{z}.} Q$$ where $P$ and $Q$ are propositional formulas which may contain free variables. When searching for a proof of , the $\forall y$ quantification must be introduced before the $\exists z$ quantification, and the $\forall x$ quantification can be introduced independently. Here, introducing an existential quantification on the right of a sequent should be thought as playing a Proponent move (the strategy gives a witness for which the formula holds) and introducing an universal quantification as playing an Opponent move (the strategy receives a term from its environment, for which it has to show that the formula holds); introducing a quantification on the left of a sequent is similar but with polarities inverted since it is the same as introducing the dual quantification on the right of the sequent. So, the game associated to the formula will be the partial order on the first-order quantifications appearing in the formula, depicted below (to be read from the top to the bottom): $$\label{eq:ex-formula-game}
\xymatrix@R=4ex@C=4ex{
\forall x&\ar@{-}[d]\forall y\\
&\exists z\\
}$$ This partial order is sometimes called the *syntactic partial order* generated by the sequent. Possible proofs of sequent in first-order propositional logic are of one of the three following shapes: $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\vdots}
{P[t/x]\vdash Q[t'/z]}
}
{P[t/x]\vdash{\exists{z}.} Q}}
{P[t/x]\vdash {\forall{y}.}{\exists{z}.} Q}}{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash {\forall{y}.}{\exists{z}.} Q}\qquad\qquad
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\vdots}
{P[t/x]\vdash Q[t'/z]}
}
{P[t/x]\vdash{\exists{z}.} Q}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash {\exists{z}.} Q}
}{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash {\forall{y}.} {\exists{z}.} Q}
\qquad\qquad
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\vdots}
{P[t/x]\vdash Q[t'/z]}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash Q[t'/z]}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash {\exists{z}.} Q}
}{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash {\forall{y}.} {\exists{z}.} Q}$$ where $P[t/x]$ denotes the formula $P$ where every occurrence of the free variable $x$ has been replaced by the term $t$. These proofs introduce the connectives in the orders depicted respectively below $$\xymatrix@R=4ex@C=4ex{
\ar@{-}[d]\forall x\\
\ar@{-}[d]\forall y\\
\exists z\\
}
\qquad
\xymatrix@R=4ex@C=4ex{
\ar@{-}[d]\forall y\\
\ar@{-}[d]\forall x\\
\exists z\\
}
\qquad
\xymatrix@R=4ex@C=4ex{
\ar@{-}[d]\forall y\\
\ar@{-}[d]\exists z\\
\forall x\\
}$$ which are all total orders extending the partial order of the game : these correspond to the plays in the strategies interpreting the proofs in the game semantics. In this sense, they have more dependencies between moves: proofs add causal dependencies between connectives.
Some sequentializations induced by proofs are not really relevant. For example consider a proof of the form $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P \vdash Q}
}
{P\vdash{\forall{y}.} Q}
}
{{\exists{x}.} P\vdash{\forall{y}.} Q}$$ The order in which the introduction rules of the universal and existential quantifications are introduced is not really significant here since this proof might always be reorganized into the proof $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P\vdash Q}
}
{{\exists{x}.} P\vdash Q}
}
{{\exists{x}.} P\vdash{\forall{y}.} Q}$$ by “permuting” the introduction rules. Similarly, the following permutations of rules are always possible: $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P[t/x]\vdash Q[u/y]}
}
{P[t/x]\vdash {\exists{y}.} Q}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash{\exists{y}.} Q}
\rightsquigarrow
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P[t/x]\vdash Q[u/y]}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash Q[u/y]}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash{\exists{y}.} Q}
\qtand
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P[t/x]\vdash Q}
}
{P[t/x]\vdash{\forall{y}.} Q}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash{\forall{y}.} Q}
\rightsquigarrow
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P[t/x]\vdash Q}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash Q}
}
{{\forall{x}.} P\vdash{\forall{y}.} Q}$$ Interestingly, the permutation $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P\vdash Q[t/y]}
}
{P\vdash{\exists{y}.} Q}
}
{{\exists{x}.} P\vdash{\exists{y}.} Q}
\qquad
\rightsquigarrow
\qquad
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\pi}
{P\vdash Q[t/y]}
}
{{\exists{x}.} P\vdash Q[t/y]}
}
{{\exists{x}.} P\vdash{\exists{y}.} Q}$$ is only possible if the term $t$ used in the introduction rule of the $\exists
y$ connective does not have $x$ as free variable. If the variable $x$ is free in $t$ then the rule introducing $\exists y$ can only be used after the rule introducing the $\exists x$ connective. Now, the sequent ${\exists{x}.}
P\vdash{\exists{y}.} Q$ will be interpreted by the following game $${\cpdfinput{dep_ex0.ps}}$$ Whenever the $\exists y$ connective depends on the $\exists x$ connective (whenever $x$ is free in the witness term $t$ provided for $y$), the strategy corresponding to the proof will contain a causal dependency, which will be depicted by an oriented wire $${\cpdfinput{dep_ex.ps}}$$ and we sometimes say that the move $\exists x$ *justifies* the move $\exists y$. A simple further study of permutability of introduction rules of first-order quantifiers shows that this is the only kind of relevant dependencies. These permutations of rules where the motivation for the introduction of non-alternating asynchronous game semantics [@mellies-mimram:ag5], where plays are considered modulo certain permutations of consecutive moves. However, we focus here on causality and define strategies by the dependencies they induce on moves (a precise description of the relation between these two points of view was investigated in [@mimram:phd]). They are also very closely related to the motivations for the introduction of Hintikka’s games and independence friendly logic [@hintikka-sandu:gts].
We thus build a strict monoidal category whose objects are games and whose morphisms are strategies, in which we can interpret formulas and proofs in the connective-free fragment of first-order propositional logic, and write ${\mathbf{Games}}$ for the subcategory of definable strategies. One should thus keep in mind the following correspondences while reading this paper:
category logic game semantics combinatorial objects
---------- --------- ---------------- -----------------------
object formula game syntactic order
morphism proof strategy justification order
This paper is devoted to the construction of a presentation for this category. We introduce formally the notion of presentation of a monoidal category in Section \[sec:pres\] and recall some useful classical algebraic structures in Section \[sec:alg-struct\]. Then, we give a presentation of the category of relations in Section \[section:presentation-rel\] and extend this presentation to the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$, that we define formally in Section \[section:games-strategies\].
Presentations of monoidal categories {#sec:pres}
====================================
We recall here briefly some basic definitions in category theory. The interested reader can find a more detailed presentation of these concepts in MacLane’s reference book [@maclane:cwm].
#### Monoidal categories.
A *monoidal category* $(\mathcal{C},\otimes,I)$ is a category $\mathcal{C}$ together with a functor $$\otimes:\mathcal{C}\times\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{C}$$ and natural isomorphisms $$\alpha_{A,B,C}:(A\otimes B)\otimes C\to A\otimes(B\otimes C)
\tcomma\quad
\lambda_A:I\otimes A\to A
\qtand
\rho_A:A\otimes I\to A$$ satisfying coherence axioms [@maclane:cwm]. A symmetric monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ is a monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ together with a natural isomorphism $$\gamma_{A,B}:A\otimes B\to B\otimes A$$ satisfying coherence axioms and such that $\gamma_{B,A}\circ\gamma_{A,B}=\id_{A\otimes B}$. A monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ is *strictly* monoidal when the natural isomorphisms $\alpha$, $\lambda$ and $\rho$ are identities. For the sake of simplicity, in the rest of this paper we only consider strict monoidal categories. Formally, it can be shown that it is not restrictive, using MacLane’s coherence theorem [@maclane:cwm]: every monoidal category is monoidally equivalent to a strict one.
A (strict) *monoidal functor* $F:\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D}$ between two strict monoidal categories $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is a functor $F$ between the underlying categories such that for every objects $A$ and $B$ of $\mathcal{C}$, and $F(I)=I$. A *monoidal natural transformation* $\theta:F\to G$ between two monoidal functors $F,G:\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D}$ is a natural transformation between the underlying functors $F$ and $G$ such that $\theta_{A\otimes
B}=\theta_A\otimes\theta_B$ for every objects $A$ and $B$ of $\mathcal{C}$, and $\theta_I=\id_I$. Two monoidal categories $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ are *monoidally equivalent* when there exists a pair of monoidal functors $F:\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D}$ and $G:\mathcal{D}\to\mathcal{C}$ and two invertible monoidal natural transformations $\eta:\mathrm{Id}_\mathcal{C}\to GF$ and $\varepsilon:FG\to\mathrm{Id}_\mathcal{D}$.
#### Monoidal theories.
A *monoidal theory* $\mathbb{T}$ is a strict monoidal category whose objects are the natural integers, such that the tensor product on objects is the addition of integers. By an integer $\underline{n}$, we mean here the finite ordinal $\underline{n}=\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\}$ and the addition is given by $\underline{m}+\underline{n}=\underline{m+n}$ (we will simply write $n$ instead of $\underline{n}$ in the following). An *algebra* $F$ of a monoidal theory $\mathbb{T}$ in a strict monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ is a strict monoidal functor from $\mathbb{T}$ to $\mathcal{C}$; we write ${\mathbf{Alg}_{\mathbb{T}}^{\mathcal{C}}}$ for the category of algebras from $\mathbb{T}$ to $\mathcal{C}$ and monoidal natural transformations between them. Monoidal theories are sometimes called PRO, this terminology was introduced by MacLane in [@maclane:ca] as an abbreviation for “category with products”. They generalize equational theories – or Lawere theories [@lawvere:phd] – in the sense that operations are typed and can moreover have multiple outputs as well as multiple inputs, and are not necessarily cartesian but only monoidal.
#### Presentations of monoidal categories. {#subsection:moncat-presentation}
We now recall the notion of *presentation* of a monoidal category by the means of typed 1- and 2-dimensional generators and relations.
Suppose that we are given a set $E_1$ whose elements are called *atomic types* or *generators for objects*. We write $E_1^*$ for the free monoid on the set $E_1$ and $i_1:E_1\to E_1^*$ for the corresponding injection; the product of this monoid is written $\otimes$. The elements of $E_1^*$ are called *types*. Suppose moreover that we are given a set $E_2$, whose elements are called *generators* (*for morphisms*), together with two functions $s_1,t_1:E_2\to E_1^*$, which to every generator associate a type called respectively its *source* and *target*. We call a *signature* such a 4-uple $(E_1,s_1,t_1,E_2)$: $${\vcenter{\xymatrix@C=7ex@R=7ex{
E_1\ar[d]_{i_1}&\ar@<-0.7ex>[dl]_{s_1}\ar@<0.7ex>[dl]^{t_1}E_2\\
E_1^*&\\
}}}$$ Every such signature $(E_1,s_1,t_1,E_2)$ generates a free strict monoidal category $\mathcal{E}$, whose objects are the elements of $E_1^*$ and whose morphisms are formal composite and formal tensor products of elements of $E_2$, quotiented by suitable laws imposing associativity of composition and tensor and compatibility of composition with tensor, see [@burroni:higher-word]. If we write $E_2^*$ for the morphisms of this category and for the injection of the generators into this category, we get a diagram $${\vcenter{\xymatrix@C=7ex@R=7ex{
E_1\ar[d]_{i_1}&\ar@<-0.7ex>[dl]_{s_1}\ar@<0.7ex>[dl]^{t_1}E_2\ar[d]_{i_2}\\
E_1^*&\ar@<-0.7ex>[l]_{\overline{s_1}}\ar@<0.7ex>[l]^{\overline{t_1}}E_2^*\\
}}}$$ in $\Set$ together with a structure of monoidal category $\mathcal{E}$ on the graph $$\xymatrix@C=10ex@R=10ex{
E_1^*&\ar@<-0.7ex>[l]_{\overline{s_1}}\ar@<0.7ex>[l]^{\overline{t_1}}E_2^*\\
}$$ where the morphisms $\overline{s_1},\overline{t_1}:E_2^*\to E_1^*$ are the morphisms (unique by universality of $E_2^*$) such that and . The *size* ${\left|f\right|}$ of a morphism $f:A\to B$ in $E_2^*$ is defined inductively by $$\begin{array}{r@{ = }l@{\qquad}r@{ = }l}
{\left|\id\right|}&0
&
{\left|f\right|}&1
\text{\quad if $f$ is a generator}
\\
{\left|f_1\otimes f_2\right|}
&
{\left|f_1\right|}+{\left|f_2\right|}
&
{\left|f_2\circ f_1\right|}
&
{\left|f_1\right|}+{\left|f_2\right|}
\end{array}$$ In particular, a morphism is of size $0$ if and only if it is an identity.
Our constructions are an instance in dimension 2 of Burroni’s polygraphs [@burroni:higher-word], and Street’s 2computads [@street:limit-indexed-by-functors], who made precise the sense in which the generated monoidal category is free on the signature. Namely, the following notion of equational theory is a specialization of the definition of a 3-polygraph to the case where there is only one generator for 0-cells.
A **monoidal equational theory** is a 7-uple $${\mathfrak{E}}=(E_1,s_1,t_1,E_2,s_2,t_2,E_3)$$ where $(E_1,s_1,t_1,E_2)$ is a signature together with a set $E_3$ of *relations* and two morphisms $s_2,t_2:E_3\to E_2^*$, as pictured in the diagram $${\vcenter{\xymatrix@C=7ex@R=7ex{
E_1\ar[d]_{i_1}&\ar@<-0.7ex>[dl]_{s_1}\ar@<0.7ex>[dl]^{t_1}E_2\ar[d]_{i_2}&\ar@<-0.7ex>[dl]_{s_2}\ar@<0.7ex>[dl]^{t_2}E_3\\
E_1^*&\ar@<-0.7ex>[l]_{\overline{s_1}}\ar@<0.7ex>[l]^{\overline{t_1}}E_2^*\\
}}}$$ such that $\overline{s_1}\circ s_2=\overline{s_1}\circ t_2$ and $\overline{t_1}\circ s_2=\overline{t_1}\circ t_2$.
Every equational theory defines a monoidal category $\mathbb{E}={\mathcal{E}/\!\!\!\equiv}$ obtained from the monoidal category $\mathcal{E}$ generated by the signature $(E_1,s_1,t_1,E_2)$ by quotienting the morphisms by the congruence $\equiv$ generated by the relations of the equational theory ${\mathfrak{E}}$: it is the smallest congruence ([wrt]{} both composition and tensoring) such that $s_2(e)\equiv t_2(e)$ for every element $e$ of $E_3$.
We say that a monoidal equational theory ${\mathfrak{E}}$ is a *presentation* of a strict monoidal category $\mathcal{M}$ when $\mathcal{M}$ is monoidally equivalent to the category $\mathbb{E}$ generated by ${\mathfrak{E}}$. Any monoidal category $\mathcal{M}$ admits a presentation (for example, the trivial presentation with $E_1$ the set of objects of $\mathcal{M}$, $E_2$ the set of morphisms of $\mathcal{M}$, and $E_3$ the set of all equalities between morphisms holding in $\mathcal{M}$), which is not unique in general. In such a presentation, the category $\mathcal{E}$ generated by the signature underlying ${\mathfrak{E}}$ should be thought as a category of “terms” (which will be considered modulo the relations described by $E_2$) and is thus sometimes called the *syntactic category* of ${\mathfrak{E}}$.
We sometimes informally say that an equational theory has a *generator* $f:A\to B$ to mean that $f$ is an element of $E_2$ such that $s_1(f)=A$ and $t_1(f)=B$. We also say that the equational theory has a *relation* $f=g$ to mean that there exists an element $e$ of $E_3$ such that $s_2(e)=f$ and $t_2(e)=g$.
We say that two equational theories are *equivalent* when they generate monoidally equivalent categories. A generator $f$ in an equational theory ${\mathfrak{E}}$ is *superfluous* when the equational theory ${\mathfrak{E'}}$ obtained from ${\mathfrak{E}}$ by removing the generator $f$ and all equations involving $f$, is equivalent to ${\mathfrak{E}}$. Similarly, an equation $e$ is *superfluous* when the equational theory ${\mathfrak{E'}}$ obtained from ${\mathfrak{E}}$ by removing the equation $e$ is equivalent to ${\mathfrak{E}}$. An equational theory is *minimal* when it does not contain any superfluous generator or equation.
Notice that every monoidal equational theory $(E_1,s_1,t_1,E_2,s_2,t_2,E_3)$ where the set $E_1$ is reduced to only one object $\{1\}$ generates a monoidal category which is a monoidal theory ($\N$ is the free monoid on one object), thus giving a notion of presentation of those categories.
#### Presented categories as models.
Suppose that a strict monoidal category $\mathcal{M}$ is presented by an equational theory ${\mathfrak{E}}$, generating a category $\mathbb{E}={\mathcal{E}/\!\!\!\equiv}$. The proof that ${\mathfrak{E}}$ presents $\mathcal{M}$ can generally be decomposed in two parts:
1. *$\mathcal{M}$ is a model of the equational theory ${\mathfrak{E}}$*: there exists a functor . This amounts to checking that there exists a functor such that for all morphisms in $\mathcal{E}$, $f\equiv g$ implies $M'f=M'g$.
2. *$\mathcal{M}$ is a fully-complete model of the equational theory ${\mathfrak{E}}$*: the functor $M$ is full and faithful.
We sometimes say that a morphism $f:A\to B$ of $\mathbb{E}$ *represents* the morphism of $\mathcal{M}$.
Usually, the first point is a straightforward verification. Proving that the functor $M$ is full and faithful often requires more work. In this paper, we use the methodology introduced by Burroni [@burroni:higher-word] and refined by Lafont [@lafont:boolean-circuits]. We first define *canonical forms* which are canonical representatives of the equivalence classes of morphisms of $\mathcal{E}$ under the congruence $\equiv$ generated by the relations of ${\mathfrak{E}}$. Proving that every morphism is equal to a canonical form can be done by induction on the size of the morphisms. Then, we show that the functor $M$ is full and faithful by showing that the canonical forms are in bijection with the morphisms of $\mathcal{M}$.
It should be noted that this is not the only technique to prove that an equational theory presents a monoidal category. In particular, Joyal and Street have used topological methods [@joyal-street:geometry-tensor-calculus] by giving a geometrical construction of the category generated by a signature, in which morphisms are equivalence classes under continuous deformation of progressive plane diagrams (we give some more details about those diagrams, also called string diagrams, later on). Their work is for example extended by Baez and Langford in [@baez-langford:two-tangles] to give a presentation of the 2-category of 2-tangles in 4 dimensions. The other general methodology the author is aware of, is given by Lack in [@lack:composing-props], by constructing elaborate monoidal theories from simpler monoidal theories. Namely, a monoidal theory can be seen as a monad in a particular span bicategory, and monoidal theories can therefore be “composed” given a distributive law between their corresponding monads. We chose not to use those methods because, even though they can be very helpful to build intuitions, they are difficult to formalize and even more to mechanize: we believe indeed that some of the tedious proofs given in this paper could be somewhat automated, a first step in this direction was given in [@mimram:rta10] where we describe an algorithm to compute critical pairs in polygraphic rewriting systems of dimension 2.
#### String diagrams. {#subsection:string-diagrams}
*String diagrams* provide a convenient way to represent and manipulate the morphisms in the category generated by a presentation. Given an object $M$ in a strict monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$, a morphism $\mu:M\otimes M\to M$ can be drawn graphically as a device with two inputs and one output of type $M$ as follows: $${\cpdfinput{mult_m_label.ps}}
\qquad\text{or simply as}\qquad
{\cpdfinput{mult_m.ps}}$$ when it is clear from the context which morphism of type $M\otimes M\to M$ we are picturing (we sometimes even omit the source and target of the morphisms). Similarly, the identity $\id_M:M\to M$ (which we sometimes simply write $M$) can be pictured as a wire $${\cpdfinput{id_m.ps}}$$ The tensor $f\otimes g$ of two morphisms $f:A\to B$ and is obtained by putting the diagram corresponding to $f$ above the diagram corresponding to $g$. So, for instance, the morphism $\mu\otimes M$ can be drawn diagrammatically as $${\cpdfinput{mult_x_id_m.ps}}$$ Finally, the composite $g\circ f:A\to C$ of two morphisms $f:A\to B$ and $g:B\to
C$ can be drawn diagrammatically by putting the diagram corresponding to $g$ at the right of the diagram corresponding to $f$ and “linking the wires”. The diagram corresponding to the morphism $\mu\circ(\mu\otimes M)$ is thus $${\cpdfinput{mult_assoc_l_m.ps}}$$ Suppose that $(E_1,s_1,t_1,E_2)$ is a signature. Every element $f$ of $E_2$ such that $$s_1(f)=A_1\otimes\cdots\otimes A_m
\qtand
t_1(f)=B_1\otimes\cdots\otimes B_n$$ where the $A_i$ and $B_i$ are elements of $E_1$, can be similarly represented by a diagram $${\cpdfinput{signature_f.ps}}$$ where wires correspond to generators for objects and circled points to generators for morphisms. Bigger diagrams can be constructed from these diagrams by composing and tensoring them, as explained above. Joyal and Street have shown in details in [@joyal-street:geometry-tensor-calculus] that the category of those diagrams, modulo continuous deformations, is precisely the free category generated by a signature (which they call a “tensor scheme”). For example, the equality $$(M\otimes\mu)\circ(\mu\otimes M\otimes M)
\qeq
(\mu\otimes M)\circ(M\otimes M\otimes\mu)$$ in the category $\mathcal{C}$ of the above example, which holds because of the axioms satisfied in any monoidal category, can be shown by continuously deforming the diagram on the left-hand side below into the diagram on the right-hand side: $${{\cpdfinput{mu_x_mu_r.ps}}}
\qeq
{{\cpdfinput{mu_x_mu_l.ps}}}$$ All the equalities satisfied in any monoidal category generated by a signature have a similar geometrical interpretation. And conversely, any deformation of diagrams corresponds to an equality of morphisms in monoidal categories.
Algebraic structures {#sec:alg-struct}
====================
In this section, we recall the categorical formulation of some well-known algebraic structures, the most fundamental in this work being maybe the notion of *bialgebra*. We give those definitions in the setting of a strict monoidal category which is *not* required to be symmetric. We suppose that $(\mathcal{C},\otimes,I)$ is a strict monoidal category, fixed throughout the section.
#### Symmetric objects.
A *symmetric object* of $\mathcal{C}$ is an object $S$ together with a morphism $$\gamma:S\otimes S\to S\otimes S$$ called *symmetry* and pictured as $$\label{eq:sym-string}
{\cpdfinput{sym_s.ps}}$$ such that the diagrams $$\xymatrix{
S\otimes S\otimes S\ar[d]_{S\otimes\gamma}\ar[r]^{\gamma\otimes S}&S\otimes S\otimes S\ar[r]^{S\otimes\gamma}&S\otimes S\otimes S\ar[d]^{\gamma\otimes S}\\
S\otimes S\otimes S\ar[r]_{\gamma\otimes S}&S\otimes S\otimes S\ar[r]_{S\otimes\gamma}&S\otimes S\otimes S\\
}$$ and $$\xymatrix{
&S\otimes S\ar[dr]^{\gamma}&\\
S\otimes S\ar[ur]^{\gamma}\ar[rr]_{S\otimes S}&&S\otimes S\\
}$$ commute. Graphically, $$\label{eq:sym}
\begin{array}{rcl}
{{\cpdfinput{yang_baxter_r.ps}}}
&\qeq&
{{\cpdfinput{yang_baxter_l.ps}}}
\\
{{\cpdfinput{sym_sym.ps}}}
&\qeq&
{{\cpdfinput{id_x_id.ps}}}
\end{array}$$ (the first equation is sometimes called the Yang-Baxter equation for braids). In particular, in a symmetric monoidal category, every object is canonically equipped with a structure of symmetric object.
#### Monoids. {#subsection:monoids}
A *monoid* $(M,\mu,\eta)$ in $\mathcal{C}$ is an object $M$ together with two morphisms $$\mu : M\otimes M\to M
\qtand
\eta : I\to M$$ called respectively *multiplication* and *unit* and pictured respectively as $$\label{eq:monoid-string}
{\cpdfinput{mult_m.ps}}
\qtand
{\cpdfinput{unit_m.ps}}$$ such that the diagrams $$\vxym{
M\otimes M\otimes M\ar[d]_{M\otimes\mu}\ar[r]^-{\mu\otimes M}&M\otimes M\ar[d]^{\mu}\\
M\otimes M\ar[r]_{\mu}&M
}
\tand
\vxym{
\ar[dr]_{M}I\otimes M\ar[r]^{\eta\otimes M}&M\otimes M\ar[d]_{\mu}&\ar[l]_{M\otimes\eta}M\otimes I\ar[dl]^{M}\\
&M&
}$$ commute. Graphically, $$\label{eq:monoid}
\begin{array}{c}
{\cpdfinput{mult_assoc_l.ps}}
\qeq
{\cpdfinput{mult_assoc_r.ps}}
\\
{{\cpdfinput{mult_unit_l.ps}}}
\qeq
{{\cpdfinput{mult_unit_c.ps}}}
\qeq
{{\cpdfinput{mult_unit_r.ps}}}
\end{array}$$
A *symmetric monoid* is a monoid equipped with a symmetry morphism which is compatible with the operations of the monoid in the sense that it makes the diagrams $$ \begin{array}{c}
\xymatrix{
\ar[d]_{\mu\otimes M}M\otimes M\otimes M\ar[r]^{M\otimes \gamma}&M\otimes M\otimes M\ar[r]^{\gamma\otimes M}&M\otimes M\otimes M\ar[d]^{M\otimes\mu}\\
M\otimes M\ar[rr]_{\gamma}&&M\otimes M\\
}
\\[4ex]
\xymatrix{
\ar[d]_{M\otimes \mu}M\otimes M\otimes M\ar[r]^{\gamma\otimes M}&M\otimes M\otimes M\ar[r]^{M\otimes\gamma}&M\otimes M\otimes M\ar[d]^{\mu\otimes M}\\
M\otimes M\ar[rr]_{\gamma}&&M\otimes M\\
}
\\[4ex]
\xymatrix{
&M\otimes M\ar[dr]^{\gamma}&\\
M\ar[ur]^{\eta\otimes M}\ar[rr]_{\eta\otimes M}&&M\otimes M\\
}
\qquad
\xymatrix{
&M\otimes M\ar[dr]^{\gamma}&\\
M\ar[ur]^{M\otimes\eta}\ar[rr]_{M\otimes\eta}&&M\otimes M\\
}
\\
\end{array}$$ commute. Graphically, $$\label{eq:monoid-nat}
\begin{array}{cc}
{\cpdfinput{mult_sym_rnat_r.ps}}
\qeq
{\cpdfinput{mult_sym_rnat_l.ps}}
\\
{\cpdfinput{eta_sym_rnat_l.ps}}
\qeq
{\cpdfinput{eta_sym_rnat_r.ps}}
\end{array}$$ are satisfied, as well as the equations obtained by turning the diagrams upside-down. A *commutative monoid* is a symmetric monoid such that the diagram $$\vxym{
&M\otimes M\ar[dr]^{\mu}&\\
M\otimes M\ar[ur]^{\gamma}\ar[rr]_{\mu}&&M
}$$ commutes. Graphically, $$\label{eq:monoid_mult_comm}
{\cpdfinput{mult_comm.ps}}
\qeq
{\cpdfinput{mult.ps}}$$ In particular, a commutative monoid in a symmetric monoidal category is a commutative monoid whose symmetry corresponds to the symmetry of the category: $\gamma=\gamma_{M,M}$. In this case, the equations can always be deduced from the naturality of the symmetry of the monoidal category.
A *comonoid* $(M,\delta,\varepsilon)$ in $\mathcal{C}$ is an object $M$ together with two morphisms $$\delta:M\to M\otimes M
\qtand
\varepsilon:M\to I$$ respectively drawn as $$\label{eq:comonoid-string}
{\cpdfinput{comult_m.ps}}
\qqtand
{\cpdfinput{counit_m.ps}}$$ satisfying dual coherence diagrams. Similarly, the notions symmetric comonoid and cocommutative comonoid can be defined by duality.
The definition of a monoid can be reformulated internally, in the language of equational theories:
\[definition:e-t-monoid\] The *equational theory of monoids* ${\mathfrak{M}}$ has one generator for objects $1$ and two generators for morphisms $\mu:2\to 1$ and $\eta:0\to 1$ subject to the three relations $$\label{eq:monoid-theory}
\begin{array}{c}
\mu\circ(\mu\otimes\id_1)
\qeq
\mu\circ(\id_1\otimes\mu)
\\
\mu\circ(\eta\otimes\id_1)
\qeq
\id_1
\qeq
\mu\circ(\id_1\otimes\eta)
\end{array}$$
The equations correspond precisely to the equations for a monoid object . If we write $\mathbb{M}$ for the monoidal category generated by the equational theory ${\mathfrak{M}}$, the algebras of $\mathbb{M}$ in a strict monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ are precisely its monoids: the category ${\mathbf{Alg}_{\mathbb{M}}^{\mathcal{C}}}$ of algebras of the monoidal theory $\mathbb{M}$ in $\mathcal{C}$ is monoidally equivalent to the category of monoids in $\mathcal{C}$. Similarly, all the algebraic structures introduced in this section can be defined using algebraic theories.
The presentations given here are not necessarily minimal. For example, in the theory of commutative monoids one equation for units of monoids is derivable from the equation , one of the equations and one of the equations for units of monoids : $${{\cpdfinput{mult_unit_r.ps}}}
\!\qeq\!
{{\cpdfinput{mult_unit_r_sym.ps}}}
\!\qeq\!
{{\cpdfinput{mult_unit_l.ps}}}
\!\qeq\!
{{\cpdfinput{mult_unit_c.ps}}}$$ A minimal presentation of this equational theory with three generators and seven equations is given in [@massol:minimality]. However, not all the equational theories introduced in this paper have a known presentation which is proved to be minimal.
#### Bialgebras.
A *bialgebra* $(B,\mu,\eta,\delta,\varepsilon,\gamma)$ in $\mathcal{C}$ is an object $B$ together with five morphisms $$\begin{array}{r@{\ :\ }l@{\qquad}r@{\ :\ }l}
\mu&B\otimes B\to B
&
\eta&I\to B\\
\delta&B\to B\otimes B
&
\varepsilon&B\to I\\
\end{array}
\ \tand\
\gamma : B \otimes B\to B\otimes B$$ such that $\gamma:B\otimes B\to B\otimes B$ is a symmetry for $B$, $(B,\mu,\eta,\gamma)$ is a symmetric monoid and $(B,\delta,\varepsilon,\gamma)$ is a symmetric comonoid. The morphism $\gamma$ is thus pictured as in , $\mu$ and $\eta$ as in , and $\delta$ and $\varepsilon$ as in . Those two structures should be coherent, in the sense that the diagrams $$\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{-3ex}}c}
\xymatrix{
B\otimes B\ar[d]_{\delta\otimes\delta}\ar[r]^-{\mu}&B\ar[r]^-{\delta}&B\otimes B\\
B\otimes B\otimes B\otimes B\ar[rr]_{B\otimes\gamma\otimes B}&&\ar[u]_{\mu\otimes\mu}B\otimes B\otimes B\otimes B\\
}&
\xymatrix{
&B\ar[dr]^{\varepsilon}&\\
I\ar[ur]^{\eta}\ar[rr]_{I}&&I
}\\
\xymatrix{
&B\ar[dr]^{\varepsilon}&\\
B\otimes B\ar[ur]^{\mu}\ar[rr]_{\varepsilon\otimes\varepsilon}&&I\otimes I=I
}&
\xymatrix{
&B\ar[dr]^{\delta}&\\
I=I\otimes I\ar[ur]^{\eta}\ar[rr]_{\eta\otimes\eta}&&B\otimes B
}
\end{array}$$ should commute. Graphically, $$\label{eq:bialg}
\begin{array}{c}
{{\cpdfinput{hopf_l.ps}}}
=
{{\cpdfinput{hopf_r.ps}}}
\\
{{\cpdfinput{counit_mult.ps}}}
=
{{\cpdfinput{counit_x_counit.ps}}}
\qquad
{{\cpdfinput{comult_unit.ps}}}
=
{{\cpdfinput{unit_x_unit.ps}}}
\qquad
{{\cpdfinput{unit_counit.ps}}}=
\end{array}$$ should be satisfied.
A bialgebra is *commutative* (*cocommutative*) when the induced symmetric monoid $(B,\mu,\eta,\gamma)$ (symmetric comonoid $(B,\delta,\varepsilon,\gamma)$) is commutative (cocommutative), and *bicommutative* when it is both commutative and cocommutative. A bialgebra is *qualitative* when the diagram $$\xymatrix{
&B\otimes B\ar[dr]^{\mu}&\\
B\ar[ur]^{\delta}\ar[rr]_{B}&&B
}$$ commutes. Graphically, $$\label{eq:qualitative}
{\cpdfinput{rel_l.ps}}
\qeq
{\cpdfinput{rel_r.ps}}$$
We write ${\mathfrak{B}}$ for the *equational theory of bicommutative bialgebras*. It has one generator for objects $1$, five generators for morphisms $$\begin{array}{r@{\ :\ }l@{\qquad}r@{\ :\ }l}
\mu&2\to 1
&
\eta&0\to 1\\
\delta&1\to 2
&
\varepsilon&1\to 0\\
\end{array}
\ \tand\
\gamma : 2\to 2$$ and twenty-two relations: the two relations of symmetry , the eight relations of commutative monoids , the eight relations of cocommutative comonoids which are dual of , and the four compatibility relations for bialgebras .
We also write ${\mathfrak{R}}$ for the *equational theory of qualitative bicommutative bialgebras* which is defined as ${\mathfrak{B}}$, with the relation added.
#### Dual objects.
An object $L$ of $\mathcal{C}$ is said to be *left dual* to an object $R$ when there exists two morphisms $$\eta:I\to R\otimes L
\qtand
\varepsilon:L\otimes R\to I$$ called respectively the *unit* and the *counit* of the duality and respectively pictured as $${\cpdfinput{adj_unit_lr.ps}}
\qtand
{\cpdfinput{adj_counit_lr.ps}}$$ making the diagrams $$\vxym{
&L\otimes R\otimes L\ar[dr]^{\varepsilon\otimes L}&\\
L\ar[ur]^{L\otimes\eta}\ar[rr]_L&&L\\
}
\qtand
\vxym{
&R\otimes L\otimes R\ar[dr]^{R\otimes\varepsilon}&\\
R\ar[ur]^{\eta\otimes R}\ar[rr]_{R}&&R\\
}$$ commute. Graphically, $${\cpdfinput{zig_zag_l.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{id_L.ps}}
\!\qtand\!
{\cpdfinput{zig_zag_r.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{id_R.ps}}$$ We write ${\mathfrak{D}}$ for the equational theory associated to dual objects.
If $\mathcal{C}$ is a category, two dual objects in the monoidal category $\mathrm{End}(\mathcal{C})$ of endofunctors of $\mathcal{C}$, with tensor product given on objects by composition of functors, are adjoint endofunctors of $\mathcal{C}$. The theory of adjoint functors in a 2-category is described precisely in [@street:free-adj], the definition of ${\mathfrak{D}}$ is a specialization of this construction to the case where there is only one 0-cell.
Presenting the category of relations {#section:presentation-rel}
====================================
We now introduce a presentation of the category $\Rel$ of finite ordinals and relations, by refining presentations of simpler categories. This result is mentioned in Examples 6 and 7 of [@hyland-power:symmetric-monoidal-sketches] and is proved in three different ways in [@lafont:equational-reasoning-diagrams], [@pirashvili:bialg-prop] and [@lack:composing-props]. The methodology adopted here to build this presentation has the advantage of being simple to check (although very repetitive) and can be extended to give the presentation of the category of games and strategies described in Section \[subsection:walking-inno\].
#### The simplicial category.
The simplicial category $\Delta$ is the monoidal theory whose morphisms $f:{{m}}\to{{n}}$ are the monotone functions from ${{m}}$ to ${{n}}$. It has been known for a long time that this category is closely related to the notion of monoid, see [@maclane:cwm] or [@lafont:boolean-circuits] for example. This result can be formulated as follows:
\[property:delta-presentation\] The monoidal category $\Delta$ is presented by the equational theory of monoids ${\mathfrak{M}}$.
In this sense, the simplicial category $\Delta$ impersonates the notion of monoid. We extend here this result to more complex categories.
#### Multirelations.
A *multirelation* $R$ between two finite sets $A$ and $B$ is a function . It can be equivalently be seen as a multiset whose elements are in $A\times B$ or as a matrix over $\N$, or as a span $$\xymatrix@C=2ex@R=2ex{
&\ar[dl]_sR\ar[dr]^t&\\
A&&B\\
}$$ in the category ${\mathbf{FinSet}}$ of finite sets – for the latest case, the multiset representation can be recovered from the span by $$R(a,b)\qeq\left|\setof{e\in R\tq s(e)=a\tand t(e)=b}\right|$$ for every element $(a,b)\in A\times B$. If and are two multirelations, their composition is defined by $$R_2\circ R_1(a,c)
\qeq
\sum_{b\in B}R_1(a,b)\times R_2(b,c)
\tdot$$ This corresponds to the usual composition of matrices if we see $R_1$ and $R_2$ as matrices over $\N$, and as the span obtained by computing the pullback $$\xymatrix@C=2ex@R=2ex{
&&\ar[dl]R_2\circ R_1\ar[dr]&&\\
&\ar[dl]_{s_1}R_1\ar[dr]^{t_1}&&\ar[dl]_{s_2}R_2\ar[dr]^{t_2}&\\
A&&B&&C\\
}$$ if we see $R_1$ and $R_2$ as spans in $\Set$. The cardinal ${\left|R\right|}$ of a multirelation is the sum $${\left|R\right|}\qeq\sum_{(a,b)\in A\times B}R(a,b)$$ of its coefficients. We write ${\mathbf{MRel}}$ for the monoidal theory of multirelations: its objects are finite ordinals and morphisms are multirelations between them. It is a strict symmetric monoidal category with the tensor product $\otimes$ defined on objects and morphisms by disjoint union, and thus a monoidal theory. In this category, the object ${{1}}$ can be equipped with the obvious structure of bicommutative bialgebra $$\label{eq:mrel-bialg}
(1,R^\mu,R^\eta,R^\delta,R^\varepsilon)$$ In this structure, $R^\mu:{{2}}\to{{1}}$ is the multirelation defined by $R^\mu(i,0)=1$ for $i=0$ or $i=1$, $R^\delta:{{1}}\to{{2}}$ is the multirelation dual to $R^\mu$, and $R^\eta:0\to 1$ and are uniquely defined by the fact that the object $0$ is both initial and terminal in ${\mathbf{MRel}}$. We now show that the category of multirelations is presented by the equational theory ${\mathfrak{B}}$ of bicommutative bialgebras. We write $\mathcal{B}$ for the syntactic category of ${\mathfrak{B}}$ (the monoidal category generated by the underlying signature of ${\mathfrak{B}}$), so that ${\mathcal{B}/\!\!\!\equiv}$ is the monoidal category generated by ${\mathfrak{B}}$, where $\equiv$ is the congruence generated by the relations of ${\mathfrak{B}}$. The bicommutative bialgebra structure induces an “interpretation functor” such that $I(1)=1$, $I(\mu)=R^\mu$, $I(\eta)=R^\eta$, $I(\delta)=R^\delta$ and $I(\varepsilon)=R^\varepsilon$. Since, the morphisms satisfy the equations of bicommutative bialgebra, the interpretations of two morphisms of $\mathcal{B}$ related by $\equiv$ will be equal. The interpretation functor thus extends to a functor ${I/\!\!\!\equiv}\ :{\mathcal{B}/\!\!\!\equiv}\
\to{\mathbf{MRel}}$.
Consider the morphism $$((\mu\otimes\eta\otimes 1)\circ(1\otimes\delta)\circ(\delta\otimes\varepsilon))\otimes 1
\qcolon
3\to 4$$ of $\mathcal{B}$ whose graphical representation is $$\label{ex:intp-sd}
{\cpdfinput{intp.ps}}$$ Its interpretation is the multirelation $$\label{ex:intp-mr}
((R^\mu\otimes R^\eta\otimes 1)\circ(1\otimes R^\delta)\circ(R^\delta\otimes
R^\varepsilon))\otimes 1$$ This multirelation is a function $3\times 4\to\N$ (where $3$ and $4$ are respectively the sets $\{0,1,2\}$ and $\{0,1,2,3\}$) and can thus be represented as the following $\N$-valued matrix of size : $$\left(
\begin{matrix}
2&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1\\
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ This matrix is computed by evaluating the formula but has in fact a very natural interpretation if we consider the string diagrammatic representation of the morphism: an entry $(i,j)$ of the matrix is precisely the number of different paths in wires linking the object $i$ on the input to the object $j$ on the output (for example, from $0$ there are two paths to $0$ and one to $2$, thus the first line of the matrix).
For every morphism $\phi:m+1\to n$ in $\mathcal{B}$, where $m>0$, we define a morphism written by $$\label{eq:ctx-S}
S^{m\to n}\phi\qeq \phi\circ(\gamma\otimes \id_{m-1})$$ Graphically, $$S^{m\to n}\phi\qeq{\cpdfinput{gsym_s.ps}}$$ The *stairs* morphisms are defined inductively as either $\id_1$ or $S\phi'$ where $\phi'$ is a stair, and are represented graphically as $${{\cpdfinput{gsym.ps}}}$$ The *length* of a stairs is defined as $0$ if it is an identity $\id_1$, or as the length of the stairs $\phi'$ plus one if it is of the form $S\phi'$. The stairs of length $n+1$ is written $\gamma_n:n\to n$.
Morphisms $\phi$ which are *precanonical forms* are defined inductively: $\phi$ is either empty or $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
H^{m\to n}\phi'={{\cpdfinput{bialg_nf_eta.ps}}}
&
\tor
&
E^{m\to n}\phi'={{\cpdfinput{bialg_nf_eps.ps}}}
\end{array}$$ or $$W_i^{m\to n}\phi'
\qeq
{{\cpdfinput{bialg_nf_mu.ps}}}$$ where $\phi:m\to n$ is a precanonical form. In this case, we write respectively $\phi$ as $Z:0\to 0$ (the identity morphism $\id_{{{0}}}$), as $H^{m\to
n}\phi':m\to n+1$, as or as $W_i^{m\to
n}\phi':m\to n$ (where $i$ is the length of the stairs in the morphism). Algebraically, $$Z=\id_0
\qquad
E^{m\to n}\phi'=\varepsilon\otimes\phi'
\qquad
H^{m\to n}\phi'=\eta\otimes\phi'$$ and $$W_i^{m\to n}\phi'
\qeq
(i\otimes\mu\otimes(n-1-i))\circ(\gamma_i\otimes(n-i))\circ(1\otimes\phi')\circ(\delta\otimes(m-1))$$ Precanonical forms $\phi$ are thus the well formed morphisms (where compositions respect types) generated by the following grammar: $$\label{eq:precan-mrel-gram}
\phi\qgramdef Z\gramor H^{m\to n}\phi\gramor E^{m\to n}\phi\gramor W_i^{m\to n}\phi$$ In order to simplify the notation, we will remove the superscripts in the following and simply write $W_i\phi$ instead of $W_i^{m\to n}\phi$.
It is easy to remark that every non-identity morphism $\phi$ of a category generated by a monoidal equational theory (such as ${\mathfrak{B}}$) can be written as $\phi=({{m}}\otimes\pi\otimes{{n}})\circ\phi'$, where $\pi$ is a generator, thus allowing us to reason inductively about morphisms, by case analysis on the integer ${{m}}$ and on the generator $\pi$. Using this technique, we can prove that
\[lemma:mrel-precan\] Every morphism $\phi:m\to n$ of $\mathcal{B}$ is equivalent ([wrt]{} the relation $\equiv$) to a precanonical form.
By induction on the size ${\left|\phi\right|}$ of $\phi$.
- If ${\left|\phi\right|}=0$ then $m=n$ and $\phi=\id_n$. If $n=0$ then $\phi=Z$. Otherwise, we have $\phi=\id_{n+1}=1\otimes\id_n=W_0EH\id_n$ and $\id_n$ is equivalent to a canonical form by induction on $n$.
- Otherwise, the morphism $\phi$ is of the form $\phi=\xi\circ\psi$ with ${\left|\xi\right|}=1$ and . By induction hypothesis, the morphism $\psi$ is equivalent to a canonical form. Moreover, the morphism $\xi$ is of the form $m_1\otimes\pi\otimes m_2$ where $\pi$ is either $\mu$, $\eta$, $\delta$, $\varepsilon$ or $\gamma$. We show the result by distinguishing these five cases for $\pi$ and for each case by distinguishing whether the precanonical form of $\psi$ is of the form $Z$, $H\psi'$, $E\psi'$ or $W_i\psi'$.
1. Suppose that $\pi=\mu$.
1. If $\psi=H\psi'$ then we distinguish two cases.
- If $m_1=0$ then we have the equivalence $${\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_h_1_1.ps}}
\qequiv
{\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_h_1_2.ps}}$$ where $\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- Otherwise, the morphism $\phi$ can be represented by $${\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_h_2_1.ps}}$$ and is of the form $H(((m_1-1)\otimes\mu\otimes m_2)\circ\psi')$, where the morphism is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
2. If $\psi=E\psi'$ then the morphism $\phi$ can be represented by $${\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_e.ps}}$$ and is of the form $E(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
3. If $\psi=W_i'\psi'$ then we distinguish four cases
- If $m_1<i-1$ then we have the equivalence $${\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_1_1.ps}}
\qequiv
{\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_1_2.ps}}$$ and $\phi$ is of the form $W_{i-1}(((m_1-1\otimes\mu\otimes
m_2))\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $((m_1-1\otimes\mu\otimes
m_2))\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- If $m_1=i-1$ then we have the equivalences $$\hspace{-2cm}
{\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_2_1.ps}}
\equiv
{\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_2_2.ps}}
\equiv
{\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_2_3.ps}}$$ and we actually are in the case which is handled just below.
- If $m_1=i$ then we have the equivalence $${\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_3_1.ps}}
\qequiv
{\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_3_2.ps}}$$ and $\phi$ is of the form $W_i(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- If $m_1>i$ then $\phi$ can be represented by $${\cpdfinput{bialg_mu_w_4_1.ps}}$$ and is of the form $W_i(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
2. Suppose that $\pi=\eta$.
1. If $\psi=Z$ then $\phi=HZ$ which is a precanonical form.
2. If $\psi=H\psi'$ then we distinguish two cases.
- If $m_1=0$ then $\phi=HH\psi'$ which is a precanonical form.
- Otherwise, $\phi=H(((m_1-1)\otimes\eta\otimes m_2)\circ\psi')$ where is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
3. If $\psi=E\psi'$ then $\phi=E(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
4. If $\psi=W_i\psi'$ then we distinguish two cases.
- If $m_1\leq i$ then $\phi\equiv W_{i+1}(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- Otherwise, $\phi=W_i(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
3. Suppose that $\pi=\delta$.
1. If $\psi=H\psi'$ then we distinguish two cases.
- If $m_1=0$ then $\phi\equiv HH\psi'$ where $\psi'$ is a precanonical form.
- Otherwise, $\phi\equiv H(((m_1-1)\otimes\delta\otimes
m_2)\circ\psi')$ where $((m_1-1)\otimes\delta\otimes m_2)\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
2. If $\psi=E\psi'$ then $\phi=E(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis
3. If $\psi=W_i\psi'$ the we distinguish three cases.
- If $m_1<i$ then $\phi\equiv W_{i+1}(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis
- If $m_1=i$ then $\phi\equiv W_iW_{i+1}(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- Otherwise, $\phi=W_i(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
4. Suppose that $\pi=\varepsilon$.
1. If $\psi=H\psi'$ then we distinguish two cases.
- If $m_1=0$ then $\phi\equiv\psi'$ where the morphism $\psi'$ is a precanonical form.
- Otherwise, $\psi=H(((m_1-1)\otimes\varepsilon\otimes
m_2)\circ\psi')$ where $((m_1-1)\otimes\varepsilon\otimes
m_2)\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
2. If $\psi=E\psi'$ then $\phi=E(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
3. If $\psi=W_i\psi'$ then we distinguish three cases.
- If $m_1<i$ then $\phi\equiv W_{i-1}(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- If $m_1=i$ then $\phi\equiv E(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- Otherwise, $\phi=W_i(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
5. Suppose that $\pi=\gamma$.
1. If $\psi=H\psi'$ then we distinguish two cases.
- If $m_1=0$ then $\phi\equiv((1\otimes\eta\otimes m_2)\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $(1\otimes\eta\otimes m_2)\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- Otherwise, $\phi=H(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
2. If $\psi=E\psi'$ then $\phi=E(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
3. If $\psi=W_i\psi'$ then we distinguish four cases.
- If $m_1<i-1$ then $\phi\equiv W_i(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- If $m_1=i-1$ then $\phi\equiv W_{i-1}(((m_1+1)\otimes\gamma\otimes
m_2)\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $((m_1+1)\otimes\gamma\otimes
m_2)\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- If $m_1=i$ then $\phi\equiv W_{i+1}(((m_1+1)\otimes\gamma\otimes
m_2)\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $((m_1+1)\otimes\gamma\otimes
m_2)\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
- Otherwise, $\phi=W_i(\xi\circ\psi')$ where the morphism $\xi\circ\psi'$ is equivalent to a precanonical form by induction hypothesis.
The *canonical forms* are precanonical forms which are normal [wrt]{} the following rewriting system: $$\label{eq:mrel-cf-rs}
\begin{array}{r@{\quad\Longrightarrow\quad}l}
HW_i&W_{i+1}H\\
HE&EH\\
W_iW_j&W_jW_i\qquad\text{when $i<j$}
\end{array}$$ when considered as words generated by the grammar . It is routine verifications to show that two precanonical forms $\phi$ and $\psi$ such that $\phi$ rewrites to $\psi$ are equivalent. This rewriting system thus provides us with a notion of canonical form for precanonical forms:
\[lemma:mrel-can\] The rewriting system is normalizing.
We first show that the rewriting system is terminating by defining an interpretation of precanonical forms into $\N\times\N$, ordered lexicographically. This interpretation ${\llbracket{-}\rrbracket}$ is defined on generators by $${\llbracket{Z}\rrbracket}=(0,0)
\qquad
{\llbracket{H}\rrbracket}=(0,0)
\qquad
{\llbracket{E}\rrbracket}=(1,0)
\qquad
{\llbracket{W_i}\rrbracket}=(1,i)$$ and on composition and identities by $${\llbracket{G\circ F}\rrbracket}=({\llbracket{G}\rrbracket}_1+2\times{\llbracket{F_1}\rrbracket},{\llbracket{G}\rrbracket}_2+2\times{\llbracket{F}\rrbracket}_2)
\qtand
{\llbracket{\id}\rrbracket}=(0,0)$$ where $F$ and $G$ are such that ${\llbracket{F}\rrbracket}=({\llbracket{F}\rrbracket}_1,{\llbracket{F}\rrbracket}_2)$ and ${\llbracket{G}\rrbracket}=({\llbracket{G}\rrbracket}_1,{\llbracket{G}\rrbracket}_2)$. It can be remarked that the rules are strictly decreasing [wrt]{}this interpretation: $${\llbracket{HW_i}\rrbracket}=(2,2i)>(1,i)={\llbracket{W_iH}\rrbracket}
\qquad
{\llbracket{HE}\rrbracket}=(2,0)>(1,0)={\llbracket{EH}\rrbracket}$$ and $${\llbracket{W_iW_j}\rrbracket}=(3,i+2j)>(3,j+2i)={\llbracket{W_jW_i}\rrbracket}$$ The rewriting system is therefore terminating. It moreover locally confluent, since the two critical pairs are joinable: $$\hspace{-6mm}
\begin{array}{cc}
\vxym{
&\ar[dl]W_iW_jW_k\ar[dr]&\\
W_jW_iW_k\ar[d]&&W_iW_kW_j\ar[d]\\
W_jW_kW_i\ar[dr]&&W_kW_iW_k\ar[dl]\\
&W_kW_jW_i&\\
}
&
\vxym{
&\ar[dl]HW_iW_j\ar[dr]&\\
W_{i+1}HW_j\ar[d]&&HW_jW_i\ar[d]\\
W_{i+1}W_{j+1}H\ar[dr]&&W_{j+1}HW_i\ar[dl]\\
&W_{j+1}W_{i+1}H&\\
}
\\
\text{with $i<j<k$}
&
\text{with $i<j$}
\end{array}$$ The rewriting system being terminating, it is thus confluent.
Canonical forms are the precanonical forms of the form $$\label{eq:mrel-can}
W_{i^n_{k_n}}\cdots W_{i^n_1}E\cdots\cdots W_{i^1_{k_1}}\cdots W_{i^1_1}EH\cdots HZ$$ with $i^p_1\geq\ldots\geq i^p_{k_p}$, for every $p$ such that $1\leq p\leq n$.
From Lemmas \[lemma:mrel-precan\] and \[lemma:mrel-can\], we can finally deduce that every morphism of the category $\mathcal{B}$ is equivalent to an unique canonical form.
\[lemma:mrel-bij\] The interpretation functor ${I/\!\!\!\equiv}\ :{\mathcal{B}/\!\!\!\equiv}\ \to{\mathbf{MRel}}$ is full.
We show the result by showing that the functor $I:\mathcal{B}\to{\mathbf{MRel}}$ is full, that every multirelation $R:{{m}}\to{{n}}$ is the image of a precanonical form $\phi:m\to n$ in $\mathcal{B}$, by induction on $m$ and on the cardinal ${\left|R\right|}$ of $R$.
1. If $m=0$ then $R$ is the interpretation of the precanonical form $H\ldots HZ$, with $n$ occurrences of $H$.
2. If $m>0$ and for every $j<n$, $R(0,j)=0$ then $R$ is of the form $R=R^\varepsilon\otimes R'$, where $R':{{m-1}}\to{{n}}$ is the multirelation such that $R'(i,j)=R(i+1,j)$. By induction hypothesis, $R'$ is the interpretation of a precanonical form $\phi'$ and $R$ is therefore the interpretation of the precanonical form $E\phi'$.
3. Otherwise, we necessarily have $n\neq 0$ and there exists and index $k'$ such that . We write $k$ for the greatest such index. The multirelation $R$ is of the form $$R
\qeq
({{k}}\otimes R^\mu\otimes{{n-1-k}})\circ(R^{\gamma_k}\otimes{{n-k}})\circ(1\otimes R')\circ(R^\delta\otimes{{m-1}})$$ Where $R':{{m}}\to{{n}}$ is the multirelation defined by $R'(0,k)=R(0,k)-1$ and for every $(i,j)\neq(0,k)$. The multirelation $R'$ is thus of cardinal and is the interpretation of a precanonical form $\phi':m\to n$ by induction hypothesis. Finally, $R$ is the interpretation of the precanonical form $W_k\phi'$.
The proof of the previous lemma provides us with an algorithm which, given a multirelation $R$, builds a precanonical form $\phi$ whose interpretation is $R$. The execution of this algorithm consists in enumerating the coefficients of the multirelation column after column. We suppose given a multirelation $R:{{m}}\to{{n}}$. In pseudo-code, the algorithm can be written as follows:
for $i=0$ to $m-1$ do\
for $j=n-1$ downto $0$ do\
for $k=0$ to $R(i,j)$ do\
print “$W_j$”\
done\
print “$H$”\
done\
done\
for $j=0$ to $n-1$ do\
print “$E$”\
done\
print “$Z$”
The word printed by the algorithm will be a precanonical form whose interpretation is $R$.
Knowing the general form of canonical forms, it is easy to show that the precanonical form produced by the algorithm are actually canonical forms. Conversely, every canonical form can be read as an “enumeration” of the coefficients of a multirelation in a way similar the previous algorithm. This shows that, in fact, multirelations $R:{{m}}\to{{n}}$ are in bijection with the canonical forms $\phi:m\to n$. A morphism of $\mathcal{B}$ being equivalent to an unique canonical form, we finally deduce that
\[thm:fmr-pres\] The categories ${\mathcal{B}/\!\!\!\equiv}$ and ${\mathbf{MRel}}$ are isomorphic, the category ${\mathbf{MRel}}$ of natural numbers and multirelations is presented by the theory ${\mathfrak{B}}$ of bicommutative bialgebras.
#### Relations.
The monoidal category $\Rel$ has finite ordinals as objects and relations as morphisms. This category can be obtained from ${\mathbf{MRel}}$ by quotienting the morphisms by the equivalence relation $\sim$ on multirelations such that two multirelations $R_1,R_2:m\to n$ are equivalent when they have the same null coefficients. We can therefore easily adapt the previous presentation to show that
The category $\Rel$ of relations is presented by the equational theory ${\mathfrak{R}}$ of *qualitative* bicommutative bialgebras.
In particular, precanonical forms are the same and canonical forms are defined by adding the rule $$\label{eq:rel-cf-rs}
W_iW_i\Longrightarrow W_i$$ to the rewriting system , which remains normalizing.
A game semantics for first-order causality {#section:games-strategies}
==========================================
Suppose that we are given a fixed first-order language $\mathcal{L}$, that is
- a set of proposition symbols $P,Q,\ldots$ with given arities,
- a set of function symbols $f,g,\ldots$ with given arities,
- and a set of first-order variables $x,y,\ldots$.
*Terms* $t$ and *formulas* $A$ are respectively generated by the following grammars: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
t&\qgramdef&x\gramor f(t,\ldots,t)
\\
A&\qgramdef&P(t,\ldots,t)\gramor{\forall{x}.}{A}\gramor{\exists{x}.}{A}
\end{array}$$ (we only consider formulas without connectives here). We suppose that application of propositions and functions always respect arities. Formulas are considered modulo renaming of bound variables and substitution $A[t/x]$ of a free variable $x$ by a term $t$ in a formula $A$ is defined as usual, avoiding capture of variables. In the following, we sometimes omit the arguments of propositions when they are clear from the context. We also suppose given a set ${\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ of *axioms*, that is pairs of propositions, which is reflexive, transitive and closed under substitution (so that the obtained logic has the cut-elimination property). The logic associated to these formulas has the following inference rules: $$\begin{array}{c@{\qquad}c}
\inferrule{A[t/x]\vdash B}{{\forall{x}.} A\vdash B}{{\text{($\forall$-L)}}}
&
\inferrule{A\vdash B}{A\vdash {\forall{x}.} B}{{\text{($\forall$-R)}}}
\displaybreak[0]
\\
&
\text{(with $x$ not free in $A$)}
\displaybreak[0]
\\[2ex]
\inferrule{A\vdash B}{{\exists{x}.} A\vdash B}{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}
&
\inferrule{A\vdash B[t/x]}{A\vdash {\exists{x}.} B}{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}
\displaybreak[0]
\\
\text{(with $x$ not free in $B$)}
&
\displaybreak[0]
\\[2ex]
\inferrule{(P,Q)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}}{P\vdash Q}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
&
\inferrule{A\vdash B\\B\vdash C}{A\vdash C}{{\text{(Cut)}}}
\end{array}$$
#### Games and strategies. {#subsection:games-strategies}
Games are defined as follows.
A *game* $A=({M_{A}},\lambda_A,\leq_A)$ consists of a set ${M_{A}}$ whose elements are called *moves*, a function $\lambda_A$ from ${M_{A}}$ to $\{-1,+1\}$ which to every move $m$ associates its *polarity*, and a partial order $\leq_A$ on moves, called *causality* or *justification*, which should be well-founded, such that every move $m\in{M_{A}}$ defines a finite downward closed set $$m\!\downarrow\qeq\setof{n\in{M_{A}}\tq n\leq_A m}$$ A move $m$ is said to be a *Proponent move* when $\lambda_A(m)=+1$ and an *Opponent move* otherwise.
The size ${\left|A\right|}$ of a game $A$ is the cardinal of its set of moves ${M_{A}}$.
More generally, games should be defined as event structures [@winskel:event-structures] in order to be able to model additive connectives. We don’t detail this here since we only consider formulas without connectives.
If $A$ and $B$ are two games, their tensor product $A\otimes B$ is defined by disjoint union on moves, polarities and causality: $${M_{A\otimes B}}={M_{A}}\uplus{M_{B}}
\tcomma\quad
\lambda_{A\otimes B}=\lambda_A+\lambda_B
\qtand
\leq_{A\otimes B}=\leq_A\cup\leq_B$$ The opposite game $A^*$ of the game $A$ is obtained from $A$ by inverting polarities of moves: $$A^*=({M_{A}},-\lambda_A,\leq_A)
\tdot$$ Finally, the arrow game $A\llimp B$ is defined by $$A\llimp B\qeq A^*\otimes B
\tdot$$ A game $A$ is *filiform* when the associated partial order is total (we are mostly interested in such games in the following).
\[def:strategy\] A *strategy* $\sigma$ on a game $A$ is a partial order $\leq_\sigma$ on the moves of $A$ which satisfies the two following properties:
1. *polarity*: for every pair of moves $m,n\in{M_{A}}$, $$m<_\sigma n
\qqtimpl
\lambda_A(m)=-1
\qtand
\lambda_A(n)=+1$$
2. *acyclicity*: the partial order $\leq_\sigma$ is compatible with the partial order of the game, in the sense that the transitive closure of their union is still a partial order (is acyclic).
The *size* ${\left|A\right|}$ of a game $A$ is the cardinal of ${M_{A}}$ and the *size* ${\left|\sigma\right|}$ of a strategy $\sigma:A$ is the cardinal of the relation $\leq_\sigma$.
#### A category of games.
At this point it would be very tempting to build a category whose
- objects are games,
- morphisms $\sigma:A\to B$ are strategies on the game $A\llimp B$.
The identity strategy $\id_A:A'\to A$ (the apostrophe sign is only used here to identify unambiguously the two copies of $A$) would be the strategy such that for every move $m$ in $A$ and $m'$ in $A'$, which are instances of a same move $m$, we have whenever $\lambda_A(m)=+1$ and $m\leq_{\id_A}m'$ whenever $\lambda_A(m)=-1$ (it can easily be checked that this definition satisfies the axioms for strategies). Now consider two strategies $\sigma:A\to B$ and $\tau:B\to C$. The partial order $\leq_\sigma$ on the set ${M_{A}}\uplus{M_{B}}$ is relation on ${M_{A}}\uplus{M_{B}}$, a subset of $({M_{A}}\uplus{M_{B}})^2$, and similarly for $\tau$. The partial order $\leq_{\tau\circ\sigma}$ corresponding to composite $\tau\circ\sigma:A\to C$ of the two strategies $\sigma$ and $\tau$ would be defined as the transitive closure of the relation $\leq_\sigma\cup\leq_\tau$ on ${M_{A}}\uplus{M_{B}}\uplus{M_{C}}$ restricted to the set ${M_{A}}\uplus{M_{C}}$. It is easily checked that identities act as neutral elements for composition. Similar ideas for composing strategies were in particular developed in the appendix of [@hyland-schalk:games-graphs].
For example, consider the game $A$ with two Proponent moves $m_1$ and $m_2$ and the empty causality relation, the game $B$ with two Proponent moves $n_1$ and $n_2$ and the causality relation $n_1\leq_B n_2$, the strategy $\sigma:A'\to
A$ such that $m_1'\leq_\sigma m_2$ and $m_2'\leq_\sigma m_1$ and the strategy $\tau:A\to B$ such that $m_1\leq_\tau n_1$ and $m_2\leq_\tau
n_2$. Their composite is the strategy $\tau\circ\sigma:A'\to B$ such that $m_2'\leq_{\tau\circ\sigma}n_1$ and $m_1'\leq_{\tau\circ\sigma}n_2$. This can be viewed graphically as follows: $$\hspace{-4ex}
\vxym{
A'\ar[rrr]^\sigma&&&A\ar[rrr]^\tau&&&B\\
m_1'\ar@/^4ex/[rrrr]&m_2'\ar@/^/[rr]&&m_1\ar@/_3ex/[rrr]&m_2\ar[drr]&&n_1\ar@{.>}[d]\\
&&&&&&n_2\\
}
\qquad\rightsquigarrow\qquad
\vxym{
A'\ar[rrr]^{\tau\circ\sigma}&&&B\\
m_1'\ar[drrr]&m_2'\ar@/_/[rr]&&n_1\ar@{.>}[d]\\
&&&n_2\\
}$$ In the diagram above the dotted arrows represent the causal dependencies in the games and solid arrows the dependencies in the strategies.
However, the composite of two strategies is not necessarily a strategy! For example consider the game $A$ defined as before excepted that $m_1$ is now an Opponent move, the game $B$ defined as before excepted that $n_2$ is now an Opponent move, the strategy (where $0$ denotes the empty game) such that $m_1\leq_\sigma m_2$ and the strategy such that $n_2\leq_\tau m_1$ and $m_2\leq_\tau n_1$. Their “composite” is *not* a strategy because it does not satisfy the acyclicity property: $$\hspace{-1ex}
\vxym{
0\ar[rrr]^\sigma&&&A\ar[rrr]^\tau&&&B\\
&&&m_1\ar@/^/[r]&m_2\ar@/_/[rr]&&n_1\ar@{.>}[d]\\
&&&&&&\ar@/^/[ulll]n_2\\
}
\qquad\rightsquigarrow\qquad
\vxym{
0\ar[rrr]^{\tau\circ\sigma}&&&B\\
&&&n_1\ar@{.>}[d]\\
&&&\ar@/^4ex/[u]n_2\\
}$$ This is a typical example of the fact that compositionality of strategies in game semantics is often a subtle property that should be checked very carefully.
\[rem:ll-acyclicity\] A more conceptual explanation of this compositionality problem can be given as follows. If we write $P$ for the game with only one Proponent move, the game $A$ should correspond, in a model of linear logic to either the tensor or the par of $P$ and $P^*$. However, we have not included in our strategies conditions which are necessary to distinguish between the interpretation of tensor and par. This explains why we are not able to recover the compositionality of the acyclicity property, which is deeply linked with the correctness criterion of linear logic. We leave a precise investigation of this for future works, in which we plan to extend our model to first-order linear logic.
Fortunately, if we restrict the previous attempt of construction of a category, by only allowing *finite filiform games* as objects, then we actually construct a category (the composite of two morphisms is a morphism) that we write ${\mathbf{Games}}$. Moreover, we show that the connective-free fragment of first-order propositional logic can be interpreted in this category and that the conditions imposed on strategies characterize exactly the strategies interpreting proofs (Theorem \[thm:definability\]).
We could give a direct proof of the fact that ${\mathbf{Games}}$ is actually a category. However, a direct proof of the fact that the composite of two acyclic strategies is acyclic is combinatorial, lengthy and requires global reasoning about strategies. This proof would show, by reductio ad absurdum, that if the composite of two strategies contains a cycle (together with the causality of the game) then one of the strategies already contains a cycle. So, it would moreover not be very satisfactory in the sense that it would not be constructive. Instead of proceeding in this way, we define the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$ in an abstract fashion, construct a presentation of this category, and conclude *a posteriori* that in fact its only morphisms are strategies, which implies in particular (Theorem \[thm:composition\]) that strategies do actually compose!
We first define a weaker notion of strategy
A *cyclic strategy* $\sigma$ on a game $A$ is a relation on the moves of $A$, a subset of ${M_{A}}\times{M_{A}}$, such that
1. the relation $\sigma$ is reflexive and transitive,
2. *polarity*: for every pair of moves $m,n\in{M_{A}}$, $$m\mathop{\sigma}n
\qtand
m\neq n
\qqtimpl
\lambda_A(m)=-1
\qtand
\lambda_A(n)=+1$$
In particular, every strategy is a cyclic strategy. From this definition it is very easy to build a category ${\mathbf{CGames}}$ whose
- objects are games,
- morphisms $\sigma:A\to B$ are strategies on the game $A\llimp B$,
- identities and composition are defined as above.
Since the definition of cyclic strategy is much weaker than the notion of strategy, it is routine to check that the category is well-defined. We now define the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$ as the category generated in ${\mathbf{CGames}}$ by finite filiform games and strategies, the smallest category whose
- objects are finite filiform games,
- for every objects $A$ and $B$, and every strategy $\sigma:A\llimp B$ in the sense of Definition \[def:strategy\], we have that $\sigma$ is a morphism in $\Hom(A,B)$,
- for every objects $A$, $B$ and $C$, if $\sigma$ is a morphism in $\Hom(A,B)$ and $\tau$ is a morphism in $\Hom(B,C)$ then their composite $\tau\circ\sigma$ (in the category ${\mathbf{CGames}}$) is a morphism in $\Hom(A,C)$.
As mentioned above, we will show in Theorem \[thm:composition\] that the only morphisms of this category are actually strategies.
#### A monoidal structure on ${\mathbf{Games}}$.
If $A$ and $B$ are two games, the game $A{\varolessthan}{}B$ (to be read $A$ *before* $B$) is the game defined as $A\lltens B$ on moves and polarities and $\leq_{A{\varolessthan}{}B}$ is the transitive closure of the relation $$\leq_{A\lltens B}\cup\;\setof{(a,b)\tq a\in {M_{A}}\tand b\in{M_{B}}}$$ This operation is extended as a bifunctor on strategies as follows. If $\sigma:A\to B$ and $\tau:C\to D$ are two strategies, the strategy $\sigma{\varolessthan}{}\tau:A{\varolessthan}{}C\to B{\varolessthan}{}D$ is defined as the relation $\leq_{\sigma{\varolessthan}{}\tau}=\leq_\sigma\uplus\leq_\tau$. This bifunctor induces a monoidal structure $({\mathbf{Games}},{\varolessthan}{},I)$ on the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$, where $I$ denotes the empty game.
We write $O$ for a game with only one Opponent move and $P$ for a game with only one Proponent move. It can be easily remarked that finite filiform games $A$ are generated by the following grammar $$A\qqgramdef I\gramor O{\varolessthan}{}A\gramor P{\varolessthan}{}A$$ A game $X_1{\varolessthan}{}\cdots{\varolessthan}{}X_n{\varolessthan}{}I$ where the $X_i$ are either $O$ or $P$ is represented graphically as $$\begin{array}{c}
X_1\\
\vdots\\
X_n
\end{array}
$$ and a strategy $\sigma:A\to B$ is represented graphically by drawing a line from a move $m$ to a move $n$ whenever $m\leq_\sigma n$. For example, the strategy $${\cpdfinput{mult_P.ps}}$$ is the strategy on the game $(O{\varolessthan}{}O)\otimes P$ in which both Opponent move of the left-hand game justify the Proponent move of the right-hand game. When a move does not justify (or is not justified by) any other move, we draw a line ended by a small circle. For example, the strategy , drawn as $${\cpdfinput{counit_P_small.ps}}$$ is the unique strategy from $P$ to the terminal object $I$. With these conventions, we introduce notations for some morphisms which are depicted in Figure \[fig:inno-gen\].
#### A game semantics.
A formula $A$ is interpreted as a filiform game ${\llbracket{A}\rrbracket}$ by $${\llbracket{P}\rrbracket}=I
\qquad
{\llbracket{{\forall{x}.} A}\rrbracket}=O{\varolessthan}{}{\llbracket{A}\rrbracket}
\qquad
{\llbracket{{\exists{x}.} A}\rrbracket}=P{\varolessthan}{}{\llbracket{A}\rrbracket}$$ A cut-free proof $\pi:A\vdash B$ is interpreted as a strategy $\sigma:{\llbracket{A}\rrbracket}\llimp{\llbracket{B}\rrbracket}$ whose causality partial order $\leq_\sigma$ is defined as follows. For every Proponent move $P$ interpreting a quantifier introduced by a rule which is either $$\inferrule{A[t/x]\vdash B}{{\forall{x}.} A\vdash B}{{\text{($\forall$-L)}}}
\qqtor
\inferrule{A\vdash B[t/x]}{A\vdash {\exists{x}.} B}{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}$$ every Opponent move $O$ interpreting an universal quantification $\forall x$ on the right-hand side of a sequent, or an existential quantification $\exists x$ on the left-hand side of a sequent, is such that $O\leq_\sigma P$ whenever the variable $x$ is free in the term $t$. For example, a proof $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\null}
{P\vdash Q[t/z]}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{P\vdash{\exists{z}.} Q}{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}
}
{{\exists{y}.} P\vdash{\exists{z}.} Q}{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.}{{\exists{y}.} P}\vdash{\exists{z}.} Q}{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}$$ is interpreted respectively by the strategies $$\label{eq:ex-intp}
{{\cpdfinput{strat_ex_xy.ps}}}
\ \ \
{{\cpdfinput{strat_ex_x.ps}}}
\ \ \
{{\cpdfinput{strat_ex_.ps}}}$$ when the free variables of $t$ are $\{x,y\}$, $\{x\}$ or $\emptyset$.
This interpretation could be generalized to proofs with cuts using the composition of the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$, and one could show that the interpretation is invariant under cut-elimination. However, we do not detail this here since it is best expressed using connectives and leave this for future works.
#### An equational theory of strategies. {#subsection:walking-inno}
We can now introduce the equational theory which will be shown to present the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$.
\[definition:innocent-strategies\] The *equational theory of strategies* is the equational theory ${\mathfrak{G}}$ with two atomic types $O$ and $P$ and thirteen generators depicted in Figure \[fig:inno-gen\] such that
- the Opponent structure $$\label{eq:O-struct}
(O,\mu^O,\eta^O,\delta^O,\varepsilon^O,\gamma^O)$$ is a bicommutative qualitative bialgebra,
- the object $P$ is left dual to the object $O$ with $\eta^{OP}$ as unit and $\varepsilon^{OP}$ as counit,
- the Proponent structure $(P,\mu^P,\eta^P,\delta^P,\varepsilon^P,\gamma^P)$, as well as the morphism $\gamma^{OP}$, are deduced from the Opponent structure by composition with the duality morphisms $\eta^{OP}$ and $\varepsilon^{OP}$, in the sense that the equations of Figure \[fig:PO-adj\] hold.
$$\begin{array}{r@{\qeq}l}
{\cpdfinput{mult_P.ps}}
&
{\cpdfinput{comult_O_adj.ps}}
\\[4ex]
{\cpdfinput{comult_P.ps}}
&
{\cpdfinput{mult_O_adj.ps}}
\\[4ex]
{\cpdfinput{unit_P.ps}}
&
{\cpdfinput{counit_O_adj.ps}}
\\[4ex]
{\cpdfinput{counit_P.ps}}
&
{\cpdfinput{unit_P_adj.ps}}
\\[4ex]
{\cpdfinput{sym_P.ps}}
&
{\cpdfinput{sym_O_adj.ps}}
\\[10ex]
{\cpdfinput{sym_OP.ps}}
&
{\cpdfinput{sym_O_adj_OP.ps}}
\end{array}$$
We write ${\mathcal{G}/\!\!\!\equiv}$ for the monoidal category generated by ${\mathfrak{G}}$. It can be noticed that the generators $\mu^P$, $\eta^P$, $\delta^P$, $\varepsilon^P$, $\gamma^P$ and $\gamma^{OP}$ are superfluous in this presentation (since they can be deduced from the Opponent structure and duality). However, removing them would seriously complicate the proofs.
If we adopt the point of view of logic, the relations of Figure \[fig:PO-adj\] (as well as in fact all the relations of our presentation) can be understood as rules for cut-elimination. For example, suppose for clarity that function symbols include a nullary symbol $0$, that proposition symbols include a nullary symbol $\top$ and a binary symbol $=$, and that the set ${\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ of axioms contains the reasonable axioms for equality, $(\top,x=x)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$, etc. In the third equation of Figure \[fig:PO-adj\], the left and right members are respectively the interpretation of the proofs $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{\null}
{\top\vdash 0=0}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{\top\vdash{\exists{x}.} x=0}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}$$ and $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\null}
{\top\vdash y=y}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{\top\vdash{\exists{z}.} y=z}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{\top\vdash{\forall{y}.}{{\exists{z}.} y=z}}{{{\text{($\forall$-R)}}}}
\\
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{\null}
{0=z\vdash z=0}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{0=z\vdash{\exists{x}.} x=0}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{{\exists{z}.} 0=z\vdash{\exists{x}.} x=0}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
}
{{\forall{y}.}{{\exists{z}.} y=z}\vdash{\exists{x}.} x=0}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
}
{\top\vdash{\exists{x}.} x=0}{{\text{(Cut)}}}$$ and the second proof reduces to the first one by cut-elimination.
With the notations of \[definition:innocent-strategies\], we have:
- $(P,\mu^P,\eta^P,\delta^P,\varepsilon^P,\gamma^P)$ is a qualitative bicommutative bialgebra,
- the Yang-Baxter equalities $${\cpdfinput{yang_baxter_xyz_r.ps}}
\qeq
{\cpdfinput{yang_baxter_xyz_l.ps}}$$ hold whenever $(X,Y,Z)$ is either $(O,O,O)$, $(P,O,O)$, $(P,P,O)$ or $(P,P,P)$,
- the equalities $${\cpdfinput{mult_sym_rnat_P_l.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{mult_sym_rnat_P_r.ps}}$$ and $${\cpdfinput{mult_sym_lnat_O_l.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{mult_sym_lnat_O_r.ps}}$$ hold (and dually for comultiplications),
- the equalities $${\cpdfinput{eta_sym_rnat_P_l.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{eta_sym_rnat_P_r.ps}}$$ and $${\cpdfinput{eta_sym_lnat_O_l.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{eta_sym_lnat_O_r.ps}}$$ hold (and dually for counits),
- the equalities $${\cpdfinput{adj_counit_O_r.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{adj_counit_O_l.ps}}$$ and $${\cpdfinput{adj_counit_P_r.ps}}
=
{\cpdfinput{adj_counit_P_l.ps}}$$ hold (and dually for the counit of duality).
We can now proceed as in Section \[section:presentation-rel\] to show that the theory ${\mathfrak{G}}$ introduced in Definition \[definition:innocent-strategies\] presents the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$. First, in the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$ with the monoidal structure induced by ${\varolessthan}{}$, the objects $O$ and $P$ can be canonically equipped with thirteen morphisms as shown in Figure \[fig:inno-gen\] in order to form a model of the theory ${\mathfrak{G}}$.
Conversely, we need to introduce a notion of canonical form for the morphisms of $\mathcal{G}$. Stairs are defined similarly as before, but are now constructed from the three kinds of polarized crossings $\gamma^O$, $\gamma^P$ and $\gamma^{OP}$ instead of simply $\gamma$ in : a *stair* is either $\id_O$ or $\id_P$ or $${\cpdfinput{gsym_sym_O.ps}}
\tor
{\cpdfinput{gsym_sym_P.ps}}
\tor
{\cpdfinput{gsym_sym_OP.ps}}$$ The notion of *precanonical form* $\phi$ is now defined inductively as shown in Figure \[fig:precan-strat\],
where the object $X$ is either $O$ or $P$ and $\phi'$ is a precanonical form. These cases correspond respectively to the productions of the following grammar $$\phi
\qgramdef
Z
{\ \ \ |\ \ \ }A_i\phi
{\ \ \ |\ \ \ }B_i\phi
{\ \ \ |\ \ \ }W_i\phi
{\ \ \ |\ \ \ }E^X\phi
{\ \ \ |\ \ \ }H^X\phi$$ By induction on the size of morphisms, it can be shown that every morphism of $\mathcal{G}$ is equivalent to a precanonical form and a notion of canonical form can be defined by adapting the rewriting system into a rewriting system for precanonical forms, by adding the rules $$\begin{array}{r@{\qquad\Longrightarrow\qquad}l@{\qquad}l}
H^XW_i&W_{i+1}H^X\\
H^XE^Y&E^YH^X\\
W_iW_j&W_jW_i&\text{when $i<j$}\\
W_iW_i&W_i\\
H^XA_i&A_iH^X\\
A_iW_j&W_jA_i\\
A_iA_j&A_jA_i&\text{when $i<j$}\\
A_iA_i&A_i\\
E^XB_i&E^X\\
B_iW_j&W_jB_i\\
B_iB_j&B_jB_i&\text{when $i<j$}\\
B_iB_i&B_i\\
B_iA_j&A_jB_i\\
\end{array}$$ to the rewriting system containing the rules and . It is simple to extend the proof of Lemma \[lemma:mrel-can\] in order to show that this rewriting system is normalizing. The general form for canonical forms is $$\label{eq:games-explicit-cf}
\begin{array}{r@{}l}
W_{i^n_{k_n}}\cdots W_{i^n_1}A_{j^n_{l_n}}\cdots A_{j^n_1}E\cdots&\cdots W_{i^1_{k_1}}\cdots W_{i^1_1}A_{j^1_{l_1}}\cdots A_{j
^1_1}E\\
&\cdots B_{h^p_{m_p}}\cdots B_{h^p_1}H\cdots B_{h^1_{m_1}}\cdots B_{h^1_1}HZ
\end{array}$$ with
- $i^p_{k_p}>\ldots>i^p_1$ for every integer $r$ such that $1\leq r\leq k_n$,
- $j^p_{l_p}>\ldots>j^p_1$ for every integer $r$ such that $1\leq r\leq l_n$,
- $h^p_{l_p}>\ldots>h^p_1$ for every integer $r$ such that $1\leq r\leq m_n$.
Every strategy $\sigma:A\to B$ is the interpretation of an unique canonical form.
We show that every strategy $\sigma:A\to B$ is the interpretation of a precanonical form $\phi:A\to B$ by induction on the triple $({\left|A\right|},{\left|\sigma\right|},{\left|B\right|})$, ordered lexicographically.
1. If $A=B=I$ then $\sigma$ is the interpretation of the precanonical form $Z$.
2. If $A=I$ and $B=X\otimes B'$, where $X$ is either $P$ or $O$ then we distinguish two cases.
- If no move depends on $X$ in the strategy, this strategy is the image of a precanonical form $H_X\phi'$, where $\phi'$ is a precanonical form, obtained by induction hypothesis whose interpretation is the strategy obtained by restricting $\sigma$ to the codomain $B$ (the size of $\sigma'$ is ${\left|\sigma'\right|}={\left|\sigma\right|}$).
- Otherwise, we write $i$ for the index in $B$ of the move of minimal index which depends on $X$ in the strategy. The strategy is the image of a precanonical form $B_i\phi'$, where $\phi'$ is precanonical form, obtained by induction hypothesis, whose interpretation is the strategy $\sigma':I\to B$ obtained from $\sigma$ by removing the dependency of the $i$-th move of $B$ on the first move of $B$ (its size is such that ${\left|\sigma'\right|}<{\left|\sigma\right|}$).
3. If $A=X\otimes A'$, where $X$ is either $P$ or $O$, then we distinguish three cases.
- If no move depends on $X$ in the strategy, this strategy is the image of a precanonical form $E^X\phi'$, where $\phi'$ is a precanonical form, obtained by induction hypothesis, whose interpretation is the strategy obtained by restricting $\sigma$ to the domain $A'$.
- If there exists a move of $X$ which depends on $X$, we write $i$ for the index in $A$ of such a move of minimal index. The strategy is the interpretation of a precanonical form $A_i\phi'$, where $\phi'$ is a precanonical form, obtained by induction hypothesis, whose interpretation is the strategy $\sigma':A\to B$ obtained from $\sigma$ by removing the dependency of the $i$-th move of $A$ on the first move of $A$ (its size is such that ).
- Otherwise, there exists a move in $B$ which depends on the move $X$. We write $i$ of the index in $B$ of such a move of minimal index. The strategy is the interpretation of a precanonical form $W_i\phi'$, where $\phi'$ is a precanonical form, obtained by induction hypothesis, whose interpretation is the strategy $\sigma':A\to
B$, obtained from $\sigma$ by removing the dependency of the $i$-th move of $B$ on the first move of $A$ (its size is such that ${\left|\sigma'\right|}<{\left|\sigma\right|}$).
Knowing the general form of canonical forms, it is easy to show that the precanonical forms thus constructed are actually canonical and that canonical forms $\phi:A\to B$ are in bijection with strategies $\sigma:A\to B$, as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:fmr-pres\].
We therefore deduce the main theorem of this article:
\[thm:pres-games\] The monoidal category ${\mathbf{Games}}{}$ (with the ${\varolessthan}{}$ tensor product) is presented by the equational theory ${\mathfrak{G}}$.
As a direct consequence of this Theorem, we deduce the two following properties which show the technical benefits of our construction.
\[thm:composition\] The composite of two strategies, in the sense of Definition \[def:strategy\], is itself a strategy (in particular, the acyclicity property is preserved by composition).
Two strategies $\sigma:A\to B$ and $\tau:B\to C$ can be seen as morphisms $\tilde{\sigma}$ and $\tilde{\tau}$ the category ${\mathcal{G}/\!\!\!\equiv}$ and the image of their composite is $\widetilde{\tau\circ\sigma}=\tilde{\tau}\circ\tilde{\sigma}$, which corresponds to the image of an unique acyclic strategy.
\[thm:definability\] The strategies of ${\mathbf{Games}}$ are definable (when the set ${\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ of axioms is reasonably large enough): it is enough to check that generators are definable – for example, the first case of shows that $\mu^P$ is definable.
Suppose that there is a countable number of variable symbols. Suppose moreover that there exists a unary propositional symbol $I$, which enables us to see every term $t$ as a proposition $I(t)$, which we will simply write $t$ by abuse of notation. We also suppose that the set of propositions contains two nullary propositions $\top$ and $\bot$ and is closed under formal conjunctions and disjunctions: if we have that $P(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ and $Q(y_1,\ldots,y_m)$ are propositions then and $P(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\lor Q(y_1,\ldots,y_m)$ are also propositions. We then define a set ${\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ of axioms as the smallest set of pairs of propositions which is reflexive, transitive and such that:
- for every proposition $P$,
- $(P,\top)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$,
- $(\bot,P)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$,
- for every propositions $P$, $P_1$ and $P_2$,
- if $(P,P_1)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ and $(P,P_2)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ then $(P,P_1\land
P_2)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$,
- if $(P,P_1)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ or $(P,P_1)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ then $(P,P_1\lor
P_2)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$,
- if $(P_1,P)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ or $(P_2,P)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ then $(P_1\land
P_2,P)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$,
- if $(P_1,P)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ and $(P_2,P)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ then $(P_1\lor
P_2,P)\in{\text{\emph{Ax}}}$.
(for concision, we did not mention the arguments of propositions). By Theorem \[thm:pres-games\], every strategy can be expressed as a tensor and composite of the generating strategies pictured in Figure \[fig:inno-gen\]. It is therefore enough to show that those strategies are definable.
- the strategies $\mu^P$ and $\eta^P$ are the respective interpretations of the proofs $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{x\land y\vdash x\land y}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{x\land y\vdash{\exists{z}.} z}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{{\exists{y}.} {x\land y}\vdash{\exists{z}.} z}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.}{{\exists{y}.} {x\land y}}\vdash{\exists{z}.} z}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
\qtand
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{\top\vdash\top}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{\top\vdash{\exists{x}.} x}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}$$
- the strategies $\delta^P$ and $\varepsilon^P$ are the respective interpretations of the proofs $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{x\vdash x\land x}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{x\vdash{\exists{z}.}{x\land z}}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{x\vdash{\exists{y}.}{{\exists{z}.}{y\land z}}}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.} x\vdash{\exists{y}.}{{\exists{z}.}{y\land z}}}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
\qtand
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{x\vdash\top}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.} x\vdash\top}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}$$
- the strategies $\eta^{OP}$ and $\varepsilon^{OP}$ are the respective interpretations of the proofs $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{\top\vdash x\lor(x\lor\top)}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{\top\vdash{\exists{y}.}{x\lor y}}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{\top\vdash{\forall{x}.}{{\exists{y}.}{x\lor y}}}{{{\text{($\forall$-R)}}}}
\qtand
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{x\land(x\land\bot)\vdash\bot}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{{\forall{y}.}{x\land y}\vdash\bot}{{{\text{($\forall$-L)}}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.}{{\forall{y}.}{x\land y}}\vdash\bot}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}$$
- the strategies $\gamma^P$ and $\gamma^{OP}$ are the respective interpretations of the proofs $$\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{x\land y\vdash x\land y}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{x\land y\vdash{\exists{t}.}{t\land y}}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{x\land y\vdash{\exists{z}.}{{\exists{t}.}{t\land z}}}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{{\exists{y}.}{x\land y}\vdash{\exists{z}.}{{\exists{t}.}{t\land z}}}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.}{{\exists{y}.}{x\land y}}\vdash{\exists{z}.}{{\exists{t}.}{t\land z}}}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
\qtand
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\inferrule{
\null
}
{x\land z\vdash x\land z}{{\text{(Ax)}}}
}
{x\land z\vdash{\exists{t}.}{t\land z}}{{{\text{($\exists$-R)}}}}
}
{{\forall{y}.}{x\land y}\vdash{\exists{t}.}{t\land z}}{{{\text{($\forall$-L)}}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.}{{\forall{y}.}{x\land y}}\vdash{\exists{t}.}{t\land z}}{{{\text{($\exists$-L)}}}}
}
{{\exists{x}.}{{\forall{y}.}{x\land y}}\vdash{\forall{z}.}{{\exists{t}.}{t\land z}}}{{{\text{($\forall$-R)}}}}$$
- etc.
A given strategy is not necessarily the interpretation of a unique proof. In particular, as explained in the introduction, two proofs which only differ by the order of introduction of some successive connectives are identified in the semantics.
In the preceding proof, we could of course have taken the set of all pairs of propositions as set ${\text{\emph{Ax}}}$ of axioms. The set that we have used shows however that our definability result can be obtained with a reasonable set of axioms: it is in particular *coherent*, which means that there exists a sequent which cannot be proved (the sequent $\top\vdash\bot$ for example), which would not have been the case with the trivial set of axioms.
Conclusion
==========
We have constructed a game semantics for first-order propositional logic and given a presentation of the category ${\mathbf{Games}}$ of games and definable strategies. This has revealed the essential structure of causality induced by quantifiers as well as provided technical tools to show definability and composition of strategies.
We consider this work much more as a starting point to bridge semantics and algebra than as a final result. The methodology presented here seems to be very general and many tracks remain to be explored.
First, we would like to extend the presentation to a game semantics for richer logic systems, containing connectives (such as conjunction or disjunction). Whilst we do not expect essential technical complications, this case is much more difficult to grasp and manipulate, since a presentation of such a semantics would have generators up to dimension 3: games would be modeled as trees of connectives and strategies as “surface diagrams” between these trees. It would be particularly interesting to do this for the multiplicative fragment of linear logic (MLL) with first-order quantifiers since it would provide us with a local reformulation of the Danos-Regnier criterion for MLL extended with the MIX rule (this is hinted in Remark \[rem:ll-acyclicity\]).
Some of the proofs (such as the proof of Lemma \[lemma:mrel-precan\]) are very repetitive, which we think is a good point: we believe that they could be mechanically checked or automated. It turns out that it is quite difficult to find a good representation of morphisms in monoidal categories, which is suitable for a computer to manipulate them without having to handle complex congruences such as the exchange law. We have proposed such a representation as well as an unification algorithm for monoidal rewriting systems [@mimram:rta10], but many properties and generalizations of these techniques remain to be investigated in order to have really useful tools. Formulated in categorical terms this amounts to generalize term rewriting techniques from Lawvere theories (which are categories with products, thus monoidal categories, thus 2-categories with one object) to the general setting of 2-categories. In particular, it would also be interesting to know whether it is possible to orient the equalities in the presentations in order to obtain strongly normalizing rewriting systems for the algebraic structures described in the paper. Such rewriting systems are given in [@lafont:boolean-circuits], for monoids and commutative monoids, etc., but for example finding a strongly normalizing rewriting system presenting the theory of bialgebras is a difficult problem [@mimram:phd], not to mention a strongly normalizing presentation of our category of games. Such a presentation would have a very high number of critical pairs which makes us see the development of automated tools to compute them a necessary preliminary step.
Finally, there is a striking analogy between the string diagrams we have used and wires in electronic circuits. This is actually one of the starting point of the current work of Ghica (as well as game semantics), who is currently elaborating a compiler from a high-level language into integrated circuits [@ghica:geometry-synthesis]. The categorical string-diagrammatic axioms reveal to be crucial in this setting in order to establish designing principles for the circuits. Following this point of view, we believe that a deep understanding of the algebraic structure of categories of semantics of programming languages will prove very useful in order to design and optimize circuits implementing programs in these languages.
#### Acknowledgments.
I would like to thank Martin Hyland and Paul-André Melliès, as well as John Baez, Albert Burroni, Jonas Frey, Yves Guiraud, Yves Lafont, François Métayer and Luke Ong, for the lively discussion we had, during which I learned so much; I also thank the anonymous referee for valuable suggestions.
[^1]: This work was has been supported by the CHOCO (“Curry Howard pour la Concurrence”, ) French ANR project.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We obtain a lower bound on the number of quadratic Dirichlet L-functions over the rational function field which vanish at the central point $s = 1/2$. This is in contrast with the situation over the rational numbers, where a conjecture of Chowla predicts there should be no such L-functions. The approach is based on the observation that vanishing at the central point can be interpreted geometrically, as the existence of a map to a fixed abelian variety from the hyperelliptic curve associated to the character.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin\
480 Lincoln Drive, Madison, Wisconsin, 53706 USA\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- Wanlin Li
title: ' Vanishing of Hyperelliptic L-functions at the Central Point'
---
[ ]{}
Introduction
============
S. Chowla conjectured in [@Chowla] that, for any real non-principal Dirichlet character $\chi$, $L(s,\chi) \neq 0$ for all $s \in (0,1)$. In particular, his conjecture asserts that L-functions of quadratic characters never vanish at the central point $s = 1/2$.
Although this conjecture is still open, much progress has been made. K. Soundararajan [@Soundararajan] proved that at least $87.5 \% $ of odd squarefree positive integers $d$ have the property $L(1/2,\chi_{8d}) \neq 0$ where $\chi_{8d}$ denotes the quadratic character with conductor $8d$.
In this paper, we consider the analogue of Chowla’s conjecture obtained by replacing the field of rational numbers with the field of rational functions over a finite field.
Let $q = p^e$ be a power of an odd prime $p$ and $\mathbb{F}_q$ the finite field with $q$ elements. Let $k=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ denote the field of rational functions over $\mathbb{F}_q$. The primes of $k$ are represented by monic irreducible polynomials in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$ except the one prime at infinity.
A quadratic character of $k$ corresponds to a squarefree polynomial in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$. Explicitly, take $D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ to be a squarefree polynomial and $K = k(\sqrt{D})$ the quadratic extension of $k$ by joining $\sqrt{D}$. Then we can define a quadratic character $\chi_D$ as follows:
For $P$ a prime of $k$, $$\chi_D(P) = \begin{cases}
1& \text{$P$ splits in $K$}\\
-1& \text{$P$ is inert in $K$}\\
0& \text{$P$ ramifies in $K$}\\
\end{cases}$$
We define the L-function associated to $\chi_D$ as $$L(s, \chi_D) = \prod_{P}(1 - \chi_D(P)|P|^{-s})^{-1}$$ where the product is taken over the primes represented by polynomials $P$ and $|P| = q ^ {deg P}$.
\[DefinePN\] Define sets: $$\begin{aligned}
P(N)& = \{ D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t] : D \text{ monic, squarefree, } |D|<N \}\\
g(N)& = \{ D \in P(N) : L(1/2, \chi_D) = 0 \}.
\end{aligned}$$
Note that in the definition above, we have restricted ourselves to characters corresponding to monic squarefree polynomials which is half of all quadratic characters. But since we only study the density in this paper, such restriction won’t affect our results.
Under this definition, the analogue of Chowla’s conjecture states that $g(N)$ is empty for any $N$. There are some results towards this statement.
Bui and Florea [@BF] showed for a fixed finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ with odd characteristic, as $N \rightarrow \infty $, $$|g(N)| \ll 0.057N + o(1)$$ where $N=q^{2n+1}$ for some $n>0$.
The purpose of this paper is to show that the analogue of Chowla’s conjecture over $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ is not correct and to give a lower bound on the number of counterexamples with bounded height.
\[MainThm\] Let $q=p^e$ and let $g(N)$ be the set defined in Definition \[DefinePN\]. For any $\epsilon >0$, there exist nonzero constants $B_\epsilon$ and $N_\epsilon$, such that
1. when $e$ is even, $|g(N)|\geq B_\epsilon \cdot N^{1/2 - \epsilon} $ for $N > N_\epsilon$.
2. when $e$ is odd and $q \ne 3$, $|g(N)|\geq B_\epsilon \cdot N^{1/3 - \epsilon} $ for $N > N_\epsilon$.
3. when $q = 3$, $|g(N)|\geq B_\epsilon \cdot N^{1/5 - \epsilon} $ for $N > N_\epsilon$.
In particular, as $N \rightarrow \infty$, $|g(N)|$ approaches infinity.
**Outline of paper.** In section 2, we give a geometric interpretation for the vanishing of a quadratic L-function at the central point. In section 3, we show a lower bound on the number of hyperelliptic curves which admit a dominant map to some fixed curve. In section 4, we describe an application of our main theorem to give a lower bound on the number of elliptic curves with elevated ranks in certain quadratic twist families. In section 5, we provide the proof of Theorem \[MainThm\]. In section 6, we present some of the data we collected using Magma on this problem.
**Acknowledgments.** I would like to thank my advisor Jordan Ellenberg for bringing this problem to me and his guidance during my work. I would like to thank Dima Arinkin and Melanie Matchett Wood for useful conversations on the subject matter of this paper. I want to also thank Alexandra Florea and Solly Parenti for reading the earlier draft and giving valuable feedbacks. This work was partially supported by NSF-DMS grant 1700884.
Geometric Interpretation of Vanishing at the Central Point
==========================================================
Let $D$ be a monic squarefree polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_q$. Then $y^2 = D$ is a hyperelliptic curve defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ which we denote by $C$ from now on. The field $K = k(\sqrt{D})$ as defined before is the function field of $C$.
Let $P(x) \in \mathbb{Z}[x] $ be the characteristic polynomial of geometric Frobenius acting on the Jacobian $J(C)$.
Then we get $$P(q^{-s})=(1-q^{-s})^{\lambda_D}L(s, \chi_D)$$ where $$\lambda_D = \begin{cases}
1& \deg D \text{ even}\\
0& \deg D \text{ odd}\\
\end{cases}$$
By the Riemann Hypothesis for curves over finite fields, we have a factorization $$P(x) = \prod_{j=1}^{2g}(1-x \pi_j)$$ where $g$ is the genus of $C$ and $\pi_j$ an algebraic integer with $|\pi_j| = q^{1/2}$ under every complex embedding.
The following lemma is now immediate.
\[geometry\] Let $D$ be a monic squarefree polynomial in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$ and $\chi_D$ be the quadratic character associated to $D$. Let $C$ be the hyperelliptic curve defined by $y^2 = D$, $P \in \mathbb{Z}[x]$ the characteristic polynomial of geometric Frobenius acting on the Jacobian of $C$ and $\pi_1, \ldots , \pi_{2g}$ the eigenvalues of this action. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- $L(1/2,\chi_D) = 0$.
- $P(q^{-1/2}) = 0$.
- $\pi_j = q^{1/2} \text{ for some } j$.
Algebraic integers with all Archimedean absolute values equal to $q^{1/2}$ are called Weil integers. The theorem of Honda–Tate states every Weil integer is an eigenvalue of the geometric Frobenius acting on some simple abelian variety over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\[HondaTate\] Let $A$ be an abelian variety defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ and $\pi_A$ an eigenvalue of the geometric Frobenius endomorphism of $A$. The map $A \mapsto \pi_A $ defines a bijection between the $\mathbb{F}_q$-isogeny classes of abelian varieties defined and simple over $\mathbb{F}_q$ and Galois conjugacy classes of Weil integers.
In particular, Honda–Tate guarantees the existence and uniqueness of an isogeny class of simple abelian varieties over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $q^{1/2}$ being an eigenvalue of the Frobenius. We denote a representative of this class by $A_q$.
Now we want to find hyperelliptic curves whose Jacobians have $q^{1/2}$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue. Any curve $C$ with a nonconstant map to $A_q$ has $A_q$ as an isogeny quotient of $J(C)$, which implies $C$ has $q^{1/2}$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue. A theorem of Tate guarantees the converse also holds.
\[Tate\] Let $A$ and $B$ be abelian varieties defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ and let $f_A$, $f_B \in \mathbb{Z}[T]$ be characteristic polynomials of geometric Frobenius on $A$ and $B$. Then the following are equivalent:
- $B$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-isogenous to a sub-abelian variety of $A$;
- $f_B \mid f_A$ in $\mathbb{Q}[T]$.
\[subvariety\] Let $C$ be a hyperelliptic curve defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$, then $q^{1/2}$ is an eigenvalue for geometric Frobenius acting on $J(C)$ if and only if $A_q$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-isogenous to a sub-abelian variety of $J(C)$.
By the theorem of Honda–Tate, there is a unique isogeny class of simple abelian varieties over $\mathbb{F}_q$ having $q^{1/2}$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue, i.e. the class containing $A_q$. Since $J(C)$ can be decomposed up to isogeny uniquely as products of simple abelian varieties over $\mathbb{F}_q$, by the theorem of Tate, $q^{1/2}$ being a Frobenius eigenvalue for $J(C)$ is equivalent to $J(C)$ having a simple factor isogenous to $A_q$.
\[map\] $L(1/2, \chi_D) = 0$ if and only if the hyperelliptic curve $C: y^2 = D$ admits a nontrivial map to $A_q$.
By Lemma \[geometry\] and Proposition \[subvariety\], $L(1/2,\chi_D)=0$ if and only if $A_q$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-isogenous to a sub-abelian variety of $J(C)$.
Thus, equivalently there is a dominant map $J(C) \rightarrow A_q$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
And as long as we have a map $C \rightarrow J(C)$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ such that the image doesn’t lie in any coset of the kernel of the projection to $A_q$, the composition gives a nonconstant morphism from $C$ to $A_q$.
To construct such a map, we just need to take the canonical class $\omega_C$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
C& \rightarrow J(C) \\
P& \mapsto (2g-2)P-\omega_C
\end{aligned}$$
Then the image of $C \left( \overline{\mathbb{F}}_q \right) $ under this map generates $J(C)$ as a group. Thus it is not contained in the kernel of $J(C) \rightarrow A_q$ and intersect the kernel non-trivially. This shows the existence of a nontrivial map from $C$ to $A_q$.
Conversely, if there exists a nontrivial map from $C$ to $A_q$, it factors through the Albanese variety of $C$ which is the dual abelian variety of $J(C)$. Since Jacobian varieties are self-dual, this induces a nontrivial map from $J(C)$ to $A_q$. Since $A_q$ is $\mathbb{F}_q$-simple, this map is surjective. This implies that the map from $C$ to $A_q$ is surjective as desired.
Proposition \[map\] supplies a geometric condition equivalent to our algebraic statement $L(1/2, \chi_D) = 0$. All we need is to use this geometric condition to construct desired polynomials $D$.
Maps Between Hyperelliptic Curves
=================================
In this section, we prove the following result which provides a lower bound for the number of hyperelliptic curves of bounded genus covering a fixed hyperelliptic curve over a finite field of odd characteristic.
\[MainProp\] Let $C_0$ be a hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ where $q$ is odd. Assume the existence of a defining equation of $C_0$ as $y^2=f(x)$ where $\deg f = 2g+2$ and $f$ is reducible or $\deg f=2g+1$ and $f$ need not to be reducible. Then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exist positive constants $B_\epsilon$ and $N_\epsilon$ such that the number of polynomials $D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ satisfying
- $|D| < N$
- Curve $C : s^2 = D(t)$ admits a dominant map to $C_0$
is at least $B_\epsilon \cdot N^{\frac{1}{g+1} - \epsilon}$ for $N>N_\epsilon$.
The restriction on the form of the defining equation of $C_0$ is only used for the proof of Proposition \[MainProp\]. Lemma \[CtoE\] and \[C1toC2\] hold for general hyperelliptic curves.
The proposition is based on two lemmas relating maps between hyperelliptic curves to maps from $\mathbb{P}^1$ to $\mathbb{P}^1$. The treatment is slightly different when the base curve is an elliptic curve and when the base curve has higher genus, we treat the two cases separately, in Lemma \[CtoE\] and Lemma \[C1toC2\] respectively.
\[CtoE\] Let ${\varphi}: C \rightarrow E $ be a dominant map from a hyperelliptic curve to an elliptic curve over a field $k$ where char $k \ne 2$. Let $C/ \iota_C$ be the degree $2$ map from $C$ to $\mathbb{P}^1$ induced by the hyperelliptic involution and $E/ [-1]$ be the degree $2$ map from $E$ to $\mathbb{P}^1$ induced by the elliptic involution. Then there exists a dominant map $\psi :C \rightarrow E $ together with a map $ h(x) : \mathbb{P}^1 \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ and a point $R \in E(k)$ such that the following diagram commutes.
$$\begin{tikzcd}
C \arrow{r}[above]{C/ \iota_C} \arrow{d}{2{\varphi}} \arrow[bend right]{dd}[left]{\psi}
& \mathbb{P}^1 \arrow[dd,dotted, "h"] \\
E \arrow[d, "+R"]\\
E \arrow{r}[above]{E/ [-1]}
& \mathbb{P}^1
\end{tikzcd}$$
Take any point $P$ on $C$ and denote $\overline{P} = \iota_C(P)$; then $P + \overline{P}$ is linearly equivalent to $P' + \overline{P'}$ for any point $P'$ on $C$.
We have $${\varphi}(P)+{\varphi}(\overline{P}) = {\varphi}(P') + {\varphi}(\overline{P'}) = R$$ where $R$ is a $k$-point of $E$.
Define $\psi$ by the rule $\psi(P) = 2{\varphi}(P)-R$.
Thus $$\psi (P) + \psi (\overline{P}) = 2 {\varphi}(P) - R + 2{\varphi}(\overline{P}) - R =O$$ which means it is equivariant for the two involutions as desired.
\[C1toC2\] Let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be hyperelliptic curves with genus greater than $1$ over a field $k$ where char $k \ne 2$. Let $\psi : C_1 \rightarrow C_2$ be a dominant map from $C_1$ to $C_2$. Then there exists a rational function $h$ over $k$ such that the following diagram commutes:
$$\begin{tikzcd}
C_1 \arrow{r}[above]{C_1/ \iota_1} \arrow{d}{\psi}
& \mathbb{P}^1 \arrow[d,dotted, "h"] \\
C_2 \arrow{r}[above]{C_2/ \iota_2}
& \mathbb{P}^1
\end{tikzcd}$$
where $\iota_1$ and $\iota_2$ are the hyperelliptic involutions on $C_1$ and $C_2$.
Let $C$ be a hyperelliptic curve of genus greater than $1$ and let $W$ be a Weierstrass point of $C$.Then the fiber over $2W$ in $\operatorname{Pic}^2(C)$ of the natural map $\operatorname{Sym}^2(C) \rightarrow \operatorname{Pic}^2(C)$ is given by divisors of form $P+\overline{P}$ where $\overline{P}$ denotes the image of $P$ under the hyperelliptic involution.
Note that for an elliptic curve, every point is Weierstrass and thus $2W$ doesn’t specify a unique divisor class in $\operatorname{Pic}^2(C)$.
Thus considering $\psi$ induces a map from $\operatorname{Pic}^2(C_2)$ to $\operatorname{Pic}^2(C_1)$, a pair of conjugate points on $C_1$ get mapped to a pair of conjugate points on $C_2$.
\[Tofunctionfield\] There exists a dominant map from a hyperelliptic curve $C: s^2 = D(t)$ where $D(t) \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ to a hyperelliptic curve $C_0: y^2 = f(x)$ where $f(x) \in \mathbb{F}_q[x]$ if and only if the quadratic twist $Dy^2 = f(x)$ has a nontrivial rational point $(x_0,y_0)$ over $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$.
By the previous two lemmas \[CtoE\] and \[C1toC2\], if a dominant map exists, $C$ has a defining equation of the form $ s^2 = f(h(t))$ for some rational function $h(t)$ in $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$. Thus, there exists $p(t) \in \mathbb{F}_q(t)$ such that $$D(p(t))^2 = f(h(t))$$ which is saying $$(x_0,y_0)=(h(t),p(t))$$ satisfies $$Dy_0^2=f(x_0).$$
On the other hand, if there exists a point $(x_0,y_0)$ on the curve defined by $Dy^2 = f(x)$, then we have a dominant map $(t,s) \mapsto (x_0,y_0s)$ from $C$ to $C_0$.
From Proposition \[Tofunctionfield\], our question about squarefree polynomials $D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ with curve defined by $s^2=D(t)$ admitting a dominant map to a hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$ defined by $y^2 =f(x)$ is exactly the same as asking for nontrivial solutions of the equation $Dy^2=f(x)$ over the function field $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$.
Let $$h(t) = u(t) / v(t) \in \mathbb{F}_q(t),$$ where $u(t)$, $v(t) \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ and $ p(t) \in \mathbb{F}_q(t)$.
If we have $Dp^2= f(h)$, then we get $$Dp^2v^{2g+2} = v^{2g+2}f(u/v) \in \mathbb{F}_q(t)[u,v]$$ which is a degree $2g+2$ homogeneous polynomial in $u,v$ and is denoted by $F(u,v)$ from now on.
Thus $D$ is the squarefree part of $F(u,v)$ in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]^* / (\mathbb{F}_q[t]^*)^2$ for some $u,v \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ and we can give a bound on the number of $D$ by estimating the number of squarefree values taken by $F(u,v)$.
The main tool in our lower bound is a theorem of Poonen showing that squarefree polynomials over a localization of a polynomial ring take many squarefree values.
\[poonen\](Poonen [@Poonen])\
Let $P$ be a finite set of primes in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$, $A$ be the localization of $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$ by inverting the primes in $P$, $K = \mathbb{F}_q(t)$, $f \in A[x_1, \ldots , x_m]$ be a polynomial that is squarefree as an element of $K[x_1, \ldots , x_m]$ and for a choice of $x \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]^m$, we say that $f(x)$ is squarefree in $A$ if $(f(x))$ is a product of distinct primes in $A$. For $a \in A$, define $|a| = |A/a|$ and for $a \in A^n$, define $ |a| = \max{|a_i|}$. Let $$S_f := \{ x \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]^m : f(x) \text{ is squarefree in } A \}$$ and $$\mu_{S_f} := \lim\limits_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|\{ a \in S_f : |a|<N \}|}{N^m}$$ For each nonzero prime $ p$ of $A $, let $c_p$ be the number of $ x \in ( A / p^2 )^m $ that satisfy $f(x) = 0$ in $ A / p^2 $.
Then the limit $\mu_{S_f}$ exists and is equal to $ \prod_{p}(1-c_p / |p|^{2m})$.
This proposition follows Theorem 8.1 of [@Poonen] by setting the “box” to be $\{ u,v \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]: |u|,|v|<N \}$.
\[defineA\] Proposition \[poonen\] only helps us if $\mu_{S_f}>0$. In order to ensure this, it suffices to check that none of the factors $(1-c_p / |p|^{2m})$ is zero where we take $m=2$ for our case.
If for some prime $\pi$ in $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$, $1-c_\pi / |\pi|^{4}=0$, then this means $F(u,v) \mod \pi^2$ vanishes for all $ (u,v) \in (\mathbb{F}_q[t])^2$. Thus $F(u,v) \mod \pi$ vanishes for all $ (u,v) \in (\mathbb{F}_q[t]/\pi)^2$. Since the coefficients of $F$ are units in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$, $F \mod \pi$ is not the zero polynomial. This implies it can at most have $\deg F |\mathbb{F}_q[t]/\pi|$ solutions over $\mathbb{F}_q[t]/\pi$. So $$\deg F |\mathbb{F}_q[t]/\pi| \ge |\mathbb{F}_q[t]/\pi|^2$$ which is equivalent to $\deg F \ge |\pi|$.
Thus, we choose $P_f$ be the set of primes $P$ of $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ such that $|P| < n $. Let $A$ be the localization of $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$ by inverting primes in $P_f$. This implies $1-c_p / |p|^{4} \ne 0$ for any prime $p$ in $A$. So is their product.
We now have all the tools we need for the proof of Proposition \[MainProp\].
Let $y^2=f(x)$ be the defining equation for $C_0$ stated in the Proposition. Fix a factorization of $f(x)$ as follows:
If $\deg f = 2g+2$, then by the condition of the proposition, $f$ is squarefree and reducible. Fix a nontrivial factorization $f=f_1f_2$ where $\gcd(f_1,f_2)=1$.
If $\deg f = 2g+1$, let the the factorization $f=f_1f_2$ be the trivial one where $f_1=f$ and $f_2=1$.
Let $n=2g+2$. Given $u,v \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$, define $F(u,v) = v^{n}f(u/v)$ which is a squarefree homogeneous polynomial in $\mathbb{F}_q[t][u,v]$. Then the factorization of $f$ induces a natural factorization $F=F_1F_2$ where $$F_1(u,v)=v^{\deg f_1}f_1(u/v)$$ $$F_2(u,v)=v^{n - \deg f_1}f_2(u/v).$$
Recall Definition \[DefinePN\] $$P(N) = \{ D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t] : D \text{ monic, squarefree, } |D|<N \}$$
Define set $$G(N) = \{ D\in P(N) : \text{curve } y^2 = D \text{ admits a dominant map to } C_0 \}$$
Let the set $A$ be defined as in Remark \[defineA\]. Suppose $u$ and $v$ are elements of $ \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ such that $F(u,v)$ is squarefree in $A$, take $D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ to be the squarefree part of $F(u,v)$ in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$; then the curve $Dy^2=f(x)$ has a point $(u/v,a/v^{n/2})$ over $K=\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ where $a$ is a unit in $A$. By Proposition \[Tofunctionfield\], this implies curve $y^2 = D$ admits a dominant map to $C_0$.
For pairs $(u,v)$ with $ |u|, |v| < N^{1/n}$, we get $|F(u,v)| < N$.
Thus, we can define a subset of $G(N)$ as: $$G'(N) = \{D \in P(N): \exists u,v \in \mathbb{F}_q[t], |u|,|v|<N^{1/n} \text{ and } F(u,v)=a^2D \}$$ where $a$ is a unit in $A$.
Define set $W(N)$ as follows: $$W(N) = \{ (u,v) \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]:F(u,v) \text{ squarefree in } A, |u|,|v|<N^{1/n} \}.$$
We have an explicit surjective map from $W(N)$ to $G'(N)$. $${\varphi}: (u,v) \mapsto D$$ where $D$ is the squarefree part of $F(u,v)$ in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$.
By Proposition \[poonen\], $$\lim\limits_{N \rightarrow \infty}\frac{|W(N)|}{N^{2/ n}} \gg \mu_{S_f} >0$$
Now to give a lower bound on the size of $G'(N)$, we need to give an upper bound on the size of each fiber of ${\varphi}$.
For each fixed $D \in G'(N)$, want to count pairs $(u,v)$ with $F(u,v) = a^2 D$ for some unit $a$. Since $F=F_1 F_2$, for each $a$, there exist decompositions $D_1 D_2 = a^2D$ such that $$F_1(u,v)=D_1$$ $$F_2(u,v)=D_2$$ By construction, we have that $F_1$ and $F_2$ are coprime. So there are fewer than $n^2$ solutions for each pair of equations by Bezout’s theorem and there are at most $d(a^2D)$ such decompositions for each $a$ where $d(a^2D)$ denotes the number of factors of $a^2D$ in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$.
For each $(u,v) \in W(N)$, $|F(u,v)| \le N$. Thus, we can give an upper bound for $d(a^2D)$ by letting $c(N) = \max \{ d(X) : X \in \mathbb{F}_q[t], |X|<N \}$.
For each fixed $D \in G'(N)$, the size of ${\varphi}^{-1}(D)$ is bounded above by $n^2 c(N)$.
Then for any $N$, $$|G'(N)| \geq \frac{|W(N)|}{n^2c(N)}$$
Since $d(X) < |X|^\epsilon$ for any $\epsilon>0$ and $X \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ when $|X|$ is sufficiently large, we get $$|G(N)| \geq |G'(N)| \geq \frac{|W(N)|}{n^2c(N)} \gg \frac{\mu_{S_f}}{c_\epsilon} N^{2/ n - \epsilon}$$ where $c_\epsilon$ is a constant depending on $\epsilon$.
A View Toward Ranks of Elliptic Curves
======================================
We start by recalling some standard definitions.
An elliptic curve $E$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ is constant if it can be defined by a Weierstrass form with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_q$.
An elliptic curve $E$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ is isotrivial if there is a finite extension $L$ of $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ such that $E$ becomes constant over $L$. Equivalently, $E$ is isotrivial if and only if $j(E) \in \mathbb{F}_q $.
Let $E_0$ be an elliptic curve over $k =\mathbb{F}_q$. Let $K$ be the function field $k(C)$ of a curve $C$ over $k$. Let $E_K = E_0 \times_k K$.
There is a canonical isomorphism $$E_K(K) \cong \operatorname{Mor}_k(C,E_0)$$ where $\operatorname{Mor}_k$ denotes morphisms of $k$-schemes. Under this isomorphism, $E_K(K)_{tor}$ corresponds to the subgroup of constant morphisms.
Let $J(C)$ be the Jacobian of $C$. Then we have canonical isomorphisms of abelian groups $$E_K(K)/(E_K(K))_{tor} \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{k-av}(J(C),E_0) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{k-av}(E_0,J(C))$$ where $\operatorname{Hom}_{k-av}$ denotes morphisms of abelian varieties over $k$.
Let $E = E_0 \times \mathbb{F}_q(t)$ be a constant elliptic curve over $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$. For any $D\in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$, let $E_D$ denote the quadratic twist of $E$ by $D$. Let $P(N)$ be the set $\{ D\in \mathbb{F}_q[t]: \text{ monic,} \text{ squarefree, } |D|<N \}$ as in Definition \[DefinePN\]. Let $R_m(N)$ be the set $\{ D\in P(N): \operatorname{rank}E_D \ge m \}$.
Then for any $\epsilon >0$, there exist nonzero constants $B_\epsilon$ and $N_\epsilon$ such that $$|R_2(N)| \ge B_\epsilon N^{1/2 - \epsilon}$$ for any $N>N_\epsilon$.
Moreover, if the rank of $ \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{F}_q}(E_0)$ is $4$, then we can replace $R_2(N)$ with $R_4(N)$ and the conclusion still holds.
By Prop 3.1, for any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a nonzero constant $B_\epsilon$ such that at least $B_\epsilon N^{1/2 - \epsilon}$ hyperelliptic curves $y^2 = D$ with $|D|<N$ admit a dominant map to $E_0$ when $N$ is large.
By Proposition 4.2, Corollary 4.3 and Poincaré complete reducibility [@Ulmer], for such $D$, rank $E_D \geq$ rank $\operatorname{End}(E_0)$.
Since our ground field is of positive characteristic, the endomorphism ring of $E_0$ has rank $2$ or $4$.
Let $E = E_0 \times \mathbb{F}_q(t)$ be a constant elliptic curve over $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ where $E_0[2](\mathbb{F}_q) \ne O$. When $p \neq 2$, $q \neq 3,9$ and $a^2 - 4q \notin \{ -3,-4,-7 \}$ where $a$ is the trace of geometric Frobenius acting on the Tate module, we have the following.
Let $P(N) = \{ D\in \mathbb{F}_q[t]: \text{ monic,} \text{ squarefree, } |D|<N \}$.
Let $R_m(N)$ be the set $\{ D\in P(N): \text{rank } E_D \ge m \}$.
Then for any $\epsilon >0$, there exist nonzero constants $B_\epsilon$ and $N_\epsilon$ such that $$|R_4(N)| \geq B_\epsilon N^{1/3 - \epsilon}$$ for any $N>N_\epsilon$.
Moreover, if the rank of $ \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{F}_q}(E_0)$ is $4$, then we can replace $R_4$ with $R_8$ and the conclusion holds.
By [@Jacobian], we know when the conditions on $p$, $q$, $a^2-4q$ in the statement of the proposition are satisfied, there exists a Jacobian variety isogenous to $E_0 \times E_0$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$. This Jacobian variety corresponds to a genus $2$ curve $C$. We now show that $C$ has a defining equation that satisfies the condition for Proposition 3.1.
Let $y^2 = f(x)$ be a defining equation for $C$ and assume $\deg f = 6$.
Denote the roots of $f$ by $x_1, \ldots, x_6$. Then the $2$-torsion group of $J(C)$ is generated by divisors $(x_1,0)-(x_i,0)$ where $i=2,3,4,5$. Thus, using this basis, from the action on $x_1, \ldots, x_6$, we get the matrix representation of the Frobenius action on $J(C)[2] \simeq (\mathbb{F}_2)^4$. If Frobenius acts on the roots transitively, then the characteristic polynomial of the action on the $\mathbb{F}_2$ vector space is $x^4+x^2+1$.
Since we know the characteristic polynomial of Frobenius acting on the Tate module of $J(C)$ is $(1-ax+qx^2)^2$, we see that the action of Frobenius on $J(C_0)[2]$ has characteristic polynomial $x^4+1$ when $a$ is even. And $a$ is even if and only if condition $E_0[2](\mathbb{F}_q) \ne O$ holds. Thus Frobenius doesn’t act transitively on the Weierstrass points of curve $C$.
Since Frobenius doesn’t act transitively on the Weierstrass points of $C$, it has a defining equation of the form $y^2=f(x)$ where $f$ is not irreducible.
By Prop 3.1, for any $\epsilon>0$, at least $B_\epsilon N^{1/3-\epsilon}$ hyperelliptic curves $y^2 = D$ with $|D|<N$ admit a dominant map to this fixed genus $2$ curve when $N$ is sufficiently large.
For these $D$, rank $E_D \geq$ $2$ rank $End(E_0)$.
Since our ground field is of positive characteristic, $\operatorname{End}(E_0)$ has rank $2$ or $4$ which gives rank $4$ and $8$ for quadratic twists $E_D$.
From the geometric interpretation of L-functions, we know $L(1/2,\chi_D)=0$ if and only if there exists a dominant map from the hyperelliptic curve defined by $C: y^2=D$ to $E_0$. Using the statements above, this condition is equivalent to the quadratic twist of the constant elliptic curve $E_0 \times \mathbb{F}_q(t)$ by $D$ having positive rank.
More precisely, we have the following proposition.
\[prop:rankgivezeros\] For $q$ a square, let $E_0$ be an elliptic curve which admits $\sqrt{q}$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue.
Denote by $E$ the base change of $E_0$ to the function field $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$.
Denote by $E_D$ be the quadratic twist of $E$ by $D$ where $D$ is a squarefree polynomial in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$.
Recall the definitions $$\begin{aligned}
P(N)& = \{ D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t] : D \text{ monic, squarefree, } |D|<N \}\\
g(N)& = \{ D \in P(N) : L(1/2, \chi_D) = 0 \}
\end{aligned}$$
Let $R_m(N)$ be the set $\{ D\in P(N): \text{rank } E_D \ge m \}$.
Then $g(N)= R_2(N)$.
Let $D$ be a monic, squarefree polynomial in $\mathbb{F}_q[t]$ and $C$ the hyperelliptic curve defined by $y^2 = D$. Let $K$ be the function field $k(C)$ of $C$ and $E_K=E_0 \times_k K$.
Let $J(C)$ be the Jacobian of $C$. Assume that $J(C)$ is isogenous to $E_0^m \times A$ over $k$ where $A$ is an Abelian variety admitting no nonzero morphisms to $E_0$.
Then by Corollary 4.3, $E_K(K)/E_K(K)_{tor} \simeq (\operatorname{End}(E_0))^m$. Since $E_0$ is defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$, rank $\operatorname{End}(E_0)$ is at least 2; we conclude that rank $E_K \ge 2m$.
We have rank $E_K(K)$ $=$ rank $E_D(\mathbb{F}_q(t))$ $+$ rank $E(\mathbb{F}_q(t))$. But rank $E(\mathbb{F}_q(t))$ is always $0$ since $\mathbb{F}_q(t)$ is the function field of $\mathbb{P}^1$ and there is no nonconstant map from $\mathbb{P}^1$ to an elliptic curve.
Thus rank $E_D$ $=$ rank $E_K \ge 2m$ .
As was studied before, $L(1/2,\chi_D) = 0$ if and only if $C$ admits a dominant map to $E_0$. This is equivalent to $m > 0$ and rank $E_D \geq 2$.
Thus, by Prop 4.6, results on quadratic characters can be used to give lower bounds on the number of elliptic curves with rank $\geq 2$ in quadratic twist families of constant elliptic curves.
There are lots of heuristics and results on the study of ranks of elliptic curves in a quadratic twist family over number fields ([@Melanie], [@Mazur]). For example, with a fixed $E/ \mathbb{Q}$, let $d$ range over fundamental discriminants in $\mathbb{Z}$. Define set $$N(X) = \{ d<X: \text{rank}(E_d) \geq 2 \text{ and is even }\}$$ Then it is conjectured by Sarnak that $$\left|N(X)\right| = X^{3/4+o(1)}$$ Following Katz-Sarnak philosophy, Conrey, Keating, Rubinstein, and Snaith [@CKRS] made the previous conjecture more precise. They conjectured that there exist constants $c_E$, $e_E$ such that $$\left|N(X)\right| = (c_E+o(1))X^{3/4}(\ln(X))^{e_E}$$ Gouvêa and Mazur [@Gouvea] proved under the parity conjecture, for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists a constant $X_{\epsilon}$ such that for all $X \geq X_{\epsilon}$, $$\left|N(X)\right| > X^{1/2 - \epsilon}$$ In the same spirit, Karl Rubin and Alice Silverberg [@Rubin] showed unconditionally that if either
- $E[2]$ has a non-trivial Galois equivariant automorphism and $\operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{C}}(E) \ne \mathbb{Z}[i]$, or
- $E$ has a rational subgroup of odd prime order $p$ and $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-p}] \nsubseteq \operatorname{End}_{\mathbb{C}}(E)$.
one has, for $X \gg 1$, $$\left| \left\{ d<X: \text{rank}(E_d) \geq 2 \right\} \right| \gg X^{1/3}$$ They also showed the existence of a family of elliptic curves $E$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ such that $$\left| \left \{ d<X: \text{rank}(E_d) \geq 3 \right \}\right| \gg X^{1/6}$$ Goldfeld[@Goldfeld] conjectures that the average rank of quadratic twists of an elliptic curve is $1/2$ , to be more precise, $$\lim\limits_{X \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\sum_{|d|<X} \text{rank}(E_d)}{\left| \left \{d:|d|<X, \text{squarefree} \right \}\right|} = \frac{1}{2}$$ What underlies this conjecture is a widely held belief that $50 \%$ of the elliptic curves have rank $0$ and $50 \%$ have rank $1$. This is a combination of parity principle and minimalist philosophy.
In our case, the parity principle does not apply, since all the quadratic twists in our family have even rank.
Thus, we don’t expect the average rank of this family to approach $1/2$. But still, we would expect minimalist philosophy which means $0 \%$ of elliptic curves in this family have rank $\ge 2$.
And this expectation is supported by Bui and Florea’s result mentioned in the first section for the odd degree case.
For $q$ a square, let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\mathbb{F}_q$ where $$L(s,E) = 1-sq^{1/2-s} + q^{1-2s}.$$ Let $$P'(g) = \{ D\in \mathbb{F}_q[t]: \text{ monic,} \text{ squarefree,} \text{ of odd degree, } \deg D \leq 2g+1 \}.$$ $$R'(g) = \{ D\in P'(g): E_D \text{ has rank } 0 \}.$$ Then $$\lim\limits_{g \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|R'(g)|}{|P'(g)|} \geq 0.9427 \cdots + o(1) .$$
This follows from Prop \[prop:rankgivezeros\] and Corollary 2.1 of [@BF].
Proof of the Main Theorem
=========================
In this section, we will use Prop 3.1 as our main tool to prove the three statements of Theorem 1.2.
Following the theorem of Honda–Tate, when $q$ is a square, the simple Abelian varieties defined over $\mathbb{F}_q$ with $q^{1/2}$ being a Frobenius eigenvalue are elliptic curves. We will pick one such curve and call it $E$ with a Weierstrass form.
When $q$ is a square, $C : y^2 = D$ admits a dominant map to $E$ if and only if $L(1/2, \chi_D) = 0$.
By Proposition 3.1, since $E$ has genus $1$ with an odd defining equation, for any $\epsilon>0$, there are at least $B_\epsilon N^{1/2-\epsilon}$ polynomials with $|D|<N$ satisfying the condition where $B_\epsilon$ is a nonzero constant.
So we get for polynomials $D \in \mathbb{F}_q[t]$ with $|D|<N$, for any $\epsilon>0$, there are at least $B_\epsilon N^{1/2-\epsilon}$ which have the property that $L(1/2, \chi_D) = 0$ for $N$ large.
When $q$ is not a square, the simple $\mathbb{F}_q$ Abelian varieties with $q^{1/2}$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue form an isogeny class of Abelian surfaces. They are exactly the Weil restriction of scalars of the class of elliptic curves defined over $\mathbb{F}_{q^2}$ which have $q$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue.
By results of Howe, Nart and Ritzenthaler [@Jacobian], for all $q>3$, there is an abelian variety $A_q$ having $\sqrt{q}$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue which is the Jacobian of a smooth genus-2 curve. It will play the same role in this section as the elliptic curve $E$ for the case when $q$ is a square.
Now in this case, we still have that for a polynomial $D \in \mathbb{F}_q[x]$ to have $L(1/2, \chi_D) = 0$, $A_q$ is isogenous over $\mathbb{F}_q$ to a subabelian variety of the Jacobian of curve $C$ given by $y^2 = D$.
Unlike the previous case, a map $J(C) \rightarrow A_q$ won’t induce a map from $C$ to $C_0$.
However, the existence of a map $C \rightarrow C_0$ would guarantee $J(C_0) = A_q$ to be isogenous to a subabelian variety of $J(C)$.
In order to use Prop 3.1, we need $C_0$ to have a defining equation of the form $y^2=f(x)$ where $\deg f = 6$ and $f$ is reducible.
We will show that $C_0$ has such an equation for all $q$; that is, for each $q$ and each $C_0$ whose Jacobian is isogenous to $A_q$, the $q$-th Frobenius doesn’t act transitively on the Weierstrass points of $C_0$.
Denote the roots of $f$ by $x_1, \ldots, x_6$. Then the $2$-torsion group of $J(C_0)$ is generated by divisors $(x_1,0)-(x_i,0)$ where $i=2,3,4,5$. Thus, using this basis, from the action on $x_1, \ldots, x_6$, we get the matrix representation of the Frobenius action on $J(C_0)[2] \simeq (\mathbb{F}_2)^4$. If Frobenius acts on the roots transitively, then the characteristic polynomial of the action on the $\mathbb{F}_2$ vector space is $x^4+x^2+1$.
Since we know the characteristic polynomial of Frobenius acting on the Tate module of $J(C_0)$ is $x^4-2qx^2+q^4$, we see that the action of Frobenius on $J(C_0)[2]$ has characteristic polynomial $x^4+1$. Thus Frobenius doesn’t act transitively on the Weierstrass points.
Since Frobenius doesn’t act transitively on the Weierstrass points of $C_0$, it has a defining equation of the form $y^2=f(x)$ where $f$ is not irreducible. By applying Proposition 3.1, for any $\epsilon>0$, there are at least $B_\epsilon N^{1/3-\epsilon}$ polynomials with $|D|<N$ with the curve defined by $y^2=D$ admitting a dominant map to $C_0$ where $B_\epsilon$ is a nonzero constant.
We thus conclude that $g(N)$ is at least $B_\epsilon N^{1/3-\epsilon}$ for $N$ large.
We used Magma to go through all hyperelliptic curves defined by monic squarefree polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_3$ and found that the curve $C$ defined by $y^2 = x(x^8-1)$ admits $\sqrt{3}$ as a Frobenius eigenvalue. Since $C$ has an odd defining equation and is of genus $4$, by applying Proposition 3.1, we conclude for any $\epsilon>0$, at least $B_\epsilon N^{1/5-\epsilon}$ hyperelliptic curves admit a dominant map to $C$ where $B_\epsilon$ is a nonzero constant and $N$ is large.
Data and Remarks
================
To get a direct view of our main problem, we used Magma to list all monic squarefree polynomials up to a certain degree over some finite fields and evaluate the L-functions corresponding to the hyperelliptic curves defined by these polynomials at the central point to get a count on the ones with value $0$. We have listed the data over fields $\mathbb{F}_5$ and $\mathbb{F}_9$ in the following tables. For field $\mathbb{F}_3$, there was only one curve of genus $4$ given by a degree $9$ defining equation found during the enumeration for polynomials of degree up to $12$.
In the following tables, the first column is the degree $d$ of polynomials. Second column is the number of polynomials of degree $d$ whose corresponding L-function vanishes at $s=1/2$. The set of such polynomials is denoted as $g'(q^d)$. Note that the set $g(q^d)$ studied in the paper is the union of $g'(q^k)$ for all $k \le d$. The third column lists the total number of degree $d$ monic squarefree polynomials. The last column is the value ${log(g'(q^d))}/{log(q^d-q^{d-1})}$. By our main theorem, it has a $\liminf$ of at least $1/3$ for $\mathbb{F}_5$ and $1/2$ for $\mathbb{F}_9$ as $d \rightarrow \infty$.
[ |c|r|c|c|]{}\
Degree $d$ &$|g'(5^d)|$ &$5^d-5^{d-1}$ & $\frac{log(|g'(5^d)|)}{log(5^d-5^{d-1})}$\
3 & 0& 100 &\
4 & 0& 500 &\
5 & 1&2500&0\
6 & 0&12500&\
7 & 10&62500& 0.2085\
8 & 5&312500& 0.1272\
For degree $9$ and $10$, due to the large number of monic squarefree polynomials, we randomly sampled 5000000 data points for each and got the following data. The sample set is denoted by $S$. If we estimate the density $|g'(5^d)|/(5^d-5^{d-1})$ to be equal to the same density $|S \cap g'(5^d)|/|S|$, then we get an approximation for $\frac{log(|g'(5^d)|)}{log(5^d-5^{d-1})}$ which was put in the last column.
[ |c|r|c|c|]{}\
Degree $d$ &$ |S \cap g'(5^d)|$ & $|S|$ & $\frac{log(|g'(5^d)|)}{log(5^d-5^{d-1})}$\
9 & 317&5000000& 0.3222\
10 & 89&5000000&0.3109\
Over $\mathbb{F}_5$, we see there exists a genus $2$ curve defined by a degree $5$ polynomial with Frobenius eigenvalue $\sqrt{5}$. This polynomial is $x(x^4-1)$. Unlike hyperelliptic curves defined over larger fields, this curve doesn’t have an even degree model. That explains why there is no quadratic character with conductor $5^6$ whose L-function vanishes at $s=1/2$.
[ |c|r|c|c| ]{}\
Degree $d$ &$|g'(9^d)|$ &$9^d-9^{d-1}$ & $\frac{log(|g'(9^d)|)}{log(9^d-9^{d-1})}$\
3 & 6 & 648 & 0.2768\
4 & 18 & 5832 & 0.3333\
5 & 216 & 52488 &0.4946\
6 & 180 & 472392& 0.3975\
7 & 8658 & 4251528 & 0.5940\
Similarly,for degree $8$, $9$ and $10$, 5000000 data points for each were randomly sampled and we got the following data. The last column is the approximation gotten the same way as the case of field $\mathbb{F}_5$ listed above.
[ |c|r|c|c|]{}\
Degree $d$ &$ |S \cap g'(9^d)|$ & $|S|$ & $\frac{log(|g'(9^d)|)}{log(9^d-9^{d-1})}$\
8 & 2660& 5000000& 0.5682\
9 &3262& 5000000 & 0.6269\
10 & 532 & 5000000 & 0.5814\
From this table, we can see over $\mathbb{F}_9$, characters defined by odd degree polynomials are more likely to have their L-function vanish at $s=1/2$. Thus, what this data tells us is that hyperelliptic curves defined over $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}$ with a Frobenius eigenvalue $p$ is more likely to have a rational Weierstrass point.
One explanation for this phenomenon is the observation that elliptic curves defined over $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}$ with Frobenius eigenvalues $p$ and $p$ have full $2$ torsion group over $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}$. This is because the $p$th Frobenius acts on Tate module $T_l$ by multiplication by $p$; thus, if $p \equiv 1 \mod l$ then the action is trivial on $E[l]$. And this is equivalent to $l$-torsion points being defined over the ground field.
Thus the elliptic curve $E$ we used in the proof of Theorem 1.1 part 1 is defined by $y^2 = x(x-1)(x-\lambda)$ where $\lambda \in \mathbb{F}_q$. And the hyperelliptic curves $C$ which admit a dominant map to $E$ have defining equations of the form $y^2 = F(x) = u(x)(u(x)-v(x))(u(x)-\lambda v(x))v(x)$.
For $C$ to have a rational Weierstrass point is equivalent to $F(x)$ having a rational root. As we can see, instead of being a random polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_q$, $F(x)$ admits a factorization into four factors; this should increase the likelihood of its having an $\mathbb{F}_q$ rational root.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the infimum of the best constant in a functional inequality, the Brascamp-Lieb-like inequality, over auxiliary measures within a neighborhood of a product distribution. In the finite alphabet and the Gaussian cases, such an infimum converges to the best constant in a mutual information inequality. Implications for strong converse properties of two common randomness (CR) generation problems are discussed. In particular, we prove the strong converse property of the rate region for the omniscient helper CR generation problem in the discrete and the Gaussian cases. The latter case is perhaps the first instance of a strong converse for a continuous source when the rate region involves auxiliary random variables.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'ref\_om.bib'
title: 'Smoothing Brascamp-Lieb Inequalities and Strong Converses for Common Randomness Generation[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
In the last few years, information theory has seen vibrant developments in the study of the non-vanishing error probability regime, and in particular, the successes in applying normal approximations to gauge the back-off from the asymptotic limits as a function of delay. Extending the achievements for point-to-point communication systems in [@hayashi2009information][@polyanskiy2010channel][@kostina2012fixed] to network information theory problems usually requires new ideas for proving tight non-asymptotic bounds. For achievability, single-shot covering lemmas and packing lemmas [@verdu2012non][@liu_marton] supply convenient tools for distilling single-shot achievability bounds from the classical asymptotic achievability proofs. These single-shot bounds are easy to analyze in the stationary memoryless case by choosing the auxiliary random variables to be i.i.d. and applying the law of large numbers or the central limit theorem.
In contrast, there are few examples of single-shot converse bounds in the network setting. Indeed, unlike their achievability counterparts, single-shot converses are often non-trivial to single-letterize to a strong converse. In fact, there are few methods for obtaining strong converses for network information theory problems whose single-letter solutions involve auxiliaries; see e.g. [@CIT-086 Section 9.2 “Open problems and challenges ahead”]. Exceptions include the strong converses for select source networks [@csiszar2011information] where the method of types plays a pivotal role.
In this paper, through the example of a common randomness (CR) generation problem [@ahlswede1998common Theorem 4.2], we demonstrate the power of a functional inequality, the *Generalized Brascamp-Lieb-like (GBLL) inequality* [@lccv2015]: $$\begin{aligned}
\int\exp\left(\sum_{j=1}^m\mathbb{E}[\log f_j(Y_j)|X=\cdot]-d\right){\rm d}\mu
&\le \prod_{j=1}^m\|f_j\|_{\frac{1}{c_j}},
\label{e_func}\end{aligned}$$ in proving single-shot converses for problems involving multiple sources. Here $\mu$, $(Q_{Y_j|X})$, $(\nu_j)$, $(c_j)$, $d$ are given and $\|f_j\|_{\frac{1}{c_j}}:=\left(\int f_j^{1/c_j}{\rm d}\nu_j\right)^{c_j}$. The key tool for single-letterizing such single-shot converses to strong converses is the “achievability” of the following problem: infimize the best constant $d$ in with the substitutions $\mu\leftarrow \mu_n$, $\nu_j\leftarrow\nu_j^{\otimes n}$ and $Q_{Y_j|X}\leftarrow Q_{Y_j|X}^{\otimes n}$, where the auxiliary measure $\mu_n$ is within a neighborhood (say in total variation) of $\mu^{\otimes n}$. Interestingly, a product $\mu_n$ is generally not a good choice. On the surface, this is reminiscent of the smooth Rényi entropy [@renner2005simple], who showed that the infimum (resp. supremum) of the Rényi entropy of order $\alpha<1$ (resp. $\alpha>1$) of an auxiliary measure with a neighborhood of a product distribution behaves like the Shannon entropy. In reality, the smooth version of GBLL appears to be a much deeper problem, since structure at a finer resolution than weak typicality is involved.
The general philosophy appears to be that under certain regularity conditions, $\frac{d}{n}$ (where $d$ is the best constant in the setting of product measures and smoothing above) converges to the best constant in a mutual information inequality. We provide a general approach for verifying this principle, and apply it to the discrete memoryless and the Gaussian source. When this principle holds, our single-shot converse proves the strong converse for the CR generation problem.
The proposed approach to strong converses has two main advantages compared with the method of types approach in [@csiszar2011information], which are nicely illustrated by the example of CR generation: 1) The argument covers possibly stochastic decoders. 2) As illustrated by the Gaussian example, the approach is applicable to some non-discrete sources where the method of types is futile. This is perhaps the first instance of a strong converse for a continuous source when the rate region involves auxiliaries. We also refine the analysis to bound the second order rate.
In addition, we discuss the “converse” part of smooth BLL, which generally follows from the achievability of CR generation problems. In fact, smooth BLL and CR generation may be considered as dual problems where the achievability of one implies the converse of the other, and vice versa.[^2] It is also interesting to note that for hypercontractivity, which is a special case of the BLL inequality with the best constant being zero, Anantharam et al. [@anan_13] showed the equivalence between a relative entropy inequality and a mutual information inequality. This equivalence is lost for positive best constants. Thus smooth BLL is a conceptually satisfying way to regain the connection between these two inequalities.
Omitted proofs are given in the appendices of [@lccv_smooth2016].
Preliminaries
=============
\[defn1\] Given a nonnegative $\mu$ on $\mathcal{X}$, $\nu_j$ on $\mathcal{Y}_j$, and random transformations $Q_{Y_j|X}$, and $c_j\in(0,\infty)$, $j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{d}(\mu,(Q_{Y_j|X}),(\nu_j),c^m)
:=\sup\left\{\sum_{l=1}^m c_l D(P_{Y_l}\|\nu_j)-D(P_X\|\mu)\right\}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the sup is over $P_X\ll \mu$ and $P_X\to Q_{Y_j|X}\to P_{Y_j}$.
We shall abbreviate the notation in Definition \[defn1\] as $\operatorname*{d}(\mu,\nu_j,c^m)$ when there is no confusion.
Note that $\mu$ and $\nu_j$ are not necessarily probability measures, and $\mu\to Q_{Y_j|X}\to \nu_j$ need not hold. These liberties are useful, e.g. in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_gauss\]. Generalizing an approach in [@carlen2009subadditivity], we established the following [@lccv2015]:
\[prop\_func\] Under the assumptions of Definition \[defn1\], $\operatorname*{d}(\cdot)$ is the minimum $d$ such that holds for all nonnegative measurable functions $f_j$.
We call a *generalized Brascamp-Lieb-like inequality* (GBLL). The case of deterministic $Q_{Y_j|X}$ was considered in [@carlen2009subadditivity], which we shall call a *Brascamp-Lieb-like inequality* (BLL). In the special case where $Q_{Y_j|X}$’s are a linear projections and $\mu$ and $\nu_j$ are Gaussian or Lebesgue, is called a Brascamp-Lieb inequality; it is well-known that a Brascamp-Lieb inequality holds for a specific value of $d$ if and only if it holds for all Gaussian functions $(f_j)$ [@brascamp1976best].
For nonnegative measures $\nu$ and $\mu$ on the same measurable space $(\mathcal{X},\mathscr{F})$ and $\gamma\in[1,\infty)$, the $E_{\gamma}$ divergence is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\gamma}(\nu\|\mu):=\sup_{\mathcal{A}\in\mathscr{F}}
\{\nu(\mathcal{A})-\gamma \mu(\mathcal{A})\}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that under this definition $E_1(P\|\mu)$ does not equal $\frac{1}{2}|P-\mu|$ if $\mu$ is not a probability measure. Properties of $E_{\gamma}$ used in this paper can be found in [@liu2015_egamma_arxiv].
For $\delta\in[0,1)$, $Q_X$, $(Q_{Y_j|X})$ and $(\nu_j)$, define $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm d}_{\delta}(Q_X,\nu_j,c^m):= \inf_{\mu\colon E_1(Q_X\|\mu)\le \delta}{\rm d}(\mu,\nu_j,c^m).
\label{e_smoothconst}\end{aligned}$$ In the stationary memoryless case, define the *$\delta$-smooth GBLL rate*[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm D}_{\delta}(Q_X,\nu_j,c^m):=
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}{\rm d}_{\delta}(Q_X^{\otimes n},
\nu_j^{\otimes n},c^m),
\label{e6}\end{aligned}$$ and the *smooth GBLL rate* is the limit $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm D}_{0^+}(Q_X,\nu_j,c^m):=\lim_{\delta\downarrow0}{\rm D}_{\delta}(Q_X,\nu_j,c^m).\end{aligned}$$
Allowing unnormalized measures avoids the unnecessary step of normalization in the proof, and is in accordance with the literature on smooth Rényi entropy, where such a relaxation generally gives rise to nicer properties and tighter non-asymptotic bounds, cf. [@renner2005simple][@liu2015_egamma_arxiv].
\[defn\_dstar\] Given $Q_X$, $(Q_{Y_j|X})$ and $c^m\in(0,\infty)^m$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m):=\sup_{P_{U|X}}\left\{\sum_{l=1}^m c_l I(U;Y_l)-I(U;X)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ We say $Q_X$, $(Q_{Y_j|X})$ and $(c_j)$ satisfy the *$\delta$-smooth property* if $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm D}_{\delta}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)
=\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m),
\label{e_smooth}\end{aligned}$$ *(weak) smooth property* if ${\rm D}_{0^+}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)
=\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$, and *strong smooth property* if holds for all $\delta\in(0,1)$.
From these definitions and a tensorization property of $\operatorname*{d}(\cdot)$ [@lccv2015] we clearly have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{d}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)
={\rm D}_0(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)
&\ge {\rm D}_{\delta}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m).\end{aligned}$$ The goal is to explore conditions for ${\rm D}_{\delta}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)=\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$.
Achievabilities for Smooth GBLL
===============================
Under various conditions, we provide upper bounds on ${\rm D}_{\delta}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)$, establishing the achievability part of the strong smooth property.
Hypercontractivity {#sec_hypercontractivity}
------------------
If $\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)=0$, by an extension of the proof of equivalent formulations of hypercontractivity [@anan_13] we also have $
\operatorname*{d}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)=0
$, establishing that ${\rm D}_{0}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)=\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$.
Finite $|\mathcal{X}|$, and Beyond
----------------------------------
The main objective of this section is to show that
\[thm\_discrete\] ${\rm D}_{0^+}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)\le\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$ if $\mathcal{X}$ is finite.
We present a general method of proving achievability of smooth GBLL which, although not intuitive at the first sight, turns out to be successful for the distinct cases of the discrete and Gaussian sources. The following tensorization result is useful:
\[lem\_singleletter\] Suppose $\tau_{\alpha}\colon \mathcal{X}\to\mathbb{R}$ is measurable for each (abstract) index $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$. Fix any $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, and for each $n\in\{1,\dots\}$ define $g(n)$ as the supremum of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \left[
\sum_j c_j D(P_{Y^n|U}\|\nu_j^{\otimes n}|P_U)-D(P_{X^n|U}\|\mu^{\otimes n}|P_U)\right]
\label{e_f}\end{aligned}$$ over $P_{UX^n}$ such that $
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \tau_{\alpha}(\hat{X}_i)\right]\le\epsilon
$, where $\hat{X}^n\sim P_{X^n}$ and $P_{UX^nY^n}:=P_{UX^n}Q_{Y|X}^{\otimes n}$. Then $g(n)\le g(1)$.
The functions $\tau_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ can be thought of as (possibly negative) cost functions that enforce the $P_{UX}$ maximizing to satisfy $P_X\approx Q_X$. If the probability that an i.i.d. sequence induces a small cost is large, then one can choose the $\mu$ in the definition of the smooth property to be the restriction[^4] of $Q_X^{\otimes n}$ on such a set. Therefore the following lemma will be the key to our proofs of the smooth property:
\[lem\_key\] Suppose $\tau_{\alpha}$ is as in Lemma \[lem\_singleletter\] and define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}^n
:=\left\{x^n\colon\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \tau_{\alpha}(x_i)\le \epsilon\right\}.
\label{e_s}\end{aligned}$$ If $P_{X^n}$ is supported on $\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}^n$ for each $n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}
\left[\sum_j c_jD(P_{Y_j^n}\|\nu_j^{\otimes n})
-D(P_{X^n}\|\mu^{\otimes n})\right]
\nonumber\\
&\le
\sup
\left\{\sum c_j D(P_{Y_j|U}\|\nu_j|P_U)
-D(P_{X|U}\|\mu|P_U)\right\}
\label{e_14}\end{aligned}$$ where the sup on the right is over $P_{UX}$ such that $\mathbb{E}[\tau_{\alpha}(\hat{X})]\le\epsilon$.
A remarkable aspect of Lemma \[lem\_key\] is that the left side of , which is a multi-letter quantity from the definition of $\operatorname*{d}(\cdot)$, is upper bounded by a single-letter quantity.
\[lem\_weakcont\] Suppose $(\mathcal{X},\mathscr{F})$ is a second countable topological space and $Q_X$ is a Borel measure. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma\colon P_X\mapsto\sum c_j D(P_{Y_j}\|Q_{Y_j})
-D(P_{X}\|Q_X).
\label{e_semi}\end{aligned}$$ If $\phi$, the concave envelope of $\sigma$, is upper semicontinuous at $Q_X$, then ${\rm D}_{0^+}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)\le\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$.
If $c_1=\dots =c_m=0$, then $\phi(P_X)=-D(P_{X}\|Q_X)$ always satisfies the upper semicontinuity in Lemma \[lem\_weakcont\] because of the weak semicontinuity of the relative entropy. On the other hand, taking $m=1$, $c_1=2$, $Q_X$ any distribution on a countably infinite alphabet with $H(Q_X)<\infty$, and $Q_{Y_1|X}$ the identity transformation, we see $\sigma(P_X)=H(P_X)+D(P_X\|Q_X)$ and the upper semicontinuity condition in Lemma \[lem\_weakcont\] fails.
Assume w.l.o.g. that $Q_X(x)>0,\,\forall x$ since otherwise we can delete $x$ from $\mathcal{X}$. Then $Q_X$ is in the interior of the probability simplex. Moreover $\phi(\cdot)$ in Lemma \[lem\_weakcont\] is clearly bounded. Thus by [@rockafellar2015convex Corollary 7.4.1], the weak semicontinuity in Lemma \[lem\_weakcont\] is fulfilled.
For general $\mathcal{X}$, one cannot use the property of convex functions to conclude the semicontinuity as in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_discrete\]. In fact, whenever $|\mathcal{X}|=\infty$, there are points in $\mathcal{X}$ with arbitrarily small probability, thus $Q_X$ cannot be in the interior of the probability simplex even under the stronger topology of total variation.
Gaussian Case
-------------
The semicontinuity assumption in Lemma \[lem\_weakcont\] appears too strong for the case of the Gaussian distribution, which has a non-compact support. Nevertheless, we can proceed by picking a different $\tau_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ in Lemma \[lem\_key\].
\[thm\_gauss\] ${\rm D}_{0^+}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)\le\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$ if $Q_{\bf X}$ and $(Q_{{\bf Y}_j|\bf X})$ are Gaussian.
The proof hinges on our prior result [@lccv2015] about the Gaussian optimality in an optimization under a covariance constraint: suppose $\mu$ and $\nu_j$ are the Lebesgue measures. Define $$\begin{aligned}
F({\bf M})
&:=\sup\left\{-\sum c_j h({\bf Y}_j|U)+h({\bf X}|U)\right\}
\label{e14}
\\
=&\sup
\left\{\sum c_j D(P_{{\bf Y}_j|U}\|\nu_j|P_U)
-D(P_{{\mathbf}{X}|U}\|\mu|P_U)\right\}
\label{e15}\end{aligned}$$ where the supremums are over $P_{U\bf X}$ such that ${{\bf \Sigma}}_{\bf X}\preceq {\bf M}$. Also suppose w.l.o.g. that ${\bf X}\sim \mathcal{N}({\bf 0},{{\bf \Sigma}})$ under $Q_{\bf X}$.
\[prop14\] $F({\mathbf}{M})$ equals the sup in restricted to constant $U$ and Gaussian ${\mathbf}{X}$, which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
F({{\bf \Sigma}})+C=
\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_{\bf X},Q_{{\bf Y}_j},c^m)
\label{e16}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
C:=\sum_j c_j h({\bf Y}_j)-h({\bf X}_j).
\label{e_c}\end{aligned}$$
Put $\mathcal{A}$ as the set of unit length vectors in $\mathcal{X}$ (a Euclidean space), and for each $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ define $
\tau_{\alpha}({\mathbf}{x}):=(\alpha^{\top}{{\bf \Sigma}}^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}{\bf x})^2-1
$. Now, observe that for ${\bf x}^n\in\mathcal{X}^n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_i\tau_{\alpha}({\mathbf}{x}_i)
:=\alpha^{\top}{{\bf \Sigma}}^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_i{\bf x}
{\bf x}^{\top}\right)
{{\bf \Sigma}}^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}\alpha
-1,\end{aligned}$$ so $\frac{1}{n}\sum_i\tau_{\alpha}({\mathbf}{x}_i)\le\epsilon_1$ for all $\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ is equivalent to the bound on the empirical covariance: $
\frac{1}{n}\sum_i{\bf x}
{\bf x}^{\top}
\preceq (1+\epsilon_1){{\bf \Sigma}}$. Consider also the “weakly typical set” $\mathcal{T}_{\epsilon_2}^n$, defined as the set of sequences ${\mathbf}{x}^n$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{n}\sum_i\left[\imath_{Q_{\bf X}\|\mu}({\mathbf}{x}_i)-\sum_j c_j\mathbb{E}[\imath_{Q_{{\mathbf}{Y}_j}\|\nu_j}({\mathbf}{Y}_j)|{\mathbf}{X}={\mathbf}{x}_i]
\right]
\le
C+\epsilon_2\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ was defined in . Now set $\mu_n$ as the restriction of $Q_{\bf X}^{\otimes n}$ on $\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon_1}^n\cap \mathcal{T}_{\epsilon_2}^n$. If $P_{{\bf X}^n}\ll \mu_n$, by Lemma \[lem\_key\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}
\left[\sum_j c_jD(P_{{\bf Y}_j^n}\|\nu_j^{\otimes n})
-D(P_{{\bf X}^n}\|\mu^{\otimes n})\right]
\le F((1+\epsilon_1){{\bf \Sigma}}).
\label{e_opt}\end{aligned}$$ Since $P_{{\bf X}^n}$ is supported on $\mathcal{T}_{\epsilon_2}^n$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{n}
\left[\sum_j c_jD(P_{{\bf Y}_j^n}\|\nu_j^{\otimes n})
-D(P_{{\bf X}^n}\|\mu^{\otimes n})\right]\nonumber
+C
\nonumber
\\
&\ge\frac{1}{n}
\left[\sum_j c_jD(P_{{\bf Y}_j^n}\|Q_{{\mathbf}{Y}_j}^{\otimes n})
-D(P_{{\bf X}^n}\|Q_{\bf X}^{\otimes n})\right]-\epsilon_2
\label{e33}\end{aligned}$$ Hence from - we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}
\left[\sum_j c_jD(P_{{\bf Y}_j^n}\|Q_{{\mathbf}{Y}_j}^{\otimes n})
-D(P_{{\bf X}^n}\|\mu_n)\right]
\nonumber
\\
&\le
F((1+\epsilon_1){{\bf \Sigma}})+C+\epsilon_2
\label{e34}\end{aligned}$$ where we used $D(P_{{\bf X}^n}\|Q_{\bf X}^{\otimes n})=D(P_{{\bf X}^n}\|\mu_n)$. Also, by the law of large numbers, $\lim_{n\to\infty} Q_{\bf X}^{\otimes n}(\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon_1}^n\cap \mathcal{T}_{\epsilon_2}^n)=1$ so $
\lim_{n\to\infty} E_1(Q_{\bf X}^{\otimes n}\|\mu_n)=1
$. Thus , Proposition \[prop14\] and the continuity of $F$ (which can be verified since is essentially a matrix optimization problem) imply the desired result.
Converse for the One-Communicator Problem {#sec_onecommunicator}
=========================================
We prove a single-shot bound connecting smooth GBLL and one-communicator CR generation [@ahlswede1998common Theorem 4.2], allowing us to prove the converse of one using the achievability of the other.
Let $Q_{XY^m}$ be the joint distribution of sources $X$, $Y_1$, …, $Y_m$, observed by terminals ${\sf T}_0$, …, ${\sf T}_m$ as shown in Figure \[f\_1com\]. The communicator ${\sf T}_0$ computes the integers $W_1(X)$, …, $W_m(X)$ and sends them to ${\sf T}_1$, …, ${\sf T}_m$, respectively. Then, terminals ${\sf T}_0$, …, ${\sf T}_m$ compute integers $K(X)$, $K_1(Y_1,W_1)$,…, $K_m(Y_m,W_m)$. The goal is to produce $K=K_1=\dots=K_m$ with high probability with $K$ almost equiprobable.
\[scale=2, dot/.style=[draw,fill=black,circle,minimum size=0.7mm,inner sep=0pt]{},arw/.style=[->,>=stealth]{}\] (A) [${\sf T}_1$]{}; (B) \[right= 1.4cm of A\] [${\sf T}_2$]{}; (C) \[right =of B\] [$\dots$]{}; (D) \[right =of C\] [${\sf T}_m$]{}; (T) \[above right=of B, xshift=-13mm, yshift=10mm\] [${\sf T}_0$]{}; (Z) \[left=0.4cm of T\] [$X$]{}; (K1) \[below =0.4cm of A\] [$K_1$]{}; (K2) \[below =0.4cm of B\] [$K_2$]{}; (Km) \[below =0.4cm of D\] [$K_m$]{}; (K) \[above =0.4cm of T\] [$K$]{}; (X1) \[left =0.4cm of A\] [$Y_1$]{}; (X2) \[left =0.4cm of B\] [$Y_2$]{}; (Xm) \[left =0.4cm of D\] [$Y_m$]{}; (Z) to node\[\] (T); (X1) to node\[\] (A); (X2) to node\[\] (B); (Xm) to node\[\] (D); (A) to node\[midway,above\] (K1); (B) to node\[midway,above\] (K2); (D) to node\[midway,above\] (Km); (T) to node\[\] (K); (T) to node\[midway,left\][$W_1$]{} (A.north); (T) to node\[midway,left\][$W_2$]{} (B.north); (T) to node\[midway,left\][$W_m$]{} (D.north);
In the stationary memoryless case, put $X\leftarrow X^n$, $Y_j\leftarrow Y_j^n$. Denote by $R$ and $R_j$ the rates of $K$ and $W_j$, respectively. Under various performance metrics (cf. [@ahlswede1998common][@liu2015key]), the achievable region is the set of $(R,R_1,\dots,R_m)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)+\sum_j c_jR_j\ge \left(\sum_jc_j-1\right)R
\label{e36}\end{aligned}$$ for all $c^m\in(0,\infty)^m$. [^5]
\[thm\_onecommunicator\] For finite $|\mathcal{X}|$, $|\mathcal{Y}_1|,\dots,|\mathcal{Y}_m|$, suppose $(R,R_1,\dots,R_m)$ fails for some $c^m$. If $(\delta_1,\delta_2)$ is such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}[K=K_1=\dots=K_m]
&\ge 1-\delta_1;
\label{e_38}
\\
\frac{1}{2}|Q_K-T_K|
&\le\delta_2
\label{e_39}\end{aligned}$$ can hold for some CR generation scheme at rates $(R,R_1,\dots,R_m)$ for sufficiently large $n$ where $T_K$ is the equiprobable distribution on $\mathcal{K}$, then $
\delta_1+\delta_2\ge 1
$.
The following lemma establishes a *single-shot* connection between one-communicator CR generation and smooth GBLL, which allows us to prove the converse of one problem from the achievability of the other. For simplicity of presentation, we state it in the case of $m=1$.[^6]
\[lem\_connect\] Suppose that there exist $\delta_1,\delta_2\in(0,1)$, a stochastic encoder $Q_{W|X}$, and deterministic decoders $Q_{K|X}$ and $Q_{\hat{K}|WY}$, such that and hold. Also, suppose that there exist $\mu_X$, $\delta,\epsilon,\epsilon'\in(0,1)$ and $c,d\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
E_1(Q_X\|\mu_X)
&\le \delta;
\label{e_neighbor}
\\
\mu_X\left(x\colon Q_{Y|X=x}(\mathcal{A})\ge 1-\epsilon'\right)
&\le
2^c\exp(d) Q_Y^{c(1-\epsilon)}(\mathcal{A})
\label{e39}\end{aligned}$$ for any $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathcal{Y}$. Then, for any $\delta_3,\delta_4\in(0,1)$ such that $\delta_3\delta_4=\delta_1+\delta$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_2\ge 1-\delta-\delta_3-\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}
-\frac{2^{\frac{1}{1-\epsilon}}\exp\left(\frac{d}{c(1-\epsilon)}\right)
|\mathcal{W}|}{(\epsilon'-\delta_4)
^{\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}}|\mathcal{K}|^{1-\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}}}.
\label{e_41}\end{aligned}$$
\[rem15\] The relevance of the Lemma \[lem\_connect\] to smooth GBLL is seen by setting $
f(y):=(1_{\mathcal{A}}(y)+ Q_Y(\mathcal{A}) 1_{\mathcal{\bar{A}}}(y))^c
$ in . We then see holds for any $\epsilon=\epsilon'\in(0,1)$.
\[rem\_16\] In the stationary memoryless case $Q_X\leftarrow Q_X^{\otimes n}$, $Q_{Y|X}\leftarrow Q_{Y|X}^{\otimes n}$, suppose $|\mathcal{X}|,|\mathcal{Y}|<\infty$. Using the blowing-up lemma [@ahlswede1976bounds], we can show that for any $\delta,\epsilon,\epsilon'\in(0,1)$ and $d>\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c)$, there exists $n$ large enough such that is satisfied with $d\leftarrow nd$ for some $\mu_X$ (more precisely, the restriction of $Q_X^{\otimes n}$ on a strongly typical set) satisfying .
Again consider $m=1$ case for simplicity. Suppose that $(R,R_1)$ is such that fails for some $c>0$. Then, there is $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and $d>\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c)$ such that does not hold. If we choose $\delta>0$ arbitrarily small, then $\delta_3$ can be made arbitrarily close to $\delta_1$, in which case $\delta_4$ is forced to be close to $1$. Pick $\epsilon'>\delta_4$. These choices combined with Remark \[rem\_16\], Theorem \[thm\_discrete\] and , show that $
\delta_1+\delta_2\ge 1
$.
Another application of Lemma \[lem\_connect\] is the following:
\[thm\_weak\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm D}_{0^+}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)
\ge\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)
\label{e52}\end{aligned}$$
For simplicity, we prove for the case of $m=1$. For any $d>{\rm D}_{0^+}(Q_X,Q_Y,c)$ (achievable rate for smooth GBLL) and any $(R,R_1)$ achievable for one-communicator CR generation, we show that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{c(1-\epsilon)}+R_1>R\left(1-\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}\right)
\label{e_54}\end{aligned}$$ for any $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, which will establish because of the achievable region formula .
We can choose $\delta,\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3,\delta_4$ such that $\delta_2< 1-\delta-\delta_3$ and $\delta_4<\epsilon$. For large $n$, and can be satisfied, and by Remark \[rem15\], for $\epsilon'=\epsilon$, we can find $\mu_X$ satisfying and with $Q_X\leftarrow Q_X^{\otimes n}$, $Q_{Y|X}\leftarrow Q_{Y|X}^{\otimes n}$ and $d\leftarrow nd$. Thus holds because the last term in must vanish as $n\to\infty$.
Converse for the Omniscient Helper Problem
==========================================
Note that Theorem \[thm\_weak\] only establishes a weak converse for smooth GBLL and Theorem \[thm\_onecommunicator\] is only for finite alphabets and deterministic decoders, because of the use of the blowing-up lemma. In this section we improve these results in a special case where $X=(Y_1,\dots,Y_m)$, that is, in the special case of smooth BLL and *omniscient helper* CR generation.
To see why the problem becomes simpler in this special case, note that the set $\{x\colon Q_{Y|X=x}(\mathcal{A})\ge 1-\epsilon'\}$ in can be regarded as the “preimage” of the set $\mathcal{A}$ under the random transformation. In the case of deterministic $Q_{Y_j|X}$, there is no difference regarding the choice of $\epsilon'\in(0,1)$. However, in general a large $\epsilon'$ may imply a large $\epsilon$ on the right side of . Nevertheless, under the conditions for the blowing-up lemma, $\epsilon'$ and $\epsilon$ can be chosen independently (Remark \[rem\_16\]).
In our prior work [@liu2015key], a single-shot bound was derived via hypercontractivity which shows the strong converse property of the secret key (or CR) per unit cost. From the current perspective, no smoothing is needed for that particular $c^m$ (which can be viewed as the orientation of the supporting hyperplane) for the reason explained in Section \[sec\_hypercontractivity\]. Straightforward extensions of the analysis from hypercontractivity to BLL inequality yields only a loose outer bound for the rate region when $\operatorname*{d}(Q_X,Q_{Y_j},c^m)>\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$. However, following the philosophy in the present paper, we may choose $\mu$ which is $E_1$-close to $Q_X$ and expect that $\operatorname*{d}(\mu,Q_{Y_j},c^m)\approx\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)$. Thus by a slight change of the analysis in [@liu2015key], we can show the following.
\[thm\_oneshot\] If $d\ge \operatorname*{d}(\mu, Q_{Y_j},c^m)$ for some $\mu$ satisfying $
E_1(Q_{Y^m}\|\mu)\le\delta
$, then [$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}|Q_{K^m}-T_{K^m}|
\ge
1-\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}
-\frac{\prod_{l=1}^m |\mathcal{W}_l|^{\frac{c_l}{\sum c_i}}}
{|\mathcal{K}|^{1-\frac{1}{\sum c_i}}}
\exp\left(\frac{d}{\sum c_i}\right)
-\delta.
\label{e38}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where $T_{K^m}(k^m):=\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}1\{k_1=\dots=k_m\}$.
Note that Theorem \[thm\_oneshot\] applies for stochastic encoders and decoders, and in its proof, the function $f_j(\cdot)$ in will take the role of $\max_w Q_{K_j|W_jY_j}(k|w,\cdot)$. However, the intuition is best explained in the case of deterministic decoders: let $\mathcal{A}_{kw_j}^j$ be the decoding set for $K_j=k$ upon receiving $w_j$ by ${\sf T}_j$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K_1=\dots=K_m=k)
&\le
\mu\left(\cap_j\cup_{w_j}\mathcal{A}_{kw_j}^j\right)
\\
&\le
\exp(d)\prod_j Q_{Y_j}^{c_j}\left(\cup_{w_j}\mathcal{A}_{kw_j}^j\right)
\label{e_35}\end{aligned}$$ where the crucial step , which may be viewed as a change-of-measure from a joint distribution to uncorrelated distributions (with powers), follows by choosing indicator functions in the BLL inequality. After some manipulations, one can bound the total variation between $\mu_{K^m}$ (consequently $Q_{K^m}$) and $T_{K^m}$.
Suppose $(R,R_1,\dots,R_m)$ fails for some $c^m$, and there exist a coding scheme at rates $(R,R_1,\dots,R_m)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}|Q_{K_1\dots K_m}-T_{K_1\dots K_m}|\le \delta
\label{e_62}\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently large $n$. Then $\delta\ge1$ if $Q_{Y^m}$, $(Q_{Y_j|Y^m})$ and $c^m$ satisfy the smooth property (as in the case of discrete/Gaussian $Q_{Y^m}$).
In the Gaussian case, refining the analysis in Theorem \[thm\_gauss\], we can derive a second order achievability bound for smooth BLL, which, in view of Theorem \[thm\_oneshot\], implies a second order converse bound for CR generation: for any sequence of CR generation schemes with non-vanishing error probability, we have [$$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sqrt{n}\left[\left(\sum c_j-1\right)R_n-\sum c_j R_{jn}-\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_{Y^m},c^m)\right]
\le D\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ]{} for some constant $D$ (explicit formula given in [@lccv_smooth2016]), where $R_n$, $R_{1n}$, …, $R_{mn}$ are rates at blocklength $n$.
We used slightly different performance measures for the one-communicator problem and the omniscient helper problem. If $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ satisfy - then $\delta\leftarrow\delta_1+\delta_2$ satisfies , so a strong converse measured by implies a strong converse measured by -. On the other hand, if $\delta$ satisfies then $\delta_1\leftarrow\delta$ and $\delta_2\leftarrow\delta$ satisfy -. Thus the strong converse in the sense of - only implies a “$\frac{1}{2}$-converse” in the sense of .
Unlike the more general one-communicator case, the rate region for omniscient helper *key* generation can be obtained as the intersection of the region for omniscient helper CR generation and $\{R\le \min_j H(Y_j)\}$ [@liu2015key]. (Though, the misleading similarities between the rate regions for the omniscient helper CR and key generation is only a coincidence from optimizing of the rate regions.) As a consequence, the strong converse for the omniscient helper key generation is also proved, since the key generation counterpart obviously places more constraints, and the strong converse property of the outer-bound $\{R\le \min_j H(Y_j)\}$ is comparatively trivial.
As alluded before, the achievability for the omniscient helper CR generation implies the strong converse for smooth BLL:
\[cor22\] For any $Q_{Y^m}$, $c^m$, and $\delta\in(0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm D}_{\delta}(Q_{Y^m},Q_{Y_j},c^m)
\ge\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_{Y^m},c^m).\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[thm\_oneshot\] essentially establishes a single-shot connection between the smooth BLL and omniscient helper CR generation. Thus the proof of Corollary \[cor22\] follows easily by a similar reasoning as the proof of Theorem \[thm\_weak\]. In fact, for a general sequence (not necessarily stationary memoryless) of sources, if the $\delta$-smooth BLL rate is strictly smaller than the supremum of $(\sum_j c_j-1)R-\sum_j c_jR_j$ over achievable rates, then the second and third terms on the right side of can be made to vanish exponentially in the blocklength. Thus $(1-\delta)$-achievability of CR generation implies $\delta$-converse for smooth BLL.
Proof of Lemma \[lem\_singleletter\]
====================================
Let $I\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ be an equiprobable random variable independent of all other random variables already defined. Observe that equals $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad\sum_j c_jD(P_{Y_{jI}|UIY_j^{I-1}}\|\nu_j|P_{UIY_j^{I-1}})-
D(P_{X_I}\|\mu|P_{UIX^{I-1}})
\nonumber\\
&\le
\sum_j c_jD(P_{Y_{jI}|UIX^{I-1}}\|\nu_j|P_{UIX^{I-1}})-
D(P_{X_I}\|\mu|P_{UIX^{I-1}})
\label{e_singleletterize}\end{aligned}$$ where uses the Markov chain condition $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{Y}_{jI}-UI\hat{X}^{I-1}-\hat{Y}_j^{I-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Also, $
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \tau_{\alpha}(\hat{X}_i)\right]\le\epsilon
$ implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[\tau_{\alpha}(\hat{X}_I)]\le\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, with the identification $$\begin{aligned}
P_{U,X}\leftarrow P_{UIX^{I-1},X_I}\end{aligned}$$ we see $g(n)\le g(1)$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem\_key\]
===========================
Each $P_{X^n}$ such that $P_{X^n}\ll \mu_n$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_i \tau_{\alpha}(\hat{X}_i)\right]\le \epsilon\end{aligned}$$ since the random variable is bounded above by $\epsilon$, $P_{X^n}$-almost surely. Then the result follows from Lemma \[lem\_singleletter\] and the fact that $\mu_n$ and $\mu^{\otimes n}$ agree on the support of $P_{X^n}$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem\_weakcont\]
================================
Let $(\mathcal{B}_{\alpha})$ be any finite partition of $\mathcal{X}$ compatible with $\mathscr{F}$. For $\alpha$ such that $Q_X(\mathcal{B}_{\alpha})>0$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\alpha}(x):=\frac{1\{x\in\mathcal{B}_{\alpha}\}}
{Q_X(\mathcal{B}_{\alpha})}-1,\end{aligned}$$ and for $\alpha$ such that $Q_X(\mathcal{B}_{\alpha})=0$, put $\tau_{\alpha}=0$ if $x\notin \mathcal{B}_{\alpha}$ and $\tau_{\alpha}=\infty$ otherwise. By the law of large numbers, the set $\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}^n$ as defined in satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} Q_X^{\otimes n}(\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}^n)=1.\end{aligned}$$ Now we can invoke Lemma \[lem\_key\]. Let $\mu_n$ be the restriction of $\mu^{\otimes n}$ on $\mathcal{S}_{\epsilon}^n$, and note that $D(P_{X^n}\|\mu^{\otimes n})=D(P_{X^n}\|\mu_n)$ By the arbitrariness of $(\mathcal{B}_{\alpha})$ and $\epsilon>0$, we see the left side of is upper-bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{\mathcal{G},\epsilon>0}\sup_{P_X\colon P_{X|\mathcal{G}}\le(1+\epsilon) Q_{X|\mathcal{G}}}\phi(P_X)
\label{e_30}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{G}$ is a finitely generated $\sigma$-algebra (the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $(\mathcal{B}_{\alpha})$), and $P_{X|\mathcal{G}}$ and $Q_{X|\mathcal{G}}$ are conditional distributions. Now choose any decreasing and vanishing sequence $(\epsilon_k)$ and a nested sequence $(\mathcal{G}_k)$ which contains a countable basis of $(\mathcal{X},\mathscr{F})$. Then pick a sequence $(P_X^k)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
P_{X|\mathcal{G}_k}^k\le (1+\epsilon_k)Q_{X|\mathcal{G}_k}^k
\label{e_32}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\phi(P_{X}^k)
=
\lim_{k\to\infty}\sup_{P_{X}\colon P_{X|\mathcal{G}_k}\le (1+\epsilon_k)Q_{X|\mathcal{G}_k}}\phi(P_{X})
\label{e_pk}\end{aligned}$$ where the limit on the right exists by monotone convergence. By , $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{k\to\infty} P_{X}^k(\mathcal{C})\le P_{X}(\mathcal{C})
\label{e30}\end{aligned}$$ if $\mathcal{C}\in\mathcal{G}_l$ for some $l$. Since any closed subset can be constructed as the intersection of a nested sequence of such $\mathcal{C}$, it follows from the min-max inequality and the $\sigma$-continuity of probability measure that actually holds for any closed $\mathcal{C}$, establishing that $P_X^k$ converges weakly to $Q_X$. Thus the weak upper semicontinuity of $\phi(\cdot)$ and imply that is bounded above by $\phi(Q_X)$, as desired.
Proof of Lemma \[lem\_connect\]
===============================
In the $m=1$ case write $\hat{K}:=K_1$. Define the joint measure $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{XYWK\hat{K}}
:=\mu_X Q_{Y|X}Q_{W|X}Q_{K|X}Q_{\hat{K}|YW}\end{aligned}$$ which we shall sometimes abbreviate as $\mu$. Since $E_1(Q\|\mu)=E_1(Q_X\|\mu_X)\le \delta$, implies $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(K\neq \hat{K})\le \delta_1+\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Put $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}:=\{k\colon \mu_{\hat{K}|K}(k|k)\ge 1-\delta_4\}.\end{aligned}$$ The Markov inequality implies that $\mu_K(\mathcal{J})\ge 1-\delta_3$. Now for each $k\in\mathcal{J}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad(1-\delta_4)\mu_k(k)
\nonumber\\
&\le
\mu_{K\hat{K}}(k,k)
\\
&\le
\int_{\mathcal{F}_k}Q_{Y|X=x}\left(\bigcup_w\mathcal{A}_{wk}\right)
{\rm d}\mu_X(x)
\\
&\le
(1-\epsilon')\mu_K(k)+\mu\left(x\colon Q_{Y|X=x}\left(\bigcup_{kw}\mathcal{A}_{kw}\ge 1-\epsilon'\right)\right)
\\
&\le (1-\epsilon')\mu_K(k)
+2^c\exp(d) Q_Y^{c(1-\epsilon)}\left(\bigcup_w\mathcal{A}_{kw}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{F}_k\subseteq \mathcal{X}$ is the decoding set for $K$, and $\mathcal{A}_{kw}$ is the decoding set for $\hat{K}$ upon receiving $w$. Rearranging, $$\begin{aligned}
(\epsilon'-\delta_4)^{\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}}\mu_k^{\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}}(k) \le 2^{\frac{1}{1-\epsilon}}
\exp\left(\frac{d}{c(1-\epsilon)}\right)Q_Y\left(\bigcup_w \mathcal{A}_{kw}\right).
\label{e_50}\end{aligned}$$ Now let $\tilde{\mu}$ be the restriction of $\mu_K$ on $\mathcal{J}$. Then summing both sides of over $k\in\mathcal{J}$, applying the union bound, and noting that $\{\mathcal{A}_{kw}\}_k$ is a partition of $\mathcal{Y}$ for each $w$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}}(\tilde{\mu}\|T)
&\le
\log |\mathcal{K}|-\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}}
\log\frac{2^{\frac{1}{1-\epsilon}}|\mathcal{W}|}{(\epsilon'
-\delta_4)^{\frac{1}{c(1-\epsilon)}}}
\nonumber\\
&\quad-\frac{d}{c(1-\epsilon)-1}.\end{aligned}$$ The proof is completed invoking Proposition \[prop\_TVRenyi\] below and noting that $$\begin{aligned}
E_1(Q_K\|\tilde{\mu})
\le
E_1(Q_K\|\mu)
+E_1(\mu\|\tilde{\mu})\le \delta+\delta_3.\end{aligned}$$
\[prop\_TVRenyi\] Suppose $T$ is equiprobable on $\{1,\dots,M\}$ and $\mu$ is a nonnegative measure on the same alphabet. For any $\alpha\in(0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
E_1(T\|\mu)
\ge
1-\frac{1}{M}-\exp(-(1-\alpha)D_{\alpha}(T\|\mu)).\end{aligned}$$
The special case of Proposition \[prop\_TVRenyi\] when $\mu$ is a probability measure was used in the proof of [@liu2015key_arxiv Theorem 10] (see equation (59) therein) to relate Rényi divergence and total variation distance. The extension to unnormalized $\mu$ can be easily proved in a similar way.
Bound on the Second Order Rate for Gaussian Omniscient Helper CR Generation
===========================================================================
Let $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf}{W}:=\frac{{\mathbf}{A}+{\mathbf}{A}^{\top}}{\sqrt{2}}\end{aligned}$$ be the standard Wigner matrix, where ${\mathbf}{A}$ is a square matrix with i.i.d. $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ entries.
Denote by ${\rm Q}(\cdot)$ the tail probability of the standard Gaussian distribution and $\lambda_{\max}(\cdot)$ the largest eigenvalue of a matrix.
\[thm\_2order\] Assume that $Q_{Y^m}$ is Gaussian with a non-degenerate covariance matrix, and there is a sequence of CR generation schemes such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\quad\liminf_{n\to\infty}\sqrt{n}\left[\left(\sum c_j-1\right)R_n-\sum c_j R_{jn}-\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_{Y^m},c^m)\right]
\nonumber
\\
&> \frac{\log e}{2}\left(m-\sum c_j\right)D_1+D_2
\label{e58}\end{aligned}$$ for some $D_1,D_2\in(0,1)$, where $R_n$, $R_{1n}$, …, $R_{mn}$ are the rates at blocklength $n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{2}|Q_{{K^m}_n}-T_{{K^m}_n}|
\ge
\mathbb{P}[\lambda_{\max}({\mathbf}{W})\le D_1]
-{\rm Q}\left(\tfrac{D_2}{\sqrt{V}}\right),
\label{e_error}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V:={\rm Var}\left(
\sum_{j}c_{j}\imath_{Q_{Y_j}\|\nu_j}(Y_j) -\imath_{Q_{Y^m}\|\mu}(Y^m)\right).\end{aligned}$$
First, observe that we will only need to consider the case of $\sum_jc_j\le m$, since otherwise $\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_{Y^m},c^m)=\infty$ and Theorem \[thm\_2order\] is vacuous. Indeed, suppose without loss of generality that $Y^m\sim\mathcal{N}({\mathbf}{0},{{\bf \Sigma}})$. For $\alpha\in(0,\infty)$ small enough, we can find $U$ jointly Gaussian with $Y^m$ such that $Y^m|U={\mathbf}{0}\sim \mathcal{N}({\mathbf}{0},\alpha{\mathbf}{I})$. Then we see $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_{Y^m},c^m)
&\ge
\lim_{\alpha\downarrow0}
\sum_{j=1}^m\frac{c_j}{2}\log \frac{\sigma_{jj}}{\alpha}
-\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{|{{\bf \Sigma}}|}{|\alpha{\mathbf}{I}|}
\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^m\frac{c_j}{2}\log\sigma_{jj}
-\frac{1}{2}\log|{{\bf \Sigma}}|
\nonumber\\
&\quad
+\lim_{\alpha\downarrow0}\frac{\sum_j c_j-m}{2}\log\frac{1}{\alpha}
\\
&=\infty\end{aligned}$$ provided that $\sum_jc_j>m$ holds.
The proof is essentially based on a refinement of the achievability of smooth BLL: in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_gauss\], take $\epsilon_i\leftarrow \frac{D_i}{\sqrt{n}}$, $i=1,2$ and $X=Y^m$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}[\mathcal{S}^n_{\epsilon_1}]
&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_i{\bf z}
{\bf z}^{\top}\preceq (1+\epsilon_1){\mathbf}{I}\right]
\\
&=\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}\left[\frac{\sum_i{\bf z}
{\bf z}^{\top}-{\mathbf}{I}}{\sqrt{n}}\preceq D_1 {\mathbf}{I}\right]
\\
&=\mathbb{P}[{\mathbf}{W}\preceq D_1 {\mathbf}{I}],
\label{e_mvclt}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathbf}{z}:={{\bf \Sigma}}^{-\frac{1}{2}}{\mathbf}{x}\sim \mathcal{N}({\mathbf}{0},{\mathbf}{I})$ and we applied multivariate CLT in . On the other hand, by CLT we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty}
\mathbb{P}[\mathcal{T}_{\epsilon_2}^n]
&=1-{\rm Q}\left(\frac{D_2}{\sqrt{V}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Also, a simple scaling argument shows that $$\begin{aligned}
F((1+\epsilon_1){{\bf \Sigma}})
&=F({{\bf \Sigma}})+\frac{\log(1+\epsilon_1)}{2}\left(m-\sum c_j\right)
\\
&\le F({{\bf \Sigma}})+\frac{\log e }{2\sqrt{n}}\left(m-\sum c_j\right)D_1.
$$ Thus following the steps in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_gauss\], we can find $(\mu_n)_{n\ge 1}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
E_1(Q_X^{\otimes n}\|\mu_n)
\le\, &
\mathbb{P}[\lambda_{\max}({\mathbf}{W})\le D_1]
-{\rm Q}\left(\tfrac{D_2}{\sqrt{V}}\right)+o(1)
\\
\frac{1}{n}\operatorname*{d}(\mu_n,Q_{Y_j}^{\otimes n},c^m)
&\le \operatorname*{d^{\star}}(Q_X,c^m)
+\frac{\log e }{2\sqrt{n}}\left(m-\sum c_j\right)D_1
\nonumber\\
&\quad +\frac{D_2}{\sqrt{n}}.
\label{e71}
$$ Now, invoke Theorem \[thm\_oneshot\] with $$\begin{aligned}
\mu&\leftarrow \mu_n;
\\
\delta&\leftarrow \delta_n:=E_1(Q_X^{\otimes n}\|\mu_n);
\\
d&\leftarrow nd_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $d_n$ is defined as the right side of . Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}|Q_{{K^m}_n}-T_{{K^m}_n}|
&\ge
1-\frac{1}{|\mathcal{K}|}
-\exp\left(-\tfrac{\tau}{\sum_j c_j}\sqrt{n}\right)
-\delta_n
\\
&=1-\delta_n+o(1)\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau>0$ is defined as the difference between the left and right sides of . Thus is established.
[^1]: This work was supported in part by NSF Grants CCF-1528132, CCF-0939370 (Center for Science of Information), CCF-1116013, CCF-1319299, CCF-1319304, CCF-1350595 and AFOSR FA9550-15-1-0180.
[^2]: Another example of such “dual problems” is channel resolvability and identification coding [@han1993approximation].
[^3]: As is clear from the context, the random transformations implicit on the right side of are $(Q_{Y_j|X}^{\otimes n})$.
[^4]: In this paper, by restriction of a measure on a set we mean the result of cutting off the measure outside that set (without renormalizing).
[^5]: Remark in passing that the corresponding *key* generation problem, which places the additional constraint that $W_j\perp K$ asymptotically for each $j$, is solved in [@liu2015key] with a different rate region involving $m+1$ auxiliaries.
[^6]: Note that this problem is unlike the usual “image-size characterization” [@csiszar2011information Chapter 15] which is difficult to generalize to $m\ge 3$ case.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
title: Study of the hadronic contributions to the running of the QED coupling and the weak mixing angle
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The running of the electromagnetic coupling is governed by photon vacuum polarisation effects. When varying the virtuality, $Q^2$, of the photon from the Thomson limit, where the QED coupling corresponds to the fine structure constant $\alpha \equiv \alpha(Q^2=0)$, up to the $Z$-pole mass the coupling increases by approximately 6% [@Agashe:2014kda]. Leptons and quarks contribute by roughly the same amount to this running. The contributions from leptons, $W$-pairs and the top quark can be accurately computed in perturbation theory. The logarithmic corrections involving the ratio of lepton to $Z$-boson masses are behind the relatively large leptonic contribution. On the other hand, the running of the QED coupling also involves energy scales where non-perturbative QCD contributions from the lightest five quark flavours are significant.
The largest fraction of the overall uncertainty on the running of the QED coupling is due to these low-energy hadronic effects. While the fine structure constant is known with a 0.3ppb precision, the coupling to the $Z$-pole, $\alpha(M_Z^2)$, has a uncertainty which is five orders of magnitude larger [@Agashe:2014kda]. The prospects for a future International Linear Collider suggest that the uncertainty on the running of the QED coupling could become a limiting factor in the global fit of the electroweak sector of the Standard Model [@Jegerlehner:2011mw; @Baak:2014ora].
A phenomenological approach [@Davier:2010nc; @Hagiwara:2011afg] based on a dispersion relation and on the experimental measurement of the cross-section for hadron production in $e^{+}e^{-}$-annihilation provides a method to determine the hadronic contribution to the running of $\alpha(Q^2)$. A similar approach is used to extract the lowest-order hadronic contribution to the muon $g-2$. The main difference being that in the case of the running of $\alpha(Q^2)$, the dispersive integral is dominated by a higher-energy region.
Lattice QCD can provide a first-principles determination of the hadronic contribution to the running of QED coupling. A target precision $\lesssim 1.5\%$ would be needed in order to reach a comparable precision than the dispersive approach at intermediate scales of a few GeV.
We report about the status of our ongoing calculation of the running of the electromagnetic coupling [@Francis:2014yga; @Horch:2013lla; @Herdoiza:2014jta] and of its extension to the study of the running of the weak mixing angle.
Hadronic Contributions to the Running of the QED Coupling {#sec:alp}
=========================================================
The running of the QED coupling $ \alpha(Q^2)$ can be written in the following way, $$\label{eq:aldef}
\alpha(Q^2)\ =\ \frac{\alpha}{1- \Delta
\alpha_{\rm QED}(Q^2)} \,,$$ where $\Delta \alpha_{\rm QED}(Q^2)$ is determined from the subtracted vacuum polarisation function (VPF), $\widehat{\Pi}(Q^2) =
\Pi(Q^2)-\Pi(0)$. The hadronic contribution to the running therefore takes the following form, $$\label{eq:Ddef}
\Delta\alpha_{\rm QED}^{\rm had}(\hat Q^2)
\ =\ 4 \pi \alpha \, \widehat{\Pi}(\hat Q^2)\,,$$ where the hadronic VPF can be determined from the vector correlation function involving the electromagnetic current, $$J_\mu(x) \ = \ \mathlarger{\mathlarger{\sum}}_{{\rm f}=u,\,d,\,s,\,c,\dots} \, Q_{\rm f} \, {\overline \psi}_{\rm
f}(x)\gamma_\mu \psi_{\rm f}(x) \,.
\label{eq:current}$$ In eq. (\[eq:current\]), $Q_{\rm f}$ refers to the electric charge of the quark flavour ${\rm f}$. In order to circumvent the requirement of a direct determination of the subtraction term $\Pi(0)$, it is possible to determine $\Delta\alpha_{\rm QED}^{\rm had}(\hat Q^2)$ from a lattice QCD computation of the Adler function, $$D(\hat Q^2)
\ = \ 12\pi^2 \,\hat Q^2\,\frac{d\,\Pi\,(\hat Q^2)}{d\hat Q^2}
\ = \ \frac{3\pi}{\alpha}\,\hat Q^2\,\frac{d}{d\hat Q^2}\Delta
\alpha_{\rm QED}^{\mathrm{had}}(\hat Q^2)\,,
\label{eq:defadler}$$ where, $\hat{Q}_\mu={2}/{a} \,\sin\left({a\,Q_\mu}/{2}\right)$ is the lattice momentum.
We update our study of the quark-connected contribution to $D(\hat
Q^2)$ by including eleven CLS ensembles with two flavours of O($a$) improved Wilson fermions at three values of the lattice spacing and pion masses down to $190$MeV fulfilling the condition, $M_{\rm
PS}\,L \gtrsim 4$. We consider the valence contributions from $u$, $d$, $s$ and $c$ quarks and profit from the use of partially twisted boundary conditions [@DellaMorte:2011aa] to construct the Adler function from the numerical derivative of the VPF [@Francis:2014yga; @Horch:2013lla; @DellaMorte:2014rta; @Francis:2014dta]. The present study also benefits from a significant increase of statistics, an updated estimate of the bare parameters corresponding to the physical strange and charm quark masses and a refined implementation of the method to compute the Adler function.
The lattice determination of the Adler function from the various ensembles is described by a fit ansatz that parametrises the momentum dependence, the lattice artefacts and the chiral extrapolation. The three valence contributions from $(u,d)$, $s$ and $c$ quarks are fitted independently. In this work, we focus on a momentum interval, $Q^2 \in [0.5\,;\,4.5]\,{\rm GeV}^2$, that allows one to reduce the systematic uncertainties associated with both long and short distance effects. In Fig. \[fig:DMud\] we illustrate the result of a fit of the $(u,d)$ contribution to the Adler function. The pion mass dependence at two fixed values of $Q^2$ is shown.
In the strange and charm valence sectors, the relative contribution to the Adler function is suppressed with respect to the one from the light quark sector. However, it becomes more and more relevant at larger energy scales and has, in any case, a significant effect given the present level of precision. Fig. \[fig:DMsc\] shows the pion mass dependence of the Adler function in the $s$ and $c$ valence sectors.
The continuum result for the $D(Q^2)$ at the physical point can be used to derive ${\Delta \alpha_{\rm QED}^{\rm had}(Q^2)}$ through eq. (\[eq:defadler\]). We explore the systematic effects in our determination of ${\Delta \alpha_{\rm QED}^{\rm had}(Q^2)}$ by considering various fit forms to describe the lattice artefacts, the momentum and the mass dependence of the Adler function. We also monitor the effect of removing the coarsest lattice spacing or the heavier ensembles to assess the systematic uncertainties. In Fig. \[fig:DalphaQ\] we illustrate two of the major contributions to systematic effects in ${\Delta \alpha_{\rm QED}^{\rm had}(Q^2)}$ that have so far been analysed.
The effect of summing up the various flavour contributions to the Adler function and the running of the QED coupling is shown in Fig. \[fig:DQsum\]. We observe that in the $Q^2$ interval, $Q^2 \in
[0.5,\,4.5]\,{\rm GeV}^2$, the lattice QCD determination of ${\Delta \alpha_{\rm QED}^{\rm had}(Q^2)}$ from $u$, $d$, $s_Q$ and $c_Q$ quarks is compatible with the five flavour result from a dispersive approach [@Jegerlehner:2011mw]. At present, however, the lattice results have larger uncertainties than the dispersive method. Our preliminary results also agree with a recent study using Wilson twisted mass fermions [@Burger:2015lqa].
Hadronic Contributions to the Running of $\sin^2\theta_W$ {#sec:sin2tw}
=========================================================
The weak mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_W$ controls the $\gamma-Z$ mixing and provides a relation among the coupling constants of the electroweak theory. The value of $\sin^2\theta_W$ at the $Z$-pole has been determined with good precision by the LEP experiments and is heavily constrained by the global fit of the SM in the electroweak sector [@Baak:2014ora].
A number of ongoing and future low-energy experiments [@Erler:2013xha] aim at determining $\sin^2\theta_W$ at energy scales below $3\,{\rm GeV}$ where non-perturbative QCD effects start to be relevant. These hadronic effects cannot be accommodated by a straightforward application of a dispersive approach due to the difficulty in isolating the contributions from up- and down-type quarks. On the other hand, such a flavour separation is naturally provided by a lattice QCD calculation. The hadronic contribution to the running of the weak mixing angle, $\Delta^{\rm
had}\sin^2\theta_W({Q}^2)$, can then be related to ${\Delta \alpha_{\rm QED}^{\rm had}(Q^2)}$ once an independent input for the value of the SU(2)$_L$ coupling $\alpha_2$ at $Q^2=0$ is employed [@Kumar:2013yoa].
A lattice computation of the quark-connected contribution to the running of $\sin^2\theta_W$ was presented in Ref. [@Burger:2015lqa] while the effect of including the disconnected contributions was discussed in Ref. [@guelpers:lat2015]. By extending the study of the running of the QED coupling presented in the previous section, we obtain a determination of the connected contribution from $u$, $d$, $s$ and $c$ valence quarks to $\Delta^{\rm
had}\sin^2\theta_W({Q}^2)$. Fig. \[fig:sin2twQ\] shows our preliminary results together with a comparison to the lattice computation of Ref. [@Burger:2015lqa].
![Quark-connected contribution to the running of the weak mixing angle. The coloured band represents our preliminary results for the $u$, $d$, $s$ and $c$ valence quark contribution to $\Delta^{\rm had}\sin^2\theta_W({Q}^2)$. The empty triangles refer to the recent lattice computation with Wilson twisted mass fermions [@Burger:2015lqa].[]{data-label="fig:sin2twQ"}](sin2tw_comp.pdf){height="0.5\linewidth"}
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
We have presented the status of our ongoing study of the hadronic contributions to the running of the electroweak couplings from a lattice QCD calculation of the Adler function. Our preliminary results indicate that for the case of the running of the QED coupling, a further reduction of the systematic effects – in particular those related to lattice artefacts – would be needed to match the precision of the dispersive approach at intermediate values of the momentum transfer. The computation of the hadronic contributions to the running of the weak mixing angle is required to confront the SM prediction to a number of ongoing low-energy experiments. We refer to Refs. [@guelpers:lat2015; @horch:lat2015] for an account of related studies presented at this conference concerning the quark-disconnected contribution to the running of the weak mixing angle and the leading-order hadronic contribution to the muon $g-2$.
#### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
The calculations were performed on the “Wilson” and “Clover” HPC Clusters at the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the University of Mainz. We thank Dalibor Djukanovic and Christian Seiwerth for technical support. This work was granted access to the HPC resources of the Gauss Center for Supercomputing at Forschungzentrum Jülich, Germany, made available within the Distributed European Computing Initiative by the PRACE-2IP, receiving funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement RI-283493 (project PRA039). We are grateful for computer time allocated to project HMZ21 on the BG/Q JUQUEEN computer at NIC, Jülich. This research has been supported by the DFG in the SFB 1044. We thank our colleagues from the CLS initiative for sharing the ensembles used in this work. G.H. acknowledges support by the Spanish MINECO through the Ramón y Cajal Programme and through the project FPA2012-31686 and by the Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa Program SEV-2012-0249.
[99]{}
K. A. Olive [*et al.*]{} \[PDG Collaboration\], Chin. Phys. C [**38**]{} (2014) 090001. F. Jegerlehner, Nuovo Cim. C [**034S1**]{} (2011) 31 \[arXiv:1107.4683\]. M. Baak [*et al.*]{} \[Gfitter Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{} (2014) 3046 \[arXiv:1407.3792 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Davier [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{} (2011) 1515 \[Erratum-ibid. C [**72**]{} (2012) 1874\]. K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G [**38**]{} (2011) 085003 \[arXiv:1105.3149\]. A. Francis, G. Herdoíza, H. Horch, B. Jäger, H. B. Meyer and H. Wittig, PoS LATTICE [**2014**]{} (2014) 163 \[arXiv:1412.6934 \[hep-lat\]\]. H. Horch [*et al.*]{}, PoS LATTICE [**2013**]{} (2013) 304 \[arXiv:1311.6975\]. G. Herdoíza, H. Horch, B. Jäger and H. Wittig, PoS LATTICE [**2013**]{} (2014) 444. M. Della Morte, B. Jäger, A. Jüttner and H. Wittig, JHEP [**1203**]{} (2012) 055 \[arXiv:1112.2894\]. M. Della Morte [*et al.*]{}, PoS LATTICE [**2014**]{} (2014) 162 \[arXiv:1411.1206\]. A. Francis [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:1411.3031\]. F. Burger, K. Jansen, M. Petschlies and G. Pientka, arXiv:1505.03283 \[hep-lat\].
D. Bernecker and H. B. Meyer, Eur. Phys. J. A [**47**]{} (2011) 148 \[arXiv:1107.4388\]. J. Erler and S. Su, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**71**]{} (2013) 119 \[arXiv:1303.5522 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. S. Kumar, S. Mantry, W. J. Marciano and P. A. Souder, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**63**]{} (2013) 237 \[arXiv:1302.6263 \[hep-ex\]\]. V. Gülpers [*et al.*]{}, PoS LATTICE [**2015**]{} (2015) 263.
H. Horch [*et al.*]{}, PoS LATTICE [**2015**]{} (2015) 111.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
J. K. Djoko[^1] & P. A. Razafimandimby\
Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics,\
University of Pretoria,\
Private bag X20, Hatfied 0028, Pretoria, South Africa
\
[**Abstract**]{}\
In this work, we study the Brinkman-Forchheimer equations driven under slip boundary conditions of friction type. We prove the existence and uniqueness of weak solutions by means of regularization combined with the Faedo-Galerkin approach. Next we discuss the continuity of the solution with respect to Brinkman’s and Forchheimer’s coefficients. Finally, we show that the weak solution of the corresponding stationary problem is stable.
[*Keywords*]{}: Brinkman-Forchheimer equations, Slip boundary conditions, Weak solutions, Continuous dependence, Stability.
AMS Subject classification: 35J85, 35Q30, 76D03, 76D07
Introduction
============
We consider the Brinkman-Forchheimer equations for unsteady flows of incompressible fluids, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1-1a}
{\displaystyle}\frac{\partial {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}{\partial t}-\nu\Delta {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}+a{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}+b|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}+\nabla p&=&{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}\,\,\text{ in } Q=\Omega \times (0,T)\,,\\
\label{eq:1-1b} \operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}&=&0\,\,\text{ in } Q\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is the flow region, a bounded domain in ${\mbox{$\mathbb{R}$}}^3$. The motion of our incompressible fluid is described by the velocity ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}},t)$ and pressure $p({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}},t)$. In (\[eq:1-1a\]) and (\[eq:1-1b\]), ${\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}$ is the external body force per unit volume depending on ${\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}}$ and $t$, while the positive parameters $\nu,a,b$ are respectively the Brinkman coefficient, the Darcy coefficient and Forchheimer coefficient, and $\alpha\in[1,2]$ is a given number. Equations (\[eq:1-1a\]) and (\[eq:1-1b\]) are supplemented by boundary and initial conditions. As far as the initial condition goes, we assume that $${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(\cdot,0)={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0~~\mbox{on}~\overline{\Omega}~, \label{eq:1-2}$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0$ is a given function, that will be made precise later, and $\overline{\Omega}$ is the closure of $\Omega$. Next in order to describe the motion of the fluid at the boundary, we assume that the boundary of $\Omega$, say, $\partial \Omega$ is made of two components $S$ (say the outer wall) and $\Gamma$ (the inner wall), and it is required that $\overline{\partial\Omega} =
\overline{S\cup\Gamma}$, with $S\cap\Gamma=\emptyset$. We assume the homogeneous Dirichlet condition on $\Gamma$, that is $$\label{eq:1-3} {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}= 0\quad \mbox{on}~\Gamma\times(0,T)~.$$ We have chosen to work with homogeneous condition on the velocity in order to avoid the technical arguments linked to the Hopf lemma (see [@Girault-Raviart], Chapter 4, Lemma 2.3). On $S$, we first assume the impermeability condition $$u_N={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}}=0\,\,\,\text{on}\,\, S\times(0,T)\,, \label{eq:1-4}$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}}$ is the outward unit normal on the boundary $\partial
\Omega$, and $u_N$ is the normal component of the velocity, while ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}} ={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}- u_N{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}}$ is its tangential component. In addition to (\[eq:1-4\]) we also impose on $S$, a threshold slip condition [@Leroux; @Fujita94], which is the main ingredient of this work. The threshold slip condition can be formulated with the knowledge of a positive function $g:S\longrightarrow (0,\infty)$ which is called the barrier of threshold function and the use of sub-differential to link quantities of interest. It is written as $$-({\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}})_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}\in~g\partial
|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}|\quad\mbox{on}~S\times(0,T) \,, \label{eq:1-5}$$ where $({\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}})_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}$ is the tangential component of the Cauchy tensor ${\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}$ given by ${\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}=-p{\mbox{\boldmath{$I$}}}+ 2\nu{\mbox{\boldmath{$D$}}}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})$ with ${\mbox{\boldmath{$D$}}}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})=\frac{1}{2}[\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}+ (\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})^T]$, and $\partial|\cdot|$ is the sub-differential of the real valued function $|\cdot|$, with $|{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}|^2={\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}$. We recall that if $X$ is a Hilbert space with $x_0\in X$, then $$y\in \partial \Psi(x_0)~\mbox{if and only if}~\Psi(x)-\Psi(x_0)\geq
y\cdot(x-x_0)\quad\forall x\in X\,. \label{eq:definition}$$ Without using the sub-differential, the threshold condition (\[eq:1-5\]) can be written as [@DUVAUT] $$\label{eq:slip} \left.
\begin{aligned}
|({\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}})_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}| &\leq g, \\
|({\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}})_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}| &< g \Rightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}} = {\mbox{$\bf 0$}},
\\
|({\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}})_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}| &= g \Rightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}} \neq
{\mbox{$\bf 0$}}~,~
-({\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}})_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}=g\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}}{|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}|}\\
\end{aligned} \ \right\} \ \mbox{on}\quad S\times (0,T)~.$$ One observes that different boundary conditions describe different physical phenomena. In [@Rajagopal], the equations of Brinkman corresponding to (\[eq:1-1a\]) with $b=0$ have been derived using mixtures theory, in fact a class of approximate models for flows of incompressible fluids passing porous solids have been described. [*Forchheimer*]{} [@Forchheimer] studied flow experiments in sandpacks and came to the conclusion that for small Reynolds numbers (Re $\approx$ 0.2), the diffusion law of Darcy is not significant. Furthermore, he found the relationship between the pressure gradient and the velocity obtained using the law of Darcy to be nonlinear. In fact for a wide range of physical experiments, he found that the nonlinear term should be quadratic. Inertial effects in the porous medium at relatively small Reynolds numbers are the cause of the nonlinear excess pressure drop observed by [*Forchheimer*]{} and others. The slip boundary conditions of friction type (\[eq:1-5\]) can be justified by the fact that frictional effects of the fluid at the pores of the solid can be very important. In fact on the role of the boundary conditions for such problems, [*Brinkman*]{} [@Brinkman] mentioned that “The flow through this porous media is described by a modification of Darcy’s equation. Such modification was necessary to obtain consistent boundary conditions”. While there continues to be some debate over the functionality of the Brinkman-Forchheimer model [@Nield], nonlinearity has been verified experimentally [@Kladias-Prasad], and some theoretical results have been obtained in [@Celebi; @Payne; @AmesStraughan; @AmesPayne; @Payne2]. The Brinkman-Forchheimer equation continues to be used for predicting the velocity of the flow in the porous region, while the energy equation for the porous region accounts for the effect of thermal dispersion [@Kuznetsov-Xiong]. Since we are well aware that for such flow, there are important features at the boundary, it is therefore important to model Brinkman-Forchheimer flow accurately taking into account the motion at the boundary. This is the driving force behind our work.Even though flows under boundary conditions of friction type have been considered in various publications ([@Leroux; @Fujita94; @LerouxTani; @FujKawSas95; @FujKawKaw95; @FujKaw98; @Fujita01; @Fujita02; @Fujita02b] among others), and Brinkman-Forchheimer equations (\[eq:1-1a\]), (\[eq:1-1b\]) with non slip boundary conditions has been examined in [@Celebi; @Payne; @AmesStraughan; @AmesPayne; @Payne2], the combination of (\[eq:1-1a\]), (\[eq:1-1b\]) and (\[eq:1-5\]) has not been presented in the literature, and it is the object of this work. The novelty of the problem, from the mathematical point of view, derives from the following features; the highly coupled and nonlinear nature of the problem, the incompressibility constraint and related pressure, and the leak boundary conditions (\[eq:1-4\]) and (\[eq:1-5\]).Not surprisingly, flows problems involving boundary conditions of friction type offer significant theoretical and computational challenges. With regard to theoretical studies, the work by Hiroshi Fujita and co-authors [@Fujita94; @FujKawSas95; @FujKawKaw95; @FujKaw98; @Fujita01; @Fujita02; @Fujita02b], represent some early, contributions. These authors established existence, and uniqueness of solutions, for the equations corresponding to Stokes equations by means of semi-group approach, regularity of solutions are also examined. An interesting and related work is that by Christiaan Leroux and co-author [@Leroux; @LerouxTani] on Stokes and Navier Stokes equations under more general “friction type boundary conditions”. As far as computational studies for flows driven by “friction type boundary conditions” are concerned, it should be mentioned that even though the literature is very rich in problems formulated in terms of variational inequalities [@GlowinskiLionsTremoliere; @Glowinski; @WeiminReddy; @SHS06], not much have been done for the specific case involving mixed coupled problems [@WeiminReddy; @Yuan-Kaito; @GerLel09; @Sasamoto92; @SasKaw93], and we would like to explore that research direction.Problem (\[eq:1-1a\])-(\[eq:1-5\]) is a coupled nonlinear system of equations with a non-differentiable expression (at zero) on $S$ due to the sub-differential term $\partial |{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}|$. We propose to solve the resulting system of partial differential equations using the regularization approach [@DUVAUT; @LIONS], which consists of replacing the original problem by a sequence of “better behaved” approximate problems indexed by a small positive parameter ${\varepsilon}$. We then solve the regularized problems by the Faedo-Galerkin method, and finally, the solution of the original problem is obtained by passage to the limit as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero. The difficulty in the algorithm described is to obtain the pressure. Indeed, as the problem in its weak form is formulated as a variational inequality with only one unknown, the pressure will not be obtained in the usual way (for the classical Navier-Stokes equations see e.g [@Raviart-Thomas], \[Theorem 2.5-1, page 54\]). But, instead we first construct a regularized pressure by using the classical approach and then pass to the limit as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero, after showing that the regularized pressures are bounded in some appropriate function space. After constructing weak solutions of the problem, we analyze some qualitative properties of the solution, namely; the continuous dependence of the solution with respect to the [*Brinkman*]{} and [*Forchheimer*]{} coefficients, and the stability of the stationary solution. The results presented, extend in some sense those obtained in [@Payne; @Payne2] to a family of variational inequalities with non-differentiable functionals.The remaining part if this work is organized as follows. In section 2, we document the variational formulation associated to the problem and prove its well-posedness. Section 3 is devoted to the stability of the solutions with respect to some data of the problem. The stability of the stationary solutions is analyzed in Section 4.
Analysis of the problem: Solvability
====================================
We introduce some preliminaries and notation for the mathematical setting of the problem. We write down a variational formulation of problem (\[eq:1-1a\])-(\[eq:1-5\]). Next we derive some [*a priori*]{} estimates of its solution and obtain the existence of solutions by means of Faedo-Galerkin.
Preliminaries/Notation
----------------------
In what follows, for $1\leq p\leq \infty$, $L^p(\Omega)$, and $L^p(\partial \Omega)$ are the usual Lebesgue spaces, with norms denoted by $\|\cdot\|_{L^p}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{L^p(\partial \Omega)}$ respectively. (of course when $p=2$, we will denoted the norm in $L^2(\Omega)$ by $\|\cdot\|$). We shall use the following notation; for the sake of simplicity, one defines them in three dimensions. Let $k=(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ denote a triple of non-negative intergers, set $|k|=k_1+k_2+k_3$ and define he partial derivative $\partial^k$ by $$\partial^kv={\displaystyle}\frac{\partial^{|k|}v}{\partial x^{k_1}\partial y^{k_2}\partial
z^{k_3}}~.$$ Then, for non-negative integer $m$, we recall the classical Sobolev space $$H^m(\Omega)=\{v\in L^2(\Omega)~;~~\partial^kv\in
L^2(\Omega)~~\forall~|k|\leq m\}$$ equipped with the seminorm $$|v|_{H^m(\Omega)}=\left[\sum_{|k|=m}\int_\Omega
|\partial^kv|^2\mbox{dx}\right]^{1/2}$$ and norm $$||v||_{H^m(\Omega)}=\left[\sum_{0\leq k\leq m
}\int_\Omega|\partial^kv|^{2}\mbox{dx}\right]^{1/2}~.$$ For $p=1,2,3, \cdots$, the inner products in the spaces $L^2(\Omega)^p$, $L^2(\partial \Omega)^p$ and $H^1(\Omega)^p$ are denoted by $(\cdot,\cdot)$, $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\partial \Omega}$ and $(\cdot,\cdot)_1$, respectively. The product spaces are denoted by bold letters: $\mathbf{H}^1(\Omega)=H^1(\Omega)^3$, $\mathbf{L}^2(\Omega)=L^2(\Omega)^3$, $\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)=L^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)^3$, etc.Here, and in what follows, the boundary values are to be understood in the sense of traces. We omit the trace operators where the meaning is direct; otherwise we denote the traces by ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}|_\Gamma$, ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}|_S$, etc. Also, all the derivatives should be understood in the sense of distribution.We also recall from [@Girault-Raviart] (Chap. I, Thm 1.1) for instance the following Poincaré-Friedrichs inequality: $$\text{for all}\quad {\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in \mathbf{H}^1(\Omega)
\cap\{v_n|_S=0~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}|_\Gamma=0\}\,,\quad \|{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\|\leq
C\|\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\|\,\,, \label{eq:Poincare}$$ which yields the equivalence of the norms $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $|\cdot|_1$ on $\mathbf{H}^1(\Omega)\cap\{v_n|_S=0~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}|_\Gamma=0\}$.For any separable Banach space $E$ equipped with the norm $\|\cdot\|_E$, we denote by $C^0(0,T;E)$ the space of continuous functions from $[0,T]$ with values in $E$ and by $D'(0,T;E)$ the space of distributions with values in $E$. $L^p(0,T;E)$ is a Banach space consisting of (classes of) functions $t\longmapsto f(t)$ measurable from $[0,T]\longmapsto E$ (for the measure $dt$) such that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\|f\|_{L^p(0,T;E)}=\left[\int^T_0\|f(t)\|^p_Edt\right]^{1/p}<\infty~\text{for}~p\neq \infty\\
&&\|f\|_{L^\infty(0,T;E)}={\displaystyle}\text{ess}_{0<t<T}\sup\|f(t)\|_E<\infty~.\end{aligned}$$ In what follows, $\phi(t)$ stands for the function ${\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}}\in
\Omega\mapsto \phi({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}},t)$. We assume that the data $({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}},g)$ belong to $L^2(0,T;\mathbf{L}^2(\Omega))\times
L^\infty(S)^2$, and that the datum ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0$ belongs to $\mathbf{H}^1(\Omega)\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$, and satisfies the incompressibility condition $$\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0=0\quad\text{in}\quad\Omega\,. \label{eq:compatibility}$$ This last condition is not necessary for all the results that follow but, since it is not restrictive, we shall assume it from now on.
Variational formulation
-----------------------
In order to write a variational form associated with (\[eq:1-1a\])-(\[eq:1-5\]), we retain (\[eq:1-2\]) and we weaken the equations (\[eq:1-1a\]), (\[eq:1-1b\]) and constraints (\[eq:1-3\]), (\[eq:1-4\]) using the Green’s formula, while (\[eq:1-5\]) is re-interpreted with the help of (\[eq:definition\]). It follows from the nonlinear term in (\[eq:1-1a\]) that ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)$ and the test function ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}$ should belong to $\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$. Then ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t)$ and $|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)$ must belong to the conjugate of $\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$, which is $\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}(\Omega)$. We then introduce the following spaces $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal N}&=&\mathbf{H}^1(\Omega)\cap\{{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}|_\Gamma=0\,\,,\,v_n|_S=0\}~,\nonumber\\
M&=&L^2_0(\Omega)=\{q\in L^2(\Omega)~,~(q,1)=0\}~.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We then adopt the following definition of weak solutions of (\[eq:1-1a\])–(\[eq:1-5\])
Given $({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}},g)$ in $L^2(0,T;\mathbf{L}^2(\Omega))\times
L^\infty(S)^2$, and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0 \in \mathbf{H}^1(\Omega)\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$, satisfying (\[eq:compatibility\]). We say that $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}},p)$ is a weak solution of (\[eq:1-1a\])–(\[eq:1-5\]) if and only if;${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\in
L^\infty\left(0,T;({\mathcal N}\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)\right)$, $p\in L^2(0,T;M)$ , and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'\in L^2\left(0,T;({\mathcal N}\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega))'\right)$, andfor almost all $t$ and all $~q \in L^2(\Omega), {\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mathcal N}\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+\gamma
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\,)+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\nonumber\\
&&+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))
-(\operatorname{div}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)),p(t))+\nonumber\\
&&+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)) \geq ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\,,\label{eq:2-1}\\
&&(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),q)=0\,\,\label{eq:2-2}\\
&&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(0)={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0~,\label{eq:2-3}\end{aligned}$$ where, $J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})=(g({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}}),|{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}})|)_{L^2(S)}$. \[weaksolution\]
Following [@DUVAUT], it can be shown that any solution of (\[eq:1-1a\])-(\[eq:1-5\]) is a solution of (\[eq:2-1\])-(\[eq:2-3\]) in the sense of distributions. The converse property holds for any solution of the problem (\[eq:1-1a\])-(\[eq:1-5\]) that enjoys the regularity mentioned in Definition \[weaksolution\], in a sense to be made precise later on. The kernel of the bilinear and continuous form $
L^2(\Omega)\times {\mathcal N}\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)\ni(q,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}) \longmapsto
(q,\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\in{\mbox{$\mathbb{R}$}}$ is ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}=\{{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mathcal N}\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)\,\,,\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}=0\quad\text{in}\quad\Omega\}$. With the space ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ in mind, it is then easy to see that the function ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)$ given in (\[eq:2-1\])–(\[eq:2-3\]) is a solution of the simpler variational problem: Find ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\in
L^\infty(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}})~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'\in L^2(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}')$ satisfying (\[eq:2-3\]) such that for almost all $t$ and all ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+\gamma
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\,)+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))~\label{eq:2-4}\\
&&+ b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\geq ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Next, we establish the solvability of the variational problem (\[eq:2-4\]) by means of regularization combined with Galerkin’s method. We then construct a pressure $p$ in $L^2(0,T;L^2_0(\Omega))$ such that the couple $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}},p)$ enjoys the regularity announced in definition \[weaksolution\], and satisfies (\[eq:2-1\])–(\[eq:2-3\]).
Existence of a solution
-----------------------
In this paragraph we discuss the solvability of (\[eq:2-4\]) by regularization, and passage to the limit. Thus it is obtained in several steps, that we describe below.
Step 1: [*Regularized problem*]{}.We first recall that one of the difficulties of solving (\[eq:2-4\]) is the fact that the functional ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}\longmapsto
J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})=(g({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}}),|{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}})|)_S$ is not differentiable at zero. So, to bypass that hurdle we introduce the regularized functional $J_{\varepsilon}$ defined by $$v\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}\mapsto J_{\varepsilon}(v)=(g({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}}),
\sqrt{|v_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}({\mbox{\boldmath{$x$}}})|^2+{\varepsilon}^2})_S~~,~~~ 0<{\varepsilon}<<1~.$$ Clearly $J_{\varepsilon}$ is convex and Gateaux differentiable with Gateaux derivative $K_{\varepsilon}$ defined on ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ and given by $$\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle=\int_Sg\displaystyle
\frac{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}}{\sqrt{|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}|^2+{\varepsilon}^2}}\,ds\,.$$ We briefly observe that $K_{\varepsilon}$ is monotone. Indeed since $J_{\varepsilon}$ is convex, for ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}},{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}$ elements of ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ and $0<t<1$, $J_\epsilon(t{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}+(1-t){\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\leq tJ_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})+(1-t)J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})$, which can be re-written as $$\displaystyle \frac{J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}+t({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}))-J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})}{t}\leq J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})-J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\,.$$ Then by taking the limit on both sides when $t$ goes to zero yields $$\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle\leq J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})-J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\,.$$ Interchanging the role of ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}$, one gets instead $$\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\rangle\leq J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J_\epsilon({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})\,.$$ Putting together the later and former inequality, one has the desired result $$\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})-K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle\geq
0\,\,. \label{eq:monotone}$$ The regularized form of (\[eq:2-4\]) can be written as follows: Find ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\in L^\infty(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}})$ satisfying (\[eq:2-3\]) with ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}\in L^2(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}')$ such that for almost all $t$ and all ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\,)+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))
\nonumber\\
&&+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))
+J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\geq ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\,.\label{eq:2-5}\end{aligned}$$ Since $J_{\varepsilon}$ is differentiable, adopting the classical aruments in [@DUVAUT], one can state that (\[eq:2-5\]) is equivalent to: Find ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\in L^\infty(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}})$ satisfying (\[eq:2-3\]) with ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}\in L^2(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}')$ such that for almost all $t$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+ b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\nonumber\\
&&+\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle= ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})~~\mbox{for all}~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}\,\,.\label{eq:2-6}\end{aligned}$$ Before proving the existence of a solution ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)$ of (\[eq:2-6\]), we first show how the pressure is constructed, knowing the velocity. For that purpose, we begin by integrating (\[eq:2-6\]) on $[0,t]$, apply (\[eq:2-3\]), and for ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in
{\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$; we introduce the functional $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal H}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})(t)&=&\int^t_0\Big[({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(s),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(s),\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(s),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-
b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(s)|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(s),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\Big]~ds\\
&&-\int^t_0\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(s)),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle~ds-({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+ ({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})~,~~\text{for all}~~0\leq t\leq T~.\end{aligned}$$ One sees that ${\mathcal H}$ is linear and continuous on ${\mathcal N}\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$, and according to (\[eq:2-6\]) and (\[eq:2-3\]), it vanishes on ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$. Now following [@Raviart-Thomas], \[Theorem 2.5-1, page 54\], for each $t\in
[0,T]$, there exists a unique function $\widetilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(t)\in
L^2_0(\Omega)$ and a positive constant $C$ such that: for all ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal H}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})(t)=(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}},\widetilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(t))~,~~\label{eq:2-6b}\\
~~C\|\widetilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|\leq
\displaystyle
\sup_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\small $v$}}}\in{\mathcal N}}\frac{(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}},\widetilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(t))}{\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\|_1}~~~.
\label{eq:2-7b}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we take the time derivative on both sides of (\[eq:2-6b\]); and we let $$p_{\varepsilon}(t)=\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\widetilde{p}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,
\label{eq:2-8}$$ in the resulting equation. Thus we have obtained the following variational problem: Find ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\in L^2(0,T;{\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega))$, $p_{\varepsilon}\in L^2(0,T;L^2_0(\Omega))$ with ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}\in L^2(0,T;({\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega))')$ such that for almost all $t$ and all $q\in L^2(\Omega)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+ b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\nonumber\\
&&-(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}},p_{\varepsilon}(t))+\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle=({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\,,
\label{eq:2-9}\\
&&(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),q)=0\,\,\nonumber\\
&&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(0)={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that the variational problems (\[eq:2-6\]) and (\[eq:2-9\]) are equivalent, with the regularized pressure described by (\[eq:2-6b\]), (\[eq:2-7b\]) and (\[eq:2-8\]).
Step 2: [*Faedo-Galerkin approximation*]{}.We let $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}&=&\{{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in \mathbf{L}^2(\Omega)~,~~\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}=0~,~~v_n|_{\partial
\Omega}=0\}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)~.\end{aligned}$$ One readily observes that ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ is compactly embedded in ${\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$. For the slip boundary condition, we introduce the Stokes operator defined on a subspace of ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ constructed in [@Heywood] as follows; for every ${\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$, there exists a unique ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ such that $$\label{ONE}
(\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}, \nabla \phi)=({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}},\phi), \forall \phi \in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}\,.$$ Moreover, for every ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$, there exists a unique ${\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}\in
{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$ such that holds. Then defines a one-to-one mapping between ${\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in D(A)$, where $D(A)$ is a subspace of ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$. Hence, $A{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}={\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}$ defines the Stokes operator $A:D(A)\rightarrow {\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$. Its inverse $A^{-1}$ is compact and self-adjoint as a mapping from ${\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$ to ${\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$ and possesses an orthogonal sequence of eigenfunctions ${\mbox{\boldmath{$\psi$}}}_k$ which are complete in ${\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}$ and ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$; $$\label{TWO}
A{\mbox{\boldmath{$\psi$}}}_k=\lambda_k {\mbox{\boldmath{$\psi$}}}_k.$$ Let ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m$ be the subspace of ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ spanned by $\psi_1,\cdots,\psi_m$, that is $${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m=\{\psi_1,\psi_2,\psi_3,\cdots,\psi_m\}~.$$ We consider the following ordinary differential equation: Find ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m$ such that for all ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m$; $$\label{eq:2-10}
\begin{split}
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+
a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\\+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})
+\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle=
({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})~~,\\
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(0)\rightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(0)={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0 \in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m~.
\end{split}$$ As far as the existence of ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)$ defined by (\[eq:2-10\]) is concerned, we note that the mapping $${\mathcal K}:{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}\longmapsto ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}},{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})- \nu (\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}~,~\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-
a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}})~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle~,$$ is locally Lipschitz thanks to the nature of the operators involved. It then follows from the theory of ordinary differential equations that (\[eq:2-10\]) has a solution ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}$ defined on $[0,t_{{\varepsilon},m}]$, $t_{{\varepsilon},m}>0$. Hereafter, $C$ denotes a constant independent of $m$, and depending only on the data such as $\Omega$, and whose value may be different in each inequality. Next, we derive some [*a priori*]{} estimates and deduce that $t_{{\varepsilon},m}$ does not depend on ${\varepsilon}$ or $m$. Concerning the later property, is should be mentioned from [@DUVAUT; @LIONS], that it suffice to derive [*a priori*]{} estimates of the solution with the right hand side independent of $m$ and ${\varepsilon}$.
[*Step 3: Some a priori estimates*]{}.First we let ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)$ in (\[eq:2-10\]). After using Young’s inequality, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&&\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2+2\nu \|\nabla
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2+a\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2
+2b\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}}\nonumber\\
&&+2
\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\rangle
\leq
\displaystyle\frac{||f(t)||^2}{a}~,
\label{eq:2-11a}\end{aligned}$$ which by integrating over $[0,T^\sharp]$ for $T^\sharp\leq t_{{\varepsilon},m}$, and using (\[eq:monotone\]), yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{0\le t\le T^\sharp}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2+2\nu \int_{0}^{T^\sharp}||\nabla
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2 dt+a\int_{0}^{T^\sharp}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2dt\nonumber\\
&&+2b\int^{T^\sharp}_{0}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}} dt\leq \displaystyle \frac{1}{a}\int_{0}^{T^\sharp}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)||^2 dt+||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0||^2<\infty\,
\label{eq:2-11}\end{aligned}$$ since by assumption ${\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}\in L^2(Q)$. Now let ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)$ in (\[eq:2-10\]). For $0\leq t\leq T^\sharp$, Young’s inequality yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2+\frac{d}{dt}\left[ \nu
||\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2 +
a||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2+\frac{2b}{\alpha+2}\|
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}}\right]\\ && +\frac{d}{dt}\left[2K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))\right]\leq ||{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)||^2~,\end{aligned}$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{0}^{T^\sharp}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2dt+\nu||\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2 + a||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)||^2+\frac{2b}{\alpha+2}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}} \nonumber\\
&& +2K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))\leq ||{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}||^{2}_{{\displaystyle}L^2{\displaystyle}(0,T^\sharp;L^2)}+\Phi(0),\label{eq:2-12}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Phi(0)=\nu||\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0||^2 +
a||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0||^2+\frac{2b}{\alpha+2}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}}+2\int_S
g\sqrt{|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0|^2+1}~ds~. \nonumber$$ It is manifest that the right hand sides of the [*a priori*]{} estimates obtained in (\[eq:2-11\]) and (\[eq:2-12\]) are independent of $m$ and ${\varepsilon}$. We then conclude that $t_{{\varepsilon},m}$ is independent of ${\varepsilon}$ and $m$ following the arguments discussed in length by [@DUVAUT; @LIONS].
Step 4: [*Passage to the limit*]{}.We need to pass to the limit when $m$ approaches infinity and ${\varepsilon}$ approaches zero. We start by fixing ${\varepsilon}$ and study the sequence $m\longmapsto{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}$.Based on (\[eq:2-11\]) and (\[eq:2-12\]), it is clear that when $m\rightarrow \infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}~\text{remains bounded in}~L^\infty(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}),~\nonumber\\
&|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}~\text{remains bounded in}~L^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}(0,T;\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}(\Omega))~~,
\label{eq:boundedset}\\
&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon},m}~\text{remains bounded in}~L^2(0,T;\mathbf{L}^2(\Omega))~. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From a consequence of the result of [*Dunford-Pettis*]{} [@Yosida], it is possible to extract from $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m})_m$ a subsequence, denoted again by $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m})_m$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\text{ weak star in }~ L^\infty(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}})\label{eq:2-13}\\
&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\text{ weak star in }~ L^\infty(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m)\label{eq:2-14}\\
&|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}\longrightarrow \chi_{\varepsilon}~ \text{weak star in}~
L^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}
\left(0,T;\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}(\Omega)\right)\label{eq:2-15}\\
&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon},m}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{\varepsilon}\text{
weak in }~ L^2(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}).\label{eq:2-16}\end{aligned}$$ The convergence results (\[eq:2-13\]), and (\[eq:2-16\]) imply in particular that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}~\text{remains in a bounded set of}~H^1(Q)\,.
\label{eq:2-16b}\end{aligned}$$ But from Rellich-Kondrachoff, the embedding $H^1(Q)\longmapsto L^2(Q)$ is compact. So one can extract from $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m})$ a subsequence, denoted again by $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}~\text{strong in}~L^2(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}})~\text{and a.e.~in}~Q\,.
\label{eq:2-17}\end{aligned}$$ Next, it follows from (\[eq:2-15\]) and (\[eq:2-17\]) and Lemma 1.3 in [@LIONS] (page 12) that $\chi_{\varepsilon}=|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}$ .It remains to be shown that $$\label{eq:2-19}
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m})\longrightarrow K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}) \text{ weak star in } L^\infty(0,T,{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m')~.$$ Firstly from (\[eq:2-14\]) $$\label{eq:2-20}
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m})\longrightarrow \beta_{\varepsilon}\text{ weak star in } L^\infty(0,T,{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m')~.$$ Passing to the limit in (\[eq:2-10\]), one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&&({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\nonumber\\
&&+\langle\beta_{\varepsilon},{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle=({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}), \forall
{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m~.\label{eq:2-21}\end{aligned}$$ For any ${\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}\in L^1(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m)$, since $K_{\varepsilon}(\cdot)$ is monotone (see \[eq:monotone\]), $$\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\rangle\geq \langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}\rangle+\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}})~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}\rangle~~,$$ but from (\[eq:2-10\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\rangle&=&({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))-
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}^{'}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))\\&& - \nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))-a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))\\
&& -b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~.\end{aligned}$$ The former and latter equations give $$\begin{aligned}
({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2-\nu
\|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2-a\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2
-b\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}}\\
\geq \langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}\rangle+\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}})~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}\rangle~.\end{aligned}$$ So, integrating with respect to $t$ on $[0,T]$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int^T_0({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))dt- \displaystyle
\frac{1}{2}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(T)\|^2+\displaystyle
\frac{1}{2}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(0)\|^2\nonumber\\
&&-\int^T_0\displaystyle \left[\nu
\|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2+a\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^2+b\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}}\right]dt\label{eq:2-22}\\
&&\geq \int^T_0\left[\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)\rangle+\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)\rangle\right]dt~.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Next, we take ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t)$ in (\[eq:2-21\]), and combined the resulting equation with (\[eq:2-22\]), which yields (after taking the limit as $m$ approaches to infinity) $$\begin{aligned}
\int^T_0\langle
\beta_{\varepsilon}-K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)\rangle
dt\geq0~.\label{eq:2-23}\end{aligned}$$ At this juncture, we let ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)=\pm{\mbox{\boldmath{$q$}}}$ with ${\mbox{\boldmath{$q$}}}\in
L^2(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m)$. Thus (\[eq:2-23\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\int^T_0\langle \beta_{\varepsilon}-K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t))~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$q$}}}\rangle dt=0~~,~\end{aligned}$$ from which we deduce the desired convergence result (\[eq:2-19\]). We have established that as $m$ goes to infinity, the sequence $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon},m}(t))_m$ converges to ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)$ in some sense with ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)$, the solution of $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:2-24}
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})
+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\\
+\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle=({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})~~,~~\text{for all}~~~
{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m~.
\end{split}$$
Since $\cup_m {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}_m$ is dense in ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$, we can conclude that (\[eq:2-24\]) holds true for ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}$ in ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$. Therefore, we have established that there exists a function ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}$ uniformly bounded with respect to ${\varepsilon}$ in $L^\infty(0,T, {\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}\cap{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}\cap
\mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega))$ such that ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}$ is uniformly bounded with respect to ${\varepsilon}$ in $L^2(0,T, {\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}})$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}$ satisfies (\[eq:2-24\]).Our final task in the paragraph is to consider the limit as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero.First, we take the limit on both sides of (\[eq:2-11\]) and (\[eq:2-12\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{0\le t\le T}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)||^2+2\nu \int_0^T||\nabla
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)||^2 dt+a\int_0^T||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)||^2dt\nonumber\\
&&+2b\int^T_0\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}} dt\le
\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}\int_0^T||{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)||^2
dt+||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0||^2,~~\label{eq:2-25}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^T||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t)||^2dt+\nu||\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)||^2
+a||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)||^2+\frac{2b}{\alpha+2}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^{\alpha+2}_{L^{\alpha+2}}
\nonumber\\
&&\le \int_0^T||{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)||^2dt+\Phi(0)~.\label{eq:2-26}\end{aligned}$$ Thus we can extract from $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon}$ a subsequence still denoted by $({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\text{ weak star in } L^\infty(0,T,{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}})\label{eq:2-27}\\
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\text{ weak star in } L^\infty(0,T,{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}})\label{eq:2-28}\\
|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow \chi \text{ weak star in } L^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}
\left(0,T,\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}(\Omega)\right)\label{eq:2-29}\\
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}' \text{ weak in } L^2(0,T,{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}})~.\end{aligned}$$ Arguing as before we can prove that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\text{ strong in } L(0,T;{\mbox{$\mathbb{H}$}}) \text{ and a.e. in}\,\,Q,\label{eq:2-30}\\
|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow |{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\text{
weak in } L^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}\left(0,T;\mathbf{L}^{\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha+1}}(\Omega)\right)~.\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in L^2(0,T,{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}})$, from (\[eq:2-24\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&&({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)))+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\nonumber\\
&&+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)~,~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))+J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\nonumber\\
&&=({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))+J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))-\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\rangle~.\label{eq:2-31}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating (\[eq:2-31\]) with respect to $t$ along $[0,T]$ and taking into account the fact that $J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))-\langle
K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\rangle\geq 0$, one obtains $$\label{eq:2-32}
\begin{split}
\int_0^T\left(
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+
a({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+b(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\right)dt\\ +\int_0^T \left (J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-
({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\right)dt\\
\ge
\frac{1}{2}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(T)||^2-\frac{1}{2}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\varepsilon}0}||^2+\int_0^T\left(
a||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)||^2+b\int_\Omega
|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^{\alpha+2}dx\right)dt\\+\int_0^tJ_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))dt~.
\end{split}$$ Since ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}$ weak star in $L^\infty(0,T,{\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}})$, and $J_{\varepsilon}$ is a convex and continuous functional on ${\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$, one has $$\label{eq:2-33} \displaystyle \lim\inf_{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow0}\int_0^TJ_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))dt\ge \int_0^TJ({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))dt~.$$ By using (\[eq:2-33\]), we infer from (\[eq:2-32\]) that $$\begin{split}
\int_0^T\big((
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+a({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+b(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\\+
J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\big)dt\\
\ge \frac{1}{2}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(T)||^2-\frac{1}{2}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0||^2+\int_0^T\left(
a||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)||^2+b\int_\Omega
|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^{\alpha+2}dx\right)dt+\int_0^TJ({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))dt\\
= \int^T_0\left[({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+
a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\right]dt\\
\end{split}$$ which by arguing as in [@DUVAUT], pages 56-57, yields $$\begin{split}
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)))+a({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\\+b(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))
+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\geq ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))~~~\text{for all}~~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}~.
\end{split}$$ We then conclude that
The variational problem (\[eq:2-6\]) admits at least a weak solution, which moreover satisfies; $$\begin{aligned}
&&\displaystyle \sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\|\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)\|\leq C~~,~~
\displaystyle \int^T_0\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t)\|^2dt\leq C~,\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a positive constant depending on the data. \[existence\]
Having obtained the velocity, we shall indicate how the pressure is constructed. First, we recall that from $(\ref{eq:2-9})_1$, $$\begin{split}
(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}},p_{\varepsilon}(t))=({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\\+ b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})
+\langle K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\rangle-({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})\,,
\end{split}$$ but since $p_{\varepsilon}(t)\in L^2_0(\Omega)$, following [@Girault-Raviart], one can find a positive constant $C$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
C\|p_{\varepsilon}(t)\|\leq \displaystyle \sup_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\small $v$}}}\in {\mathcal
N}}\frac{(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}},p_{\varepsilon}(t))}{\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\|_1}~~.\end{aligned}$$ Now, combining the former and latter equations and the continuity of operators involved, one obtains $$\begin{split}
C\|p_{\varepsilon}(t)\|\leq
\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+\nu \|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+a\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+ b\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^{\alpha+1}_{L^{2\alpha+2}}\\+\|K_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\|_{{\mathcal V}'}+\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)\|
\end{split}$$ Equivalently, $$\begin{split}
C\|p_{\varepsilon}(t)\|&\leq \|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+\nu \|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+a\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+
C(b,\Omega,\alpha)\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^{\alpha+1}_{L^6}\\&\quad +C(\Omega)\|g\|_{L^\infty(S)}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|_1+\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)\|,\\
&\leq \|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+\nu \|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+a\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|+
C(b,\Omega,\alpha)\|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^{\alpha+1}\\ &
+C(\Omega)\|g\|_{L^\infty(S)}\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|_1+\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)\|~
\end{split}$$ which by Young’s inequality and integrating the resulting inequality over $[0,T]$, yields (after utilization of (\[eq:2-25\]) and (\[eq:2-26\])) $$\begin{split}
\int^T_0\|p_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^2dt\leq
C\int^T_0\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^2+C\int^T_0\|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^2dt+C\int^T_0\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^2\\ +
C\int^T_0\|\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^{2\alpha+2}dt
+C\|g\|^2_{L^\infty(S)}\int^T_0\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)\|^2_1\\+C\int^T_0\|{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t)\|^2dt<\infty~~,
\label{eq:2-34}
\end{split}$$ $C$ being a positive constant depending on the parameters and the domain of the problem. Then we can select from $p_{\varepsilon}(t)$ a sequence, again denoted by $p_{\varepsilon}(t)$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow p~~\text{weakly
in}~~~L^2(0,T;L^2_0(\Omega))~~. \label{eq:2-35}\end{aligned}$$ Next, one observes that (\[eq:2-9\]) can be re-written as $$\begin{split}
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)))+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\\
+
b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))
-(\operatorname{div}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))~,~p_{\varepsilon}(t))\\+J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J_{\varepsilon}({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))-
({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t))\geq
0~~\,\text{for all}~~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)\,,\\
(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),q)=0\,\,,
\text{for all}~~q\in L^2(\Omega)\,,
\end{split}$$ which by integration over the time interval $[0,T]$ and passage to the limit (as ${\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0$ ) yields, (after utilization of the identity $(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{\varepsilon}(t),q)=0$ for all $q\in L^2(\Omega)$) $$\begin{split}
\int^T_0\big[({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)))+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\big]dt\\
+\int^T_0\big[-(\operatorname{div}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))~,~p(t))+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))-({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\big]dt
\\ + \int_0^T b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)) dt\geq
0,
\end{split}$$ $\text{for all}~~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$. Also, $(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),q)=0\,\,
\text{for all}~~q\in L^2(\Omega)~.$
Finally, arguing as in [@DUVAUT], pages 56-57, one obtains $$\begin{split}
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)))+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\\+ b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))
-(\operatorname{div}({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))~,~p(t))+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\\
\geq ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))
\end{split}
$$ $
{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mathcal N}\cap \mathbf{L}^{\alpha+2}(\Omega)$. Moreover, $(\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),q)=0\,\,\,\text{ for all }~q\in L^2(\Omega).$
Continuous dependence on the data
=================================
In this section, our focus is to establish some qualitative properties of the weak solutions in Theorem \[existence\]. In particular, we show that the solutions depend continuously on initial velocity, external force as well as the Forchheimer’s and Brinkman’s coefficients. We recall that such results in the literature are sometimes referred to as structural stability. We first claim that
\[CONTINUOUS1\] Let ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_i$ be the solution of (\[eq:2-3\]) with respect to ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{i0}, {\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_i$, $i=1,2$. Then there exists a positive constant $C$, depending on $a,\nu$ and $\Omega$ such that $$||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1(t)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2(t)||^2\leq
e^{-C\,t}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1(0)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2(0)||^2+\displaystyle
\int^t_0e^{C(-t+s)}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_2(s)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_1(s)||^2ds\,.$$
This theorem implies in particular the following uniqueness result.
The problem (\[eq:2-3\]) has one and only one solution.
[**Proof theorem \[CONTINUOUS1\]**]{}.The functions ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2$ satisfy respectively: $$\label{eq:3-1}
\begin{split}
(\partial_t {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1)+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1,\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1))+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1)+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1)\\
+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1)\ge ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1)~~\mbox{for
all}~~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}~.
\end{split}$$ and $$\label{eq:3-2}
\begin{split}
(\partial_t{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2)+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2,\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2))+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2)+b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2)\\+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2)\ge ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_2,{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2)~~\mbox{for
all}~~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}~.
\end{split}$$ Setting ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2$ in (\[eq:3-1\]) and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1$ in (\[eq:3-2\]) and adding the resulting inequalities, it follows that $$\begin{split}
\displaystyle
\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt} ||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2+\nu||\nabla {\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}||^2 +a ||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2\\
+b(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2-|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)) \le
({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_2-{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t))~,
\end{split}$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2(t)-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1(t)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}_0={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{20}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{10}$. Since $T(\zeta)=|\zeta|^\alpha \zeta$ is monotone then $$(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_2-|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_1,{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t))\ge 0~.$$ Therefore $$\label{eq:3-3}
\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt} ||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2+C(\nu,a,\Omega)
||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2\leq C(a,\Omega)||{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_2-{\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}_1||^2~~,$$ where Poincaré’s inequality has been used. We readily deduce the desired result from (\[eq:3-3\]) using Gronwall’s lemma. [$\square$]{}
In line of theorem \[CONTINUOUS1\], one can state the following result.
The weak solutions of problem (\[eq:2-3\]) constructed in theorem \[existence\] depends continuously with respect to the $L^2$ norm on:
1. the Forchheimer coefficient $b$, and
2. the Brinkman coefficient $\nu$.
The proof follows mutatis mutandis the proof of theorem \[CONTINUOUS1\].
Stability of stationary solutions
=================================
Hereafter, we study the stability of stationary solutions to (\[eq:2-3\]).We assume that the apply force ${\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}$ is independent of time, and we consider the following stationary problem $$\label{eq:4-1}
\begin{cases}
-\nu \Delta {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}+a{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}+b|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}|^\alpha {\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}-\nabla p={\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}}, \text{ in } \Omega\,,\\
\operatorname{div}{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}=0, \text{ in } \Omega\,,\\
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}=0 \text{ on } \Gamma,\\
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath{$n$}}}=0~~,~~\mbox{and}~~-{\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}\in
g\partial|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_{{\mbox{\boldmath{\footnotesize $\tau$}}}}| \text{ on } S\,.
\end{cases}$$ Here, we always assume that $\alpha \in [1,2]$, $\gamma, a,b>0$.
It is clear that the velocity satisfies the simpler variational problem $$\label{eq:4-2}
\begin{cases}
\mbox{Find}~~{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}~\mbox{such that for all}~{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}~,\\
\nu(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}},\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}))+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}, {\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})+b(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}|^\alpha{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}},
{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})\ge ({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}},{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}})~.
\end{cases}$$ It can be shown as in [@DUVAUT] that there exists a unique $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}\in {\mbox{$\mathbb{V}$}}$ such that (\[eq:4-2\]) holds true, and one has the following
The weak solution ${\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}$ of (\[eq:2-3\]) constructed in theorem \[existence\] converges to the unique solution $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}$ to (\[eq:4-2\]) exponentially as $t$ goes to infinity. More precisely, we have the following estimate $$||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}||^2\le ||{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}_0-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}||^2e^{-2(a+\nu)t}~~,~~\mbox{for all}~t\geq 0~.$$
[**proof.**]{}We let ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)$ in (\[eq:4-2\]), thus $$\begin{split}
\nu(\nabla\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}
,\nabla({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}))+a\,(\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}},
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}})+b(|\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}|^\alpha\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}},
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}})\\+J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))-J(\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}})\ge
({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}},{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}})~.
\end{split}$$ Next, for ${\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}}=\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}$ in (\[eq:2-3\]), one has $$\begin{split}
({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}'(t),\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+\nu
(\nabla{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\nabla(\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\,)+a\,({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\\+
b\,(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t),\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))+J(\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}})-J({\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\ge
({\mbox{\boldmath{$f$}}},\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}-{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t))\,\,\,.
\end{split}$$ Now, putting together the two previous inequalities yields; $$-({\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}'(t),{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t))-\nu||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2-a||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2-b(|{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}|^\alpha
{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}-|\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}|^\alpha \widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}},{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}})\ge
0~~,~ \label{eq:4-3}$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)={\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}(t)-\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath{$u$}}}}$. From the monotonicity of $T(\zeta)=|\zeta|^\alpha\zeta$, (\[eq:4-3\]) imply that $$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2+2(\nu+a)||{\mbox{\boldmath{$w$}}}(t)||^2\le 0~,$$ from which the announced estimate is readily obtained via Gronwall’s lemma. [$\square$]{}
[**Acknowledgment**]{} The authors are indebted to Prof Mamadou Sango for interesting discussions on Brinkman equations. The work of second author has been sponsored by the University of Pretoria and the National Research Foundation of South Africa.
[10]{}
K. A. Ames & L. E. Payne., . [*Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.*]{}, [**4**]{}, 733–740, 1994.
K. A. Ames & B. Straughan., , in: [*Mathematics in Science and Engineering Series*]{}, [Academic Press]{}, San Diego [**194**]{}, 1997.
H. C. Brinkman., . [*Appl. Sci. Res*]{}, A [**1**]{}, 81–86, 1947.
A.O. Celebi, V.K. Kalantarov & D. Ugurlu., . [*Appl. Math. Lett*]{}, [**19**]{}, 801–807, 2006.
G. Duvaut & J.-L. Lions., , Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol.219, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976.
P. Forchheimer., . [*Z. Ver. Deutch. Ing*]{}, [**45**]{}, 1782–1788, 1901.
H. Fujita., , In: [*Mathematical Fluid Mechanics and Modeling (Kyoto, 1994)*]{}, RIMS Kōkyūroko, Vol. 888, Kyoto University, Kyoto, 199–216, 1994.
H. Fujita., , [*J. Comput. Math*]{}, [**19**]{}, 1–8, 2001.
H. Fujita., , In: [*Tosio Kato’s Method and Principle for Evolution Equations in Mathematical Physics (Sapporo, 2001)*]{}, Eds. H. Fujita et al., RIMS, Kyoto, 70–85, 2002.
H. Fujita., , [*J. Comput. Appl. Math*]{}, [**149**]{}, 57–69, 2002.
H. Fujita, H. Kawahara & H. Kawarada., , [*East-West J. Numer. Math*]{}, [**3**]{}, 111–126, 1995.
H. Fujita & H. Kawarada., , In: [*Recent Developments in Domain Decomposition Methods and Flow Problems (Kyoto, 1996; Anacapri, 1996)*]{}, GAKUTO Internat. Ser. Math. Sci. Appl., Vol.11, Gakkōtosho, 15–33, 1998.
H. Fujita, H. Kawarada & A.Sasamoto., , In: [*Advances in Numerical Mathematics (Tokyo, 1994)*]{}, Lect.Notes Numer. Appl. Anal., Vol. 14, Eds. T. Ushijima et al., Kinokuniya, 17–31, 1995.
J.-F. Gerbeau & T. Leliévre., . [*Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.*]{}, 644-656, 2009.
V. Girault & P.-A. Raviart., , Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Vol. 5, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
R. Glowinski.[*Numerical Methods for Nonlinear Variational Problems*]{}, Springer Series in Computational Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984.
R. Glowinski, J.-L. Lions & R.Trémolières., , Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 8, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981.
W. Han & B. D. Reddy., , [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal*]{}, [**32**]{}, 1778–1807, 1995.
W. Han, M. Shillor& M. Sofonea. , Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 276, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2006.
J.G Heywood, R. Rannacher & S. Turek., . [*Internat. J. Numer. Methods Fluids*]{}, [**22**]{}, no. 5, 325–352, 1996.
H. Kawarada & A. Sasamoto , , In: [*Nonlinear Mathematical Problems in Industry (Iwaki, 1992)*]{}, GAKUTO Internat. Ser. Math. Sci. Appl., Vol. 1, Gakkōtosho, Tokyo, 175–187, 1993.
N. Kladias & V. Prasad., . [*J. Thermophys. Heat Tr.*]{}, [**5**]{}, 560–576, 1991.
A. V. Kuznetsov & M. Xiong., . [*Int. J. Numer. Method. H.*]{}, [**10**]{}, No 5, 488–501 1991.
C. Le Roux., , [*$M^3AS$*]{}, [**15**]{}, 1141–1168, 2005.
C. Le Roux & A. Tani., , [*Math. Methods Appl. Sci.*]{}, [**30**]{}, 595–624, 2007.
Y. Li & K. Li., . [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**204**]{}, 216–226, 2008.
J.L. Lions., Études mathématiques. Dunod, 1969.
D. A. Nield., . [*Int. J. Heat Mass Tran.*]{}, [**12**]{}, No 3, 269–272, 1991.
L. E. Payne & B. Straughan., . [*J. Math. Pures Appl*]{}, [**9**]{}, No 75, 225–271, 1996.
L.E. Payne & B. Straughan., . [*Stud. Appl. Math*]{}, [**102**]{}, 419–439, 1999.
K. R Rajagopal., . [*Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci.*]{}, [**17**]{}, no. 2, 215–252, 2007.
P.A. Raviart & J.M Thomas., , Masson, Paris, 1983.
A. Sasamoto., (in Japanese), Ph.D. thesis, Chiba University, 1992.
K. Yosida., Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften Bd. 123, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1965.
[^1]: Is the corresponding author. [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have mapped the $\eta$ Chamaeleontis young stellar association in the far-infrared with the Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS) on the Spitzer Space Telescope. All sixteen members within the map region were detected at 24 [$\mu$m]{}, along with five members at 70 [$\mu$m]{} and two at 160 [$\mu$m]{}. Ten stars show far-infrared excess emission indicating the presence of circumstellar disks; six of these have central clearings as evidenced by the onset of excess emission at $\lambda>$ 5 [$\mu$m]{}. No new infrared excess sources are identified among the 113 2MASS field stars with 24 [$\mu$m]{} photometry but not seen as X-ray sources, indicating that membership lists derived from X-ray surveys are reasonably complete. Circumstellar disks in the $\eta$ Cha association span the range from 10$^{-1}$ to 10$^{-4}$ in their fractional infrared luminosity, with a median L$_d$/L$_*$ of 0.04. The presence of optically thick, optically thin, and intermediate optical depth disks within the same stellar group, in combination with the large fraction of disks with inner holes, indicates that the $\eta$ Cha association represents a crucial stage in circumstellar disk evolution.'
author:
- 'Thomas. N. Gautier III, L.M. Rebull, K.R. Stapelfeldt and A. Mainzer'
title: 'Spitzer–MIPS Observations of the $\eta$ Cha Young Association'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The young stellar association around the B8V star $\eta$ Chamaeleontis (HD 75416; IRAS F08430-7846) presents an excellent opportunity to study the early evolution of circumstellar disks which may form planetary systems. The association was discovered by @mama99, and lies at a distance of 97 pc. Age estimates from comparison with stellar evolution models range from 4 to 15 Myr with more recent values averaging about 8 Myr ([@mama99; @ls04; @lyo04]). @ls04 lists 18 association members, including a late-age classical T Tauri star [@law02]. Other members show weak H$\alpha$ emission, some with evidence for continuing accretion [@law04]. A deficit of wide binaries was noted in the association by [@bran06]. Three members (including $\eta$ Cha itself) have 25 [$\mu$m]{} excess indicated by the IRAS Faint Source Survey (Moshir 1992); two of these were found to have $L$ band excess by [@hach05]. The $\eta$ Cha association has already been the target of two studies with the [*Spitzer Space Telescope*]{}. @meg05 targeted 17 members with the Infrared Arrary Camera (IRAC), and found six members with 8 [$\mu$m]{} excess. [@bou06] used the Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) to measure the 15 late type members from 8-33 [$\mu$m]{}, reporting excess in 8 objects.
In order to probe the outer regions of these disks beyond the “snow line” where giant planets might potentially form, observations at longer infrared wavelengths are needed. Far-infrared observations are also crucial to inform comparisons between disk properties in $\eta$ Cha and the debris disks of older field stars (which are primarily manifest at $\lambda\ge$ 60 [$\mu$m]{}.) Spitzer’s far infrared camera MIPS (Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer; [@rieke04]) provides unprecedented sensitivity in this wavelength region. In this contribution, we report the MIPS results for $\eta$ Cha.
Observations {#obs}
============
Spitzer/MIPS was was used to map a $0.5\arcdeg\times0.5\arcdeg$ region covering most of the known members of the $\eta$ Cha association. A “medium scan” map with half-array cross-scan offsets provided total integration times of 80 sec, 40 sec, and 8 sec throughout the mapped area at 24, 70, and 160 [$\mu$m]{}, respectively. The observations were carried out on 2005 April 08 (2.6 hr duration starting at JD2453469.11412) under Spitzer program \#100, Spitzer AORKEY 4938752. Our complete 24 [$\mu$m]{} map appears in Figure \[map\_fig\].
Table \[tab:data\] presents photometry of the $\eta$ Cha association members as well as upper limits for undetected sources. Note that the ECHA source numbers correspond to the source ID numbers given in @ls04. ROSAT Eta Cha X-ray (RECX) numbers also correspond for objects 1-12. The objects known by ECHA numbers 17 and 18 were not measured as they are off the edge of our map.
The 24 [$\mu$m]{} data were reduced starting from the standard Spitzer Science Center (SSC) pipeline-produced basic calibrated data (BCD), version S13.2. [See @gor05 for a description of the pipeline.] The BCDs suffered from low-level cosmetic defects which were removed by self-flattening the data as described in the MIPS Data Handbook. The MOPEX software package [@mak05] was used to re-mosaic the BCDs at a pixel scale of 2.5 per pixel, very close to the native pixel scale, and to obtain PSF-fitted source extractions. Seven hundred fifteen sources with SNR $>3$ were extracted from the 24 [$\mu$m]{} scan map. Of the 715 sources, 129 have 2MASS counterparts. All 16 known association members that fell within our map were detected. The systematic uncertainty in the 24 [$\mu$m]{} zero-point is estimated to be 4% [@chad07]. The formal $1\sigma$ statistical uncertainties are reported in Table \[tab:data\]. An additional assessment of our measurement uncertainty appears in §\[kkm24sec\].
For 70 [$\mu$m]{}, we started with the filtered BCDs for which an automated attempt has been made to remove instrumental signatures. MOPEX was used to mosaic the BCDs at a pixel scale of 4, about half of the native scale, and to do PSF-fitted source extraction. Here again, the $1\sigma$ statistical uncertainties are reported in Table \[tab:data\]. The estimated systematic uncertainty is 10% [@gor07]. About 40 sources with SNR $>3$ were extracted at 70 [$\mu$m]{}, 21 with 2MASS counterparts. Five of the known association members were detected; upper limits for the remaining observed association members were obtained via an examination of the scatter in the background at the expected location of the source [following @bpmgp]. Those 3-$\sigma$ upper limits appear in Table \[tab:data\]. ECHA 16, which was observed in the 24 [$\mu$m]{} map, was just off the edge of the 70 [$\mu$m]{} map, so no measurement was obtained for this object.
For 160 [$\mu$m]{} we followed @bpmgp starting with the raw BCDs, but using the MIPS Data Analysis Tool (DAT) software (version 3.06; Gordon [et al.]{} 2005) for the final data reduction. At 160 [$\mu$m]{} the map was measured only at the locations of known association members. Two members were detected. The MIPS 160 [$\mu$m]{}array suffers from a spectral leak that allows near-IR radiation to produce a ghost image adjacent to the true 160 micron source image for stellar temperature, roughly Rayleigh-Jeans, sources brighter than $J\sim5.5$. None of the $\eta$ Cha members are as bright as this limit, so no correction for leak images was needed. Three-$\sigma$ upper limits for undetected members were obtained as in @bpmgp and are given in Table \[tab:data\].
We compiled optical and NIR photometry for the known members from the literature, primarily 2MASS [@2mass] and @ls04 for shorter wavelengths. For longer wavelengths we used the IRAC photometry as reported by @meg05 for the known members and IRS photometry reported by @bou06 at 13 and 33 [$\mu$m]{}. For the known cluster members, spectral types are available in the literature. These spectral types were used to select a stellar photosphere model spectrum from the closest corresponding Kurucz-Lejeune model [@lej97], which was then normalized to each object’s flux density at [$K_{\rm s}$]{}, except for ECHA 11 which was normalized at J (see section \[irxs\]). No further manipulation of the spectral fit was made. In particular no redding corrections were required, consistent with the results of @ls04 and @lyo04. The normalized photosphere models were used to predict the photospheric flux density at 24, 70, and 160 [$\mu$m]{} that are presented in Table \[tab:data\].
In order to band-merge across wavelengths from optical to 160 [$\mu$m]{}, we matched the central positions derived from photometry of each source to the expected position of each known association member. Since the source density in this field is not high, spurious source matches are relatively unlikely. IRAC and 2MASS positions were matched within 1 arcsecond to the MIPS-24 position, and within 2 arcseconds to the MIPS-70 position. Photometry for 160 [$\mu$m]{} was done by hand at the position of the association member.
Note that the MIPS spatial resolution ($\sim6\arcsec$, $\sim18\arcsec$, and $\sim40\arcsec$ for 24, 70, and 160 [$\mu$m]{}, respectively) is poor compared to most optical surveys, so source confusion is in theory a concern. In practice, this is a sparse enough association that source confusion among members is not a concern. The chances of a random alignment of a background galaxy on top of a known association member are not large given the intense scrutiny (including spectroscopy and deep and/or high-spatial-resolution observations) of these association members to this point [see, e.g., @lyo06].
[clllrclclcl]{} 01& EG Cha &08365623-7856454& K6, K7.0[2]{}& 10.21& 10.11 $\pm$0.04& 1.2& $<$ 16 &0.23& $<$ 121 &…\
02& $\eta$ Cha &08411947-7857481& B8 & 34.54& 113.30 $\pm$0.07& 4.0& 31.1 $\pm$ 0.1&0.74& $<$ 270 & $9\times10^{-5}$\
03& EH Cha &08413703-7903304& M3.25 & 1.82& 2.23 $\pm$0.04& 0.2& $<$ 19 &0.04& $<$ 133 & $\sim10^{-6}$\
04& EI Cha &08422372-7904030& M1.75 & 3.91& 5.37 $\pm$0.04& 0.5& $<$ 17 &0.09& $<$ 127 & 0.0003\
05& EK Cha &08422710-7857479& M4 & 1.27& 57.74 $\pm$0.07& 0.2& 94.8 $\pm$ 0.2&0.03& 165 $\pm$ 48 & 0.06\
06& EL Cha &08423879-7854427& M3 & 2.04& 1.86 $\pm$0.04& 0.3& $<$ 16 &0.05& $<$ 228 & …\
07& EM Cha &08430723-7904524& K6, K6.9[2]{}& 7.77& 7.20 $\pm$0.04& 0.9& $<$ 23 &0.17& $<$ 135 & …\
08& RS Cha AB &08431222-7904123& A7 & 32.61& 44.86 $\pm$0.06& 3.8& $<$ 17 &0.71& $<$ 195 & …\
09& EN Cha &08441637-7859080& M4.5 & 2.05& 43.80 $\pm$0.07& 0.3& 50.8 $\pm$ 0.2&0.05& $<$ 133 & 0.04\
10& EO Cha &08443188-7846311& M1 & 3.40& 2.81 $\pm$0.04& 0.4& $<$ 17 &0.08& $<$ 180 & …\
11& EP Cha &08470165-7859345& K5.5, K6.5[2]{}& 7.14& 198.20 $\pm$0.09& 0.8& 184.7 $\pm$ 0.2&0.16& 208 $\pm$ 48 & 0.04\
12& EQ Cha &08475676-7854532& M3.25 & 4.59& 4.33 $\pm$0.05& 0.6& $<$ 19 &0.11& $<$ 122 & …\
13& HD 75505 &08414471-7902531& A1 & 11.92& 10.41 $\pm$0.04& 1.4& $<$ 18 &0.26& $<$ 137 & …\
14& ES Cha, ECHA J0841.5-7853 &08413030-7853064& M4.75 & 0.45& 8.63 $\pm$0.04& 0.1& $<$ 17 &0.01& $<$ 173 & 0.04\
15& ET Cha, ECHA J0843.3-7905 &08431857-7905181& M3.25 & 1.79& 232.50 $\pm$0.11& 0.2& 173.3 $\pm$ 0.3&0.04& $<$ 121 & 0.19\
16& ECHA J0844.2-7833 &08440914-7833457& M5.75 & 0.25& 8.68 $\pm$0.08&0.03& …&0.01& …& 0.04\
[1]{}[Spectral types from @ls04 except as explained in note 2]{} [2]{}[Spectral types from @lyo04 used for improved model fits as explained in section \[irxs\]]{}
Results
=======
We analyzed the [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] and [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[70\] colors of our sources and compared the observed spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of the known association members with model photospheric spectra to look for signs of infrared excess.
[$K_{\rm s}$]{} vs. [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] {#kkm24sec}
--------------------------------------------
Fig. \[kk24\] shows the [$K_{\rm s}$]{} vs. [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] diagram for the 129 objects we detected at 24 [$\mu$m]{} with [$K_{\rm s}$]{} counterparts in 2MASS. In this figure most stellar photospheres are near [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\]$\sim$0 and the clump of objects at the lower right are likely galaxies. Six of the known $\eta$ Cha members fall in the upper right of this diagram, showing strong 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess: ECHA 05, 09, 11, 14, 15, and 16. $\eta$ Cha itself (ECHA 02) has a clear excess. Nine other members fall in or just redward of the “photospheric” strip in the [$K_{\rm s}$]{} vs. [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] diagram. This red trend is not due to observational errors. We examined the scatter in [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] for stars with good measured S/N at 24 [$\mu$m]{}corresponding to [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$\lesssim$10. Among the 46 stars that are not known members, [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$<$10, and [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-[24]<$0.5, the mean [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] color is 0.016$\pm$0.098 mag. We take this to indicate that our measurement error in the color is $\sim$0.1 mag. Therefore, the majority of known members just redward of the photospheric strip have clearly non-zero [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] colors.
To understand whether these nine association members near the photospheric strip have infrared excess it is necessary to take into account the spectral types of the individual objects. While the [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] color is near zero for most stellar photospheres, it becomes non-zero and varies with spectral type among M stars [@gaut07]. Since many of our objects are of spectral type M this effect is important. Figure \[spty\] plots [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] vs. spectral type for all association members. The locus of luminosity class V photospheres was obtained from @lang91 for types A to K5 and from @gaut07 (and references therein) for K6 through M9. The strong excess sources are still obvious at the top right of the diagram.
Six of the nine association members fall on the locus of photospheric [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] colors and thus do not possess infrared excess. However, three objects (ECHA 03, 04, and 08) show a clear infrared excess. Their [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] uncertainty combined with the dispersion of normal dwarf stars about the plotted locus places ECHA 03 about $5\sigma$ away and ECHA 04 and 08 about $8\sigma$ away from the photospheric locus. Their observed 24 [$\mu$m]{} flux densities are 1.23, 1.37, and 1.38 times greater than expected for their spectral type based on our model spectra (see Table \[tab:data\]).
In our large $0.5\arcdeg\times0.5\arcdeg$ survey field, the possibility exists that previously unrecognized members of the $\eta$ Cha association might be revealed as stars with [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] excess. Figure \[kk24\] shows that no obvious new candidates are detected. While objects in the clump of likely galaxies have [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] colors comparable to other $\eta$ Cha members with excess, all are fainter than [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$\sim$13 and thus unlikely to be stars at a distance of 100 pc. This result is consistent with recent deep imaging and spectroscopic studies of the region that have also failed to identify additional members [see, e.g., @lyo06].
[$K_{\rm s}$]{} vs. [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[70\] and 160 [$\mu$m]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[kk70\] shows the [$K_{\rm s}$]{} vs. [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[70\] diagram for the 21 objects detected at 70 [$\mu$m]{} that have [$K_{\rm s}$]{} counterparts in 2MASS. As in Figure \[kk24\], the clump of objects at the lower right are likely galaxies. Our observations were not sensitive enough to detect stellar photospheres at the distance of $\eta$ Cha, and thus most of the members are not detected (upper limits are shown as arrows). However, five stars show strong 70 [$\mu$m]{} excess: ECHA 2, 5, 9, 11, and 15. All five also have 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess. Our 160 [$\mu$m]{} observations were also not sensitive enough to detect stellar photospheres so the two stars detected, ECHA 5 and 11, show 160 [$\mu$m]{} excess.
Infrared Excesses of $\eta$ Cha Members {#irxs}
---------------------------------------
Figures \[sed\_fig1\] and \[sed\_fig2\] present the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) for all of the known members of the $\eta$ Cha Association covered by our MIPS map. Spectral types from Table \[tab:data\] were used to select the model spectra as described in section \[obs\]. The spectral types from @lyo04 were used for the K type stars, ECHA 1, 7 and 11, as models of the @ls04 types are clearly too blue for these stars and would have required reddening from extinction much greater than allowed by the results of @lyo04 and @ls04.
Normalization of the model spectrum at [$K_{\rm s}$]{} for ECHA 11 did not produce a consistent fit to the measurements at wavelengths shorter than [$K_{\rm s}$]{}. We therefore normalized ECHA 11 at J, revealing an excess that begins at [$K_{\rm s}$]{}.
In one object, ECHA 08 (RS Cha), an apparent infrared excess is seen at 5.8, 8.0, and 24 [$\mu$m]{}. This source is a known eclipsing binary with a peak-to-peak amplitude of 0.75 mag [@claus80]. The ephemeris in Clausen & Nordstrom indicates that the MIPS and IRAC observations were both made outside of eclipse at times when the b magnitude of RS Cha differed by about 0.03. The 2MASS observation was made in the secondary eclipse when RS Cha’s b magnitude was about 0.2 fainter than for the MIPS observation. Given the zero \[5.8\]-\[8.0\] color found in simultaneous observations of this source by IRAC [@meg05], and the 0.1 mag slight blue \[8.0\]-\[24\] color indicated by our data – both consistent with a stellar photosphere – it appears that our apparent [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] excess of 0.35 mag is an artifact of non-simultaneous photometry.
Another object, ECHA 13, the A1 star HD 75505, is reported by @ls04 to be slightly reddened relative to the other ECHA objects. @lyo04 also finds HD 75505 slightly reddened and, based on this reddening and a small K$-$L excess reported by @lyo03, attributes the reddening to an edge-on circumstellar disk. We find no evidence for a [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] excess in HD 75505 that might be expected from such a disk. While the absence of a 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess is not evidence of no circumstellar disk, disk material capable of producing the reddening would have to be at a large distance from an A star to be invisible at 24 [$\mu$m]{}. We note that @meg05 did not find a significant [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[3.6\], a color similar to K$-$L, excess for HD 75505.
The availability of the MIPS data now makes it possible to calculate the fractional infrared excess luminosity for each member of the $\eta$ Cha association. Optical and near-infrared points were used to define the stellar photospheres, which were represented as a blackbody at the known effective temperature of each source. Integration of the infrared excess across the Spitzer bands was done done using cubic spline interpolation to the observed mid-infrared and far-infrared data points, and subtracting off the photospheric contribution point-by-point. To account for the excess luminosity out to submillimeter wavelengths, a blackbody extrapolation was performed from the longest available infrared data point, with a blackbody temperature chosen using Wien’s law for that wavelength. The results of this analysis appear in the far right column of Table \[tab:data\].
Disk Properties in the $\eta$ Cha Association
=============================================
The infrared excesses reported in the literature at some wavelength between 6-160 [$\mu$m]{} in nine association members require that circumstellar dust be present within 10 AU of these stars. A flattened disk is the only dust configuration that could be dynamically stable at the age of the association. From this point forward, we assume that the infrared excesses in the $\eta$ Cha association are produced by dusty circumstellar disks. A tally of our MIPS results shows 9 of 16 association members have excesses at 24 [$\mu$m]{} and at least 5 of the members with 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess also have a 70 [$\mu$m]{} excess. We compare our results to disk indicators from other observations in $\eta$ Cha.
Spitzer/IRAC
------------
@meg05 found excesses between 3.6-8.0 [$\mu$m]{} in six stars: ECHA 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 16. All of these also have excesses in our data at $\lambda\ge$24 [$\mu$m]{}. There are two stars, ECHA 3 and 4, where we have found MIPS excess but no mid-infrared excess is detected. This is not surprising, as these stars have very subtle MIPS-24 excesses. The steep brightening of the stellar photosphere toward shorter wavelengths would rapidly obscure such a modest mid-infrared excess of the strength seen at 24 [$\mu$m]{}. No IRAC photometry was obtained for @meg05 for ECHA 2, so the inner disk of this source is uncharacterized. The frequency of IRAC excess in the association is 6/17 $=$ 35%. We note for completeness that @meg05 discussed in detail a comparison between IRAC photometry and the L-band photometry from @lyo03; so we do not repeat it here.
Spitzer/IRS {#spitirs}
-----------
@bou06 report 13 and 33 [$\mu$m]{} flux densities for fifteen $\eta$ Cha members, based on Spitzer low-resolution spectra. The same six objects showing IRAC excess above also show 13 [$\mu$m]{} excess. In addition, they found 33 [$\mu$m]{} excess in ECHA 3 and 4 Ж two stars for which we have found weak 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess. For ECHA 7, @bou06 report a 33 [$\mu$m]{} flux density of 6.9 mJy, and a 33 [$\mu$m]{} to 13 [$\mu$m]{} flux ratio noticeable larger than for their other diskless stars, but do not classify this as an excess. Our photosphere model is in excellent agreement with the flux densities measured with IRS at 13 [$\mu$m]{} and with MIPS at 24 [$\mu$m]{}. It predicts a flux density of 4.1 mJy at 33 [$\mu$m]{}. The 40% difference between our prediction and the reported 33 [$\mu$m]{} flux is significantly larger than the reported errors in the IRS measurements and argues that ECHA 7 does, in fact, show a 33 [$\mu$m]{} excess. In view of this disagreement on interpretation of 33 [$\mu$m]{} flux of ECHA 7 we examined the now public Spitzer data on which Bouwman et al. based their analysis. We find that the spectrum of the ECHA 7 spectrum beyond 20 [$\mu$m]{} appears to be shallower than the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum expected for photospheres in this region of the spectrum. A ratio of the ECHA 7 spectrum to the ECHA 1 spectrum, a star with a low value of 33 to 13 [$\mu$m]{} flux ratio from the same IRS cluster observation, also shows that ECHA 7 has significantly shallower slope than ECHA 1 beyond 20 [$\mu$m]{}. Given this evidence, we conclude that ECHA 7 probably has a weak 33 [$\mu$m]{} excess indicative of a disk with a large inner hole. The MIPS 70 [$\mu$m]{} upper limit is consistent with this interpretation. The overall frequency of 13 [$\mu$m]{} excess in $\eta$ Cha is 6/15 $=$ 40%; the revised frequency of 33 [$\mu$m]{} excess, including ECHA 7, is 9/15 $=$ 60%.
Disk Structure
--------------
Table \[tab:disks\] summarizes the results for disks in the $\eta$ Cha association. Ten members show infrared excesses attributable to disks at one or more wavelengths between 2.2 and 160 [$\mu$m]{}; nine have excesses detectable by MIPS at 24 [$\mu$m]{} and one has an excess beginning at 33 [$\mu$m]{}. In ECHA 11, 15, and 16, excess is detected from 3.5-33 [$\mu$m]{} (with 11’s excess extending even to 2.2 [$\mu$m]{}), indicating that these objects possess continuous disks extending from near the stellar surface to radii $\gtrsim$10s of AU. Remarkably, six of the other disks show evidence for inner holes. ECHA 9 and 14 have small inner holes diagnosed by the presence of excess only for $\lambda \ge$ 6 [$\mu$m]{}; ECHA 5 is similar, with the excess starting at 8 [$\mu$m]{}. The SEDs of ECHA 3 and 4 require larger disk inner holes, with excess absent at 13 [$\mu$m]{} but detected at 24 [$\mu$m]{}. Finally, the disk of ECHA 7 has the largest inner hole of all, with a 33 [$\mu$m]{} excess but no 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess. The tenth star with a disk is $\eta$ Cha itself; while the available data does not allow the presence of an inner hole to be discerned, the large ratio of the 24 and 70 [$\mu$m]{} excess fluxes ($\sim$ 3; Table \[tab:data\]) is characteristic of warm material near 250 K.
Disks and Mass Accretion
------------------------
[@law04] studied the H$\alpha$ emission in ten members of the association, and found that four show high-velocity line wings indicative of gas accretion: ECHA 5, 9, 11, and 15. @meg05 reanalyzed H$\alpha$ data from Song [et al.]{} (2004) after the method of White & Basri (2003), and found that ECHA 16 also shows signs of gas accretion. We find that all five of these have circumstellar disks with L$_d$/L$_* \ge$ 0.04. The two disks around ECHA 3 and 4, where Spitzer has found weak 24 and 33 [$\mu$m]{} excesses, showed no accretion signatures. These results support the long-known correlation between the strength of disk excess and accretion rates. H$\alpha$ studies of ECHA 2 and 14 are still needed to see if this relation holds for all the disks Spitzer has detected in $\eta$ Cha.
[ccccc]{} ECHA 01& (no data) & no & no & no\
ECHA 02& (no data) & (no data) & (no data) & yes\
ECHA 03& no & no & yes & yes\
ECHA 04& no & no & yes & yes\
ECHA 05& yes & yes & yes & yes\
ECHA 06& no & no & no & no\
ECHA 07& no & no & yes& no\
ECHA 08& (no data) & no & (no data) & no\
ECHA 09& yes & yes & yes & yes\
ECHA 10& no & no & no & no\
ECHA 11& yes & yes & yes & yes\
ECHA 12& no & no & no & no\
ECHA 13& (no data) & no & (no data) & no\
ECHA 14& (no data) & yes & yes & yes\
ECHA 15& yes & yes & yes & yes\
ECHA 16& yes & yes & yes & yes\
ECHA 17& (no data) & no & no & (no data)\
ECHA 18& (no data) & no & no & (no data)\
Disks and Binarity
------------------
Seven stars in the $\eta$ Cha association are known multiples: ECHA 1, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, and 18 [@bran06; @bou06 and references therein]. Infrared excess is detected for ECHA 7 and 9; in ECHA 9, the disk must be circumbinary. Of the eleven single stars, excess is detected around six. While an anticorrelation between disks and binarity is suggested by these results, small number statistics prevent any meaningful conclusion from being drawn.
$\eta$ Cha and Other Young Stellar Groups
=========================================
Two other well-studied stellar associations close in age to $\eta$ Cha also have MIPS studies: the TW Hydra Association [TWA; @low05], and the Beta Pic Moving Group [BPMG; @bpmgp]. At 8-10 Myr, TWA is thought to be comparable in age to $\eta$ Cha, and BMPG is slightly older at $\sim$12 Myr. @low05 find for TWA that there are very large excesses around four of the TWA stars, with possibly a subtle 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess around one more of the stars. @bpmgp re-reduced the TWA MIPS data in exactly the same fashion as here in $\eta$ Cha and in the BPMG, and find the TWA disk fraction at 24 [$\mu$m]{} to be 7/23 stars, or 30%. @bpmgp find that the BPMG has a 24 [$\mu$m]{} disk fraction of 7 of 30 stars, or 23%. The larger disk fraction we find at 24 [$\mu$m]{} for $\eta$ Cha, 56%, suggests that it may actually be younger than either of these other two associations. Since so many association members are undetected at 70 [$\mu$m]{}, the best constraint we can put on the disk fraction at this wavelength is a lower limit of 31%. We note that the various observational studies of the $\eta$ Cha association are not unbiased with respect to the known association members. @bou06 excludes the early type members and this paper leaves two objects at 24 [$\mu$m]{} and three objects at 70 [$\mu$m]{} unobserved, with many 70 [$\mu$m]{} upper limits for those that were observed. However this should not affect conclusions based on a larger disk fraction in $\eta$ Cha than in the other associations.
Within our $\eta$ Cha association members, there are three groups of 24 [$\mu$m]{} excess sources attributable to disks. There are stars without excesses at 24 [$\mu$m]{} (ECHA 1, 6, 7, 8, 19, 12 and 13), stars with small excesses (ECHA 2, 3 and 4), and stars with relatively large excesses (ECHA 5, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 16). This is reminiscent of the distribution of TWA 24 [$\mu$m]{} excesses found by @low05, where there are either large or subtle 24 [$\mu$m]{}excesses. In our results from $\eta$ Cha, the largest [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] values that we find are those for ECHA 15 (5.73), ECHA 05 (4.62) and ECHA 16 (4.33). ECHA 9, 11, and 14 all have [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\]$\sim$3.8, and the rest are all $<$1.2. These largest values are close to, but still below, the four extreme TWA stars ([$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\]=5.8, 5.0, 4.4, and 4.4 for TWA 1, 3, 4, and 11, respectively) from @low05. In contrast, @bpmgp find that the BPMG has no extreme excesses – the largest [$K_{\rm s}$]{}$-$\[24\] they find is for $\beta$ Pic itself at only 3.5. We can compare the ratios of measured to predicted fluxes at 24 [$\mu$m]{}for each of these three clusters. The median $F_{\rm meas}/F_{\rm
pred}$ for all MIPS disks is 51.4, 21.2, and 1.83 for TWA, ECHA, and the BPMG, respectively.
We conclude that, while in terms of 24 [$\mu$m]{} disk fraction, the $\eta$ Cha association is younger than both TWA and the BPMG, it is solidly intermediate in disk properties between the two clusters.
Fractional infrared luminosities are shown for nine $\eta$ Cha members in Table \[tab:data\]. Three sources ($\eta$ Cha itself, ECHA 3 and ECHA 4) have fractional infrared luminosities $\le 0.001$, which are typical for debris disks around main sequence stars (Bryden [et al.]{}2006; Su [et al.]{} 2006). The classical T Tauri star ECHA J0843.3-7905 (ECHA 15) has an L$_d$/L$_*$ of nearly 20%, consistent with an optically thick YSO disk like that of TW Hya. Five other members (ECHA 5, 9, 11, 14, and 16) have fractional infrared luminosities of 0.04-0.06. These disks are particularly interesting, as their luminosities are intermediate between those of optically thick young disks and those of debris disks. Other examples of disks with L$_d$/L$_*$ in this range have recently been found in Spitzer studies of weak-line T Tauri stars (Padgett [et al.]{} 2006; Cieza [et al.]{}2007). Such disks can be explained by one of two models: an optically thick disk that has been highly flattened by settling of dust to its midplane, or an optically thin disk that is $\sim$10$\times$ denser than the prototypical young disk of $\beta$ Pictoris. Sensitive submillimeter observations will be needed to distinguish between these two possibilities. In either case, these five disk systems systems represent a key transitional stage in disk evolution; further detailed studies are needed.
Conclusions
===========
Our Spitzer/MIPS data, combined with a reanalysis of IRAC and IRS data, indicates an overall mid-infrared disk frequency of at least 10/18 $=$ 56% in the $\eta$ Cha association at ages of $\sim$ 8 Myrs. This is significantly higher than the disk fraction observed in the TW Hydra or $\beta$ Pictoris associations at similar ages.
The $\eta$ Cha disks show clear transitional characteristics between young stellar object and debris disks, both in terms of the distribution of their fractional infrared luminosities and the presence of inner holes (diagnosed by the spectral energy distribution) in 6 of the 10 disks studied.
This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under contract with NASA. Support for this work was provided by NASA through contract 1255094. Gautier was also partially supported under the Research and Technical Development funds at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This work also makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation.
Bouwman, J., [et al.]{}, 2006, , 653, L57 Brandeker, A., Jayawardhana, R., Khavari, P., Haisch, K.E., Mardones, D. 2006, Ap.J., 652, 1572 Bryden, G., [et al.]{}, 2006, , 646, 1038 Cieza, L., [et al.]{}, 2007, arXiv/0706.0563 Clausen, J.V. and Nordstrom, B. 1980, , 83, 339 Engelbracht, C., [et al.]{}, 2007, , in press Gautier, T. N., [et al.]{}, 2007, , 667, 527 Gordon, K., [et al.]{}, 2005, , 117, 503 Gordon, K., [et al.]{}, 2007, , in press Haisch, K.E. Jr., Jayawardhana, R., and Alves, J. 2005 , 627 L57 Lang, K. R. 1991, Astrophysical Data, Springer-Verlag, New York Lawson, W.A., Crause, L.A., Mamajek, E.E., and Feigelson, E.D. 2002 , 329 L29 Lawson, W.A., Lyo, A-R. and Muzerolle, J. 2002 , 351 L39 Lejeune, T., Cuisinier F., & Buser R. 1997, , 125, 229 Low, F., [et al.]{}, 2005, , 631, 1170 Luhman, K.L. and Steeghs, D. 2004, , 609, 917 Lyo, A-R., [et al.]{}, 2003, , 338, 616 Lyo, A-R., [et al.]{}, 2004, , 355, 363 Lyo, A-R., [et al.]{}, 2006, , 368, 1451 Makovoz, D., & Marleau, F., 2005, , 117, 1113 Mamajek, E.E., Lawson, W.A., and Feigelson, E.D. 1999, , 516 L77 Mamajek, E.E., Lawson, W.A., Feigelson, E.D. 2000, , 544, 356 Megeath, S.T. [et al.]{}, 2005 , 634 L113 Moshir, M., Kopman, G., Conrow, T. 1992, IRAS Faint Source Survey and Explanatory Supplement Padgett, D.L., [et al.]{}, 2006, , 645, 1283 Rieke, G., [et al.]{}, 2004, , 154, 25 Rebull, L., [et al.]{}, 2007a, , 171, 447 Rebull, L., [et al.]{}, 2007b, , submitted Skrutskie, M., [et al.]{}, 2006, , 131, 1163 Song, I., [et al.]{}, 2004, ApJ, 600, 1016. Su, K.Y.L. [et al.]{}, 2006, , 653, 675 Werner, M., [et al.]{}, 2004, , 154, 1 White, R., & Basri, G., 2003, , 582, 1109
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Shape-phase transition in neutron-rich Cr isotopes around $N=40$ is investigated by employing the collective Hamiltonian approach. The inertial functions for large-amplitude vibration and rotation are evaluated by the local normal modes along the axial quadrupole collective coordinate using the Skyrme and pairing energy density functionals. The time-odd components of the mean fields are fully included in the derived masses. The low-lying spectra obtained by requantizing the collective Hamiltonian show an excellent agreement with the recent experimental data. Gradual change from spherical to axially deformed shapes in between $N=34$ and 38 is well described.'
author:
- Kenichi Yoshida and Nobuo Hinohara
title: 'Shape changes and large-amplitude collective dynamics in neutron-rich Cr isotopes '
---
How can we define the shape of quantum many-body systems? Atomic nuclei have a variety of equilibrium shapes, and show shape changes along the isotopic or isotonic chain. The mean-field approximation gives us an intuitive picture of the nuclear shape. However, we have to go beyond it to describe the shape-phase transition; the dynamical change of the mean-field potential associated with the large-amplitude collective motion.
The self-consistent mean-field model employing the effective interaction or the nuclear energy-density-functional (EDF) method has successfully described the ground-state properties [@ben03]. Recent advances in the computing capability together with the highly-developed techniques in the nuclear EDF method allow us to calculate the ground-state properties of nuclei including deformation in the entire mass region of the nuclear chart [@sto03].
Magic number or shell closure is an essential concept in understanding the stability against the deformation. The subshell closure at 40 created by the gap between $1g_{9/2}$ and $2p_{1/2}, 1f_{5/2}$ orbitals has attracted much attention for several reasons [@rei99]. The proton-rich $N=Z$ nucleus $^{80}$Zr lies in the center of the well-deformed $A\simeq 80$ region [@naz85]. This is because a shell gap of 40 again appears in a deformed region, and the shell effect of protons and neutrons coherently stabilize the nucleus deformed. On the other hand, the existence of $N=40$ subshell closure is suggested experimentally for the neutron-rich nucleus $^{68}$Ni [@bro95; @sor02]. The strength of this subshell closure and its persistence for $Z<28$ determine the waiting point for the r-process nucleosynthesis at $^{64}$Cr, which is considered to be a progenitor of $^{64}$Ni [@sor99].
The half-life measurement at CERN-ISOLDE have deduced that the neutron-rich $^{66}$Fe is deformed with a quadrupole deformation $\beta \sim 0.26$ [@han99]. Since the Cr isotopes lie at mid proton $1f_{7/2}$ shell, protons could additionally destabilize the nucleus in a spherical shape and favor deformation. Experimental evidences of the nuclear shape changes are related to low-lying quadrupole collectivity, such as the small excitation energy of the $2^{+}_{1}$ state, the ratio of the excitation energy of the $2^{+}_{1}$ and $4^{+}_{1}$ states $R_{4/2}=E_{4+}/E_{2+}$, and the reduced transition probability $B(E2;2^{+}_{1}\rightarrow 0^{+}_{1})$, etc. The observed small excitation energy of the $2^{+}_{1}$ state in neutron-rich Cr isotopes indicates that the deformation develops toward $N=40$ [@sor03; @bur05; @zhu06; @aoi09; @gad10].
Very recently, the large-scale shell-model calculation for the neutron-rich Cr isotopes has become available [@len10], where the Hamiltonian with dimension of $\sim 10^{10}$ is diagonalized. However, deducing the picture of deformation is difficult in the fully quantum-mechanical calculations.
In this article, on the basis of the nuclear EDF method closely related to the mean-field approximation, we develop a new framework of the microscopic theory for the large-amplitude collective motion employing the quadrupole collective Hamiltonian approach for the axially-symmetric nuclei. The similar attempts of the EDF-based collective Hamiltonian starting from the Gogny interaction [@lib99; @gau09], the relativistic Lagrangian [@nik09; @li10] and the Skyrme interaction [@pro09] have been made for description of the large-amplitude collective motion. The cranking approximation, however, has been applied to calculate the inertial functions [@lib99; @gau09; @nik09; @li10; @pro09], and the time-odd components of the mean field remain largely unexplored except for a few attempts in the adiabatic time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theories [@dob81; @gia80a; @gia80b]. Our method includes the time-odd mean fields in the inertial functions. And this method is applied to the shape-phase transition in neutron-rich Cr isotopes around $N=40$.
We start from the $(1+2)$D (vibration along the $\beta$ direction and rotations about the two axes which are perpendicular to the symmetry axis) quadrupole collective Hamiltonian; $$\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{coll}}=\dfrac{1}{2}\mathcal{M}_{\beta}(\beta)\dot{\beta}^{2}
+\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{2}\mathcal{J}_{i}(\beta)\omega_{i}^{2}+V(\beta).
\label{cla_hami}$$ With the Pauli’s prescription, we requantize Eq. $(\ref{cla_hami})$ and construct the collective Schrödinger equation; $$\hat{H}_{\mathrm{coll}}\Psi_{\alpha IM}(\beta,\theta_{1},\theta_{2})=
E_{\alpha I}\Psi_{\alpha IM}(\beta,\theta_{1},\theta_{2}),
\label{hami}$$ where $\Psi_{\alpha IM}(\beta,\theta_{1},\theta_{2})$ is the collective wave functions in the laboratory frame, $I$ is the angular momentum quantum number, $M$ is the $z-$component of $I$, and $E_{\alpha I}$ is the excitation energy. The collective wave functions are written in terms of wave functions in the body-fixed frame $\Phi_{\alpha IK}(\beta)$; $$\Psi_{\alpha IM}(\beta,\Omega)=\sum_{K=0}^{I}\Phi_{\alpha IK}(\beta)
\langle \Omega|IMK\rangle=\Phi_{\alpha I}(\beta)\langle \Omega|IM0\rangle,$$ with $\langle \Omega|IMK\rangle$ a superposition of the rotational wave functions.
The collective Schrödinger equation in the intrinsic frame now reads $$\left \{
\hat{T}_{\mathrm{vib}} + \dfrac{I(I+1)}{2\mathcal{J}(\beta)}+V(\beta)
\right \}
\Phi_{\alpha I}(\beta)=E_{\alpha I}\Phi_{\alpha I}(\beta), \label{coll_Sch}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{T}_{\mathrm{vib}}=&
-\dfrac{1}{2M_{\beta}(\beta)}\dfrac{\partial^{2}}{\partial \beta^{2}} \notag \\
& +\dfrac{1}{2M_{\beta}(\beta)}
\left[
\dfrac{1}{2M_{\beta}(\beta)}\dfrac{\partial M_{\beta}(\beta)}{\partial \beta}
-\dfrac{1}{\mathcal{J}(\beta)}\dfrac{\partial \mathcal{J}(\beta)}{\partial \beta}
\right]
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial \beta},\end{aligned}$$ and the vibrational wave function is normalized as $$\int d\beta \Phi^{*}_{\alpha I}(\beta)\Phi_{\alpha^{\prime} I}(\beta)|G(\beta)|^{1/2}
=\delta_{\alpha \alpha^{\prime}}$$ with the metric $|G(\beta)|=M_{\beta}(\beta)\mathcal{J}^{2}(\beta)$.
The collective potential $V(\beta)$ is calculated by solving the constrained Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (CHFB) equation; $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta \langle \phi(\beta)|\hat{H}_{\mathrm{CHFB}}|\phi(\beta)\rangle =0, \label{CHFB1}\\
&\hat{H}_{\mathrm{CHFB}}=\hat{H}-\sum_{\tau}\lambda^{\tau}\hat{N}^{\tau}
-\mu\hat{Q}_{20}. \label{CHFB2}\end{aligned}$$
The microscopic Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ is constructed from the Skyrme and pairing EDFs. Following the discussion in Ref. [@hin10], the vibrational mass $M_{\beta}(\beta)$ is evaluated using the local normal mode as $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\beta}(\beta)
&= \dfrac{1}{\eta^{2}}\dfrac{\partial q_{\beta}}{\partial Q_{20}}\dfrac{\partial q_{\beta}}{\partial Q_{20}}, \\
\dfrac{\partial Q_{20}}{\partial q_{\beta}}
&= \dfrac{\partial}{\partial q_{\beta}} \langle \phi(\beta)|\hat{Q}_{20}|\phi(\beta)\rangle
= \langle \phi(\beta)| [\hat{Q}_{20},\dfrac{\hat{P}^{\beta}}{i}]
|\phi(\beta)\rangle\end{aligned}$$ by solving the local quasiparticle-random-phase approximation (LQRPA) equation on top of the CHFB state $|\phi(\beta) \rangle$ ; $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta \langle \phi(\beta)|[\hat{H}_{\mathrm{CHFB}},\hat{Q}_{\nu}]-\dfrac{\hat{P}^{\nu}}{i} |\phi(\beta)\rangle=0, \label{QRPA1} \\
&\delta \langle \phi(\beta)|[\hat{H}_{\mathrm{CHFB}},\dfrac{\hat{P}^{\nu}}{i}]-\omega_{\nu}^{2}\hat{Q}_{\nu} |\phi(\beta)\rangle=0, \label{QRPA2}\\
&\langle \phi(\beta)|[\hat{Q}_{\mu},\dfrac{\hat{P}^{\nu}}{i}]|\phi(\beta)\rangle=\delta_{\mu}^{\nu}. \label{QRPA3}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the isoscalar quadrupole moment operator $\hat{Q}_{20}$ and $\eta=\sqrt{\pi}/\sqrt{5}A\langle r^{2}\rangle$ are calculated at each state $|\phi(\beta)\rangle$. We write the collective coordinate as $q_{\beta}$. The rotational moment of inertia $\mathcal{J}(\beta)$ is evaluated by the LQRPA equation for collective rotation (extension of Thouless-Valatin equation to CHFB states [@hin10]).
The reduced quadrupole matrix elements used for calculating the $E2$ transition probability and the spectroscopic quadrupole moment are evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \alpha I ||E2|| \alpha' I'\rangle =&
\sqrt{(2I+1)(2I'+1)} (-)^I \nonumber \\
& \begin{pmatrix}
I &2& I' \\ 0&0&0
\end{pmatrix}
\langle \alpha I |\hat{F}_{E2}| \alpha' I' \rangle, \\
\langle \alpha I|\hat{F}_{E2}|\alpha^{\prime}I^{\prime} \rangle
=& \int d\beta \Phi^{*}_{\alpha I}(\beta)F_{E2}(\beta)\Phi_{\alpha^{\prime} I^{\prime}}(\beta)
|G(\beta)|^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{E2}(\beta)=\langle \phi(\beta)|\hat{F}_{E2}|\phi(\beta)\rangle$, and $\hat{F}_{E2}$ is the electric quadrupole moment operator.
We solve the CHFB plus LQRPA equations employing the extended procedures of Refs. [@yos08; @yos10]. To describe the nuclear deformation and the pairing correlations simultaneously with a good account of the continuum, we solve the CHFB equations in the coordinate space using cylindrical coordinates $\boldsymbol{r}=(\rho,z,\phi)$ with a mesh size of $\Delta\rho=\Delta z=0.5$ fm and a box boundary condition at $(\rho_{\mathrm{max}},z_{\mathrm{max}})=(12.25, 12.00)$ fm. We assume axial and reflection symmetries for the CHFB states. The quasiparticle (qp) states are truncated according to the qp energy cutoff at $E_\alpha \leq 60$ MeV. We introduce the additional truncation for the LQRPA calculation, in terms of the two-quasiparticle (2qp) energy as $E_{\alpha}+E_{\beta} \leq 60$ MeV. In the present calculation, the LQRPA equations are solved on top of around 20 CHFB states. For each LQRPA calculation, we employ 256 CPUs and it takes about 185 CPU hours to calculate the inertial functions. Thus, for construction of the collective Hamiltonian, it takes about 3 700 CPU hours for each nucleus.
For the normal (particle-hole) part of the EDF, we employ the SkM\* functional [@bar82], and for the pairing energy, we adopt the volume-type pairing interaction as in Ref. [@oba08], where the deformation mechanism in neutron-rich Cr isotopes is investigated in detail.
![Total energy curves of neutron-rich Cr isotopes calculated with SkM\* and volume pairing interactions. []{data-label="deformation"}](fig1.eps)
Figure \[deformation\] shows the total energy curves (collective potentials) of neutron-rich Cr isotopes under investigation. In $^{58}$Cr and $^{60}$Cr, the potentials are soft against the $\beta$ deformation even we get the HFB minima at $\beta=0$. Beyond $N=38$, the prolate minimum gradually develops up to $N=44$. We can see a shoulder or a shallow minimum at the oblately deformed region as well. It is noted that the systematic calculation predict $^{74}$Cr is spherical due to the magicity at $N=50$ [@sto03] using the same EDF as in the present calculation.
![(Color online) (a): Excitation energies of the $2^{+}_{1}$ state in Cr isotopes. (b): Ratios of the $E(4^{+}_{1})$ to $E(2^{+}_{1})$. (c): Reduced transition probabilities $B(E2;0^{+}_{1}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{1})$. (d): Spectroscopic quadrupole moment of the $2_{1}^{+}$ state. (e): Ratios of the transition matrix elements of neutrons to protons divided by the neutron to proton numbers. (f): Root-mean-square matter radii. Experimental data are taken from Refs. [@bur05; @zhu06; @aoi09; @gad10]. Results of the shell-model calculations (denoted as SM1 [@kan08] and SM2 [@len10]) are also included. []{data-label="yrast"}](fig2.eps)
Figure \[yrast\] shows the properties of low-lying states. When the neutron number increases from $^{58}$Cr, the excitation energy of the $2^{+}_{1}$ state drops toward $^{62}$Cr. The $R_{4/2}$ ratio and the transition probability $B(E2;0^{+}_{1}\rightarrow 2^{+}_{1})$ grow up at the same time. Although we overestimate $E(2^{+}_{1})$ at $N=34$, these features are consistent with the experimental results [@zhu06; @aoi09; @gad10], and it clearly shows the onset of deformation at $N \sim 38$. The experimental $B(E2)$ value is available only in $^{58}$Cr [@bur05]. The present calculation underestimates the observation. Underestimation of the quadrupole collectivity of $^{58}$Cr probably attributes to the restriction of the collective coordinate to the $\beta$ and two rotational degree of freedom and/or to the EDF employed in the present calculation.
Let us consider here the simplified case in solving Eq. (\[coll\_Sch\]) with a harmonic oscillator potential and a constant vibrational mass; $$V(\beta)=\dfrac{1}{2}C\beta^{2}, M_{\beta}(\beta)=B,
\mathcal{J}(\beta)=3B\beta^{2}.$$ We obtain $E(2^{+}_{1})=2.00$ MeV and $E(4^{+}_1)=4.26$ MeV, when we adopt $B=50$ MeV$^{-1}$ and $C=200$ MeV. The exact value for $E(2^{+}_1)$ is $\omega=\sqrt{C/B}=2$ MeV and $E(4^{+}_1)=2\omega=4$ MeV in the full five-dimensional collective Hamiltonian. This simple exercise implies that the present $(1+2)$D collective Hamiltonian can describe reasonably well the vibrational spectra of spherical nuclei. However, the $B(E2;2^{+}_1\to 0^{+}_1)$ value in the $(1+2)$D model is 3/5 times as large as an exact one. Therefore, in (nearly) spherical nuclei, all the five quadrupole degrees of freedom should be treated on the same footing, and it remains as future work.
The results of the spherical shell-model calculations employing the pairing-plus-multipole forces with the monopole correction [@kan08] and the LNPS interaction [@len10] are also shown in Fig. \[yrast\]. Lowering of $E(2^{+}_{1})$ toward $N=38$ is consistent with the experiments and with the present calculation.
We show in Fig. \[yrast\](e) the ratios of the matrix elements of neutrons to protons $M_{\nu}/M_{\pi}$ divided by the neutron to proton numbers for the excitation to the $2^{+}_{1}$ state. If the neutrons and protons coherently contribute to the excitation mode, $M_{\nu}/M_{\pi}$ may approach $N/Z$. We can see that the neutron excitation develops from $N=34$ to 38 associated with the increase of the quadrupole collectivity.
Evolution of deformation is also seen in the matter radii as shown in Fig. \[yrast\](f). For the reference, we show the $A^{1/3}$ dependence and the HFB results by a solid line and open circles, respectively. In the deformed systems, the increase of radius is proportional to $\beta^{2}$. Thus, beyond $N=38$ the radius is constantly larger than the systematics of $A^{1/3}$. Furthermore, we can see that the calculated radius is larger than the HFB result in $^{58}$Cr and $^{60}$Cr associated with the large-amplitude fluctuation.
It is interesting to compare our results with those in Ref. [@gau09], where the collective Hamiltonian approach is also employed. In Ref. [@gau09], they employ the five-dimensional collective Hamiltonian, in which both the $\beta$ and $\gamma$ degrees of freedom are included. And the D1S-Gogny EDF is used for the particle-hole and particle-particle parts of the energy density. The rotational mass is evaluated by the Inglis-Belyaev procedure, and the vibrational mass is calculated by use of the cranking approximation [@lib99]. In Ref. [@gau09], they obtained for $^{64}$Cr $E(2_{1}^{+})=0.82$ MeV, $R_{4/2}=2.2$, $Q(2_{1}^{+})=-34$ $e$fm$^{2}$, and $B(E2 \uparrow)=1515$ $e^{2}$fm$^{4}$. The $B(E2)$ value and $Q(2^{+}_{1})$ are similar to our results, whereas $E(2^{+}_{1})$ and $E(4^{+}_{1})$ are rather larger. With the D1S-Gogny EDF, there is still a clear minimum at the spherical point, and a shallow local minimum around $\beta=0.3$ [@gau09].
![(Color online) (a): Quadrupole masses calculated by the LQRPA and the cranking formula in $^{64}$Cr. (b): Excitation energies squared for the associated collective modes. []{data-label="64Cr_mass"}](fig3.eps)
In our approach, the time-odd components of the mean field are fully included for the calculation of the collective masses. Figure \[64Cr\_mass\](a) shows the calculated vibrational masses along the collective coordinate. The collective masses calculated by use of the cranking approximation are also shown, where the time-odd components are neglected. The cranking masses show a smooth behavior as functions of the deformation $\beta$. This is because the cranking mass is evaluated by combination of the sum-rule values. In contrast to the cranking masses, the LQRPA masses strongly depend on the deformation, microscopic structure of the collective mode. And the LQRPA masses are larger than the cranking masses. In Fig. \[64Cr\_mass\](b), the excitation energies squared $\omega_{i}^{2}$ of the collective modes are shown. This quantity represents the curvature of the collective potential as seen in Eq. (\[QRPA2\]). The two-humped structure is associated with the existence of the two minima in the collective potential of $^{64}$Cr.
![(Color online) Collective wave functions of the $I^{\pi}=0^{+}_{1}$ state in Cr isotopes. []{data-label="WF"}](fig4.eps)
Finally, we discuss the shape evolution of the ground state. Figure \[WF\] shows the vibrational wave functions of the $0^{+}_{1}$ state. In $^{58}$Cr, the wave function is distributed around $\beta=0$. But the wave functions is not sharply localized at the spherical minimum of the potential, which reflects the softness of the collective potential against the deformation. When two neutrons are added to $^{58}$Cr, broadening of the wave function can be seen. When two more neutrons are added, the wave function moves toward a prolately deformed minimum with a large spreading. From this figure, we can say that $^{60}$Cr is located close to the critical point of the shape-phase transition in neuron-rich Cr isotopes and the large-amplitude dynamics plays a dominant role.
In summary, we have developed a new framework of the microscopic model for the large-amplitude collective motion based on the nuclear EDF method. The collective masses and the potential appearing in the quadrupole collective Hamiltonian are evaluated employing the constrained HFB and local QRPA approach, where the time-odd components of the mean field are fully taken into account. The microscopic Hamiltonian is constructed from the Skyrme and the pairing EDFs.
We applied this new framework to the shape-phase transition in neutron-rich Cr isotopes around $N=40$. The present calculation gives consistent results for the low-lying excited states with the observations and the other theoretical approaches. Investigating the collective wave functions, we reach a conclusion that $^{60}$Cr is located close to the critical point of the shape phase transition, and the onset of deformation takes place at $N=38$. The large-amplitude dynamics plays a dominant role in the shape changes in neutron-rich Cr isotopes.
As a future work, it would be interesting to compare the present framework with the generator-coordinate method using the $\beta$-constrained HFB states. And the systematic investigation of the properties of low-lying collective states such as $E(2_{1}^{+})$, $R_{4/2}$ and $B(E2)$ in the entire region of nuclear chart is quite challenging both in nuclear structure physics and in computational science as a large-scale calculation employing the massively-parallel supercomputers.
The authors are supported by the Special Postdoctoral Researcher Program of RIKEN. The numerical calculations were performed on RIKEN Integrated Cluster of Clusters (RICC) and T2K-Tsukuba.
[99]{}
M. Bender, P-H. Heenen and P-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 121 (2003).
M. V. Stoitsov, J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, S. Pittel, and D. J. Dean, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{}, 054312 (2003), and http://massexplorer.org/.
P.-G. Reinhard, D. J. Dean, W. Nazarewicz, J. Dobaczewski, J. A. Maruhn, M. R. Strayer, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{}, 014316 (1999).
W. Nazarewicz, J. Dudek, R. Bengtsson, T. Bengtsson, and I. Ragnarsson, Nucl. Phys. [**A435**]{}, 397 (1985).
R. Broda [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 868 (1995).
O. Sorlin [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 092501 (2002).
O. Sorlin [*et al*]{}., Nucl. Phys. [**A660**]{}, 3 (1999).
M. Hannawald [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 1391 (1999).
O. Sorlin [*et al*]{}., Eur. Phys. J. A [**16**]{}, 55 (2003).
A. Bürger [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B622**]{}, 29 (2005).
S. Zhu [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 064315 (2006).
N. Aoi [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 012502 (2009).
A. Gade [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{}, 051304R (2010).
S. M. Lenzi, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and K. Sieja, Phys. Rev. C [**82**]{}, 054301 (2010).
J. Libert, M. Girod, and J.-P. Delaroche, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{}, 054301 (1999).
L. Gaudefroy [*et al*]{}., Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 064313 (2009).
T. Nikšić, Z. P. Li, D. Vretenar, L. Próchniak, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 034303 (2009).
Z. P. Li, T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and J. Meng, Phys. Rev. C [**81**]{}, 034316 (2010).
L. Próchniak and S. G. Rohoziński, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**36**]{}, 123101 (2009).
J. Dobaczewski and J. Skalski, Nucl. Phys. [**A369**]{}, 123 (1981).
M. J. Giannoni and P. Quentin, Phys. Rev. C [**21**]{}, 2060 (1980).
M. J. Giannoni and P. Quentin, Phys. Rev. C [**21**]{}, 2076 (1980).
N. Hinohara, K. Sato, T. Nakatsukasa, M. Matsuo, and K. Matsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. C [**82**]{}, 064313 (2010). J. Bartel, P. Quentin, M. Brack, C. Guet, and H.-B. Hkansson, Nucl. Phys. [**A386**]{}, 79 (1982).
K. Yoshida and N. V. Giai, Phys. Rev. C [**78**]{}, 064316 (2008).
K. Yoshida and T. Nakatsukasa, Phys. Rev. C [**83**]{}, 021304R (2011).
H. Oba and M. Matsuo, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**208**]{}, 143 (2008).
K. Kaneko, Y. Sun, M. Hasegawa, and T. Mizusaki, Phys. Rev. C [**78**]{}, 064312 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We state and prove three general formulas allowing to transform formal finite sums into formal continued fractions and apply them to generalize certain expansions in continued fractions given by Hone and Varona.'
address:
author:
- 'Daniel Duverney, Takeshi Kurosawa and Iekata Shiokawa'
date: 'Dec. 13, 2019'
title: |
Transformation formulas of finite sums\
into continued fractions
---
Introduction
============
Let $n$ be a positive integer, and let $x_{1},$ $x_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $x_{n},$ $\ldots,$ $y_{1},$ $y_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $y_{n},$ $\ldots$ be indeterminate. We define$$\sigma_{n}=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}},\quad\quad\tau_{n}=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}}. \label{T1}$$ Then, $\sigma_{n}$ and $\tau_{n}$ are rational fractions of the indeterminate $x_{1},$ $x_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $x_{n},$ $y_{1},$ $y_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $y_{n}$ with coefficients in the field $\mathbb{Q}.$ The purpose of this paper is to give three formulas allowing to transform $\sigma_{n}$ and $\tau_{n}$ into continued fractions of the form$$R_{m}=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{m}}{b_{m}},$$ where $m$ is an increasing function of $n$ and $a_{1},$ $a_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $a_{m},$ $b_{1},$ $b_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $b_{m}$ are rational fractions of $x_{1},$ $x_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $x_{n},$ $y_{1},$ $y_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $y_{n}$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}.$ These formulas are given by Theorems \[ThEuler\], \[ThHone\], and \[ThVarona\] below.
For every sequence $\left( u_{k}\right) _{k\geq1}$ of indeterminate, we define $u_{0}=1$ and$$\theta u_{k}=\frac{u_{k+1}}{u_{k}},\quad\theta^{2}u_{k}=\theta\left( \theta
u_{k}\right) =\frac{u_{k+2}u_{k}}{u_{k+1}^{2}}\quad\left( k\geq0\right) .
\label{fn}$$ By (\[fn\]) we see at once that$$u_{k}.\theta u_{k}=u_{k+1},\quad\theta u_{k}.\theta^{2}u_{k}=\theta
u_{k+1}\quad\left( k\geq0\right) . \label{Rule}$$
\[ThEuler\]For every positive integer $n,$$$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}}=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}, \label{CFEuler2}$$ where $a_{1}=y_{1},$ $b_{1}=x_{1},$ and $$a_{k}=\theta y_{k-1}\theta x_{k-2},\quad b_{k}=\theta x_{k-1}-\theta
y_{k-1}\quad\left( 2\leq k\leq n\right) . \label{CFEuler1}$$
Theorem \[ThEuler\] is a mere rewording of Euler’s well-known formula [@Euler]$$\frac{1}{A}-\frac{1}{B}+\frac{1}{C}-\frac{1}{D}+\cdots=\frac{1}{A}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{A^{2}}{B-A}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{B^{2}}{C-B}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{C^{2}}{D-C}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}.$$ Hence Theorem \[ThEuler\] is far from being new. However, it seems interesting to state and prove it by using the operator $\theta.$
\[ThHone\]For every integer $n\geq1,$$$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}}=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{2n}}{b_{2n}}, \label{Hone3}$$ where $a_{1}=y_{1},$ $b_{1}=x_{1}-y_{1},$ and for $k\geq1$$$\begin{aligned}
a_{2k} & =\theta y_{k-1},\quad a_{2k+1}=\theta^{2}y_{k-1},\label{Hone41}\\
\quad b_{2k} & =x_{k-1},\quad b_{2k+1}=\frac{\theta^{2}x_{k-1}-\theta
^{2}y_{k-1}}{x_{k-1}}. \label{Hone42}$$
Theorem \[ThHone\] has been given by Hone in [@Hone] in the special case where $y_{k}=1$ for every $k\geq1$ and $x_{k}$ is a sequence of positive integers such that $x_{1}\geq2$ and $x_{k}$ divides $\theta^{2}x_{k}-1$ for every $k\geq1.$ In this case, (\[Hone3\]) leads to the expansion of the infinite series $\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}x_{k}^{-1}$ in regular continued fraction.
\[ThVarona\]For every integer $n\geq2,$$$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}}=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3n-4}}{b_{3n-4}}, \label{Varona4}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a_{1} & =y_{1}^{2},\quad a_{2}=x_{1}y_{2},\quad a_{3}=\theta y_{2},\quad
a_{4}=x_{1},\label{Varona5}\\
b_{1} & =x_{1}y_{1},\quad b_{2}=\theta x_{1}-\theta y_{1},\quad b_{3}=\theta^{2}x_{1}-x_{1},\quad b_{4}=1, \label{Varona6}$$ and for $k\geq2$$$\begin{aligned}
a_{3k-1} & =y_{k+1},\quad a_{3k}=y_{k}\theta^{2}y_{k},\quad a_{3k+1}=1,\label{Varona7}\\
\quad b_{3k-1} & =x_{k}y_{k}-y_{k+1},\quad b_{3k}=\frac{\theta^{2}x_{k}-\theta^{2}y_{k}}{x_{k}}-1,\quad b_{3k+1}=1 \label{Varona8}$$
Theorem \[ThVarona\] has been proved first by Varona [@Varona] in the special case where $y_{k}=1$ for every $k\geq1$ and $x_{k}$ is a sequence of positive integers satisfying the same conditions as in Theorem \[ThHone\]. In this case (\[Varona4\]) leads to the expansion of the infinite series $\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\left( -1\right) ^{k}x_{k}^{-1}$ in regular continued fraction.
In Section \[sec:notaion\], we recall some basic fact on continued fractions and prove transformation formulas of continued fractions into finite sums. Theorems \[ThEuler\] and \[ThHone\] will be proved in Section \[sec:proofEandH\] and Theorem \[ThVarona\] in Section \[sec:proofV\]. Finally, in Section \[sec:Hone\] and \[sec:Varona\] we will give examples of applications of Theorems \[ThHone\] and \[ThVarona\] by generalizing Hone and Varona expansions. Indeed, we will define the sequence $(x_{n})$ by the recurrence relation $$x_{n+2}x_{n}=x_{n+1}^{2}(F_{n}(x_{n},x_{n+1})+1)\qquad(n\geq0)$$ with the initial conditions $x_{0}=1$ and $x_{1}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$, where $F_{n}(X,Y)$ are nonzero polynomials with positive integer coefficients such that $F_{n}(0,0)=0$ for all $n\geq0$. It turns out that $(x_{n})$ is a sequence of positive integers such that $x_{n}~|~x_{n+1}$ and $x_{n}~|~F_n(x_n,x_{n+1})$ for every $n\geq0$. For any positive integer $h$, we define the series $$S=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{h^{n}}{x_{n+1}}.$$ Applying Theorem \[ThHone\] with $y_{n}=h^{n}$ and letting $n\rightarrow
\infty$, we have $$S=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots},\label{CFS}$$ where $a_{1}=1,$ $b_{1}=x_{1}-h,$ and for $k\geq1$$$\begin{aligned}
a_{2k} & =h,\quad a_{2k+1}=1,\\
\quad b_{2k} & =x_{k-1},\quad b_{2k+1}=\frac{\theta^{2}x_{k-1}-1}{x_{k-1}}=\frac{F_{k-1}\left( x_{k-1},x_{k}\right) }{x_{k-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ are rational integers. Similarly, using Theorem \[ThVarona\], we get in (\[T\]) the continued fraction expansion of the alternating series $$T=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left( -1\right) ^{n}\frac{h^{n}}{x_{n+1}}=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\label{CFT}$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
a_{1} & =1,\quad a_{2}=hx_{1},\quad a_{3}=h,\quad a_{4}=x_{1},\\
b_{1} & =x_{1},\quad b_{2}=\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}}-h,\quad b_{3}=F_{1}\left(
x_{1},x_{2}\right) +1-x_{1},\quad b_{4}=1,\end{aligned}$$ and for $k\geq2$$$\begin{aligned}
a_{3k-1} & =h^{k},\quad a_{3k}=h^{k-1},\quad a_{3k+1}=1,\\
\quad b_{3k-1} & =h^{k-1}\left( x_{k}-h\right) ,\quad b_{3k}=\frac
{F_{k}\left( x_{k},x_{k+1}\right) }{x_{k}}-1,\quad b_{3k+1}=1.\end{aligned}$$
The simplest of all sequences $(x_{n})$ satisfies the recurrence relation $$x_{n+2}x_{n}=x_{n+1}^{2}(x_{n}+1)\qquad(n\geq0)$$ In the case $x_{0}=x_{1}=1,$ $(x_{n})$ is sequence A001697 of the On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, which also satisfies$$x_{n+1}=x_{n}\left( \sum_{k=0}^{n}x_{k}\right) \quad\left( n\geq0\right) .$$ Taking $h=1$ in (\[CFS\]) and (\[CFT\]), we find remarkable formulas: $$\left[ 1;1,x_{1},1,x_{2},1,x_{3},1,x_{4},\ldots,1,x_{k},\ldots\right]
=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{x_{n}},$$$$\left[ 0;1,1+x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},\ldots,x_{k},\ldots\right]
=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{x_{n}},$$ and $$\left[ 1;x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},\ldots,x_{k},\ldots\right] =\frac{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}}
\dfrac{\left( -1\right) ^{n-1}}{x_{n}}}{2{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}}
\dfrac{\left( -1\right) ^{n-1}}{x_{n}}-1}.$$ See Examples \[ex:1\],\[ex:2\], and \[ex:3\] below.
Notations and lemmas {#sec:notaion}
====================
For every positive integer $n,$ we define polynomials $P_{n}$ and $Q_{n}$ of the indeterminate $a_{1},$ $a_{2},$ $\ldots,$ $b_{1},$ $b_{2},$ $\ldots$ by $P_{0}=0,$ $Q_{0}=1$ and$$\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}=\frac{P_{n}}{Q_{n}}\quad\left( n\geq1\right) .
\label{CFEuler3}$$ Then, we have for every $k\geq0$$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}P_{k+2}=b_{k+2}P_{k+1}+a_{k+2}P_{k}\\
Q_{k+2}=b_{k+2}Q_{k+1}+a_{k+2}Q_{k}\end{array}
\right. \label{Rec}$$ and also$$P_{k+1}Q_{k}-P_{k}Q_{k+1}=\left( -1\right) ^{k}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{k+1}\quad\left( k\geq0\right) . \label{Delta}$$ From (\[Delta\]) one obtains immediately a well-known transformation formula of continued fractions into a finite sum: for every $n\geq1,$ $$\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{k}\frac{a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{k+1}}{Q_{k+1}Q_{k}}. \label{SumEuler}$$ Two other transformation formulas of continued fractions into finite sums are given by the following lemmas.
\[LemTransfHone\]For every integer $n\geq1,$$$\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{2n}}{b_{2n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{2k+1}b_{2k+2}}{Q_{2k}Q_{2k+2}}. \label{SumHone}$$
Replacing $n$ by $2n$ in (\[SumEuler\]), we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{2n}}{b_{2n}} & =\sum_{m=0}^{2n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{m}\frac{a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{m+1}}{Q_{m+1}Q_{m}}\\
& =\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left( \frac{a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{2k+1}}{Q_{2k+1}Q_{2k}}-\frac{a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{2k+2}}{Q_{2k+2}Q_{2k+1}}\right) \\
& =\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{2k+1}\frac{Q_{2k+2}-a_{2k+2}Q_{2k}}{Q_{2k+2}Q_{2k+1}Q_{2k}},\end{aligned}$$ which yields (\[SumHone\]) since $Q_{2k+2}=b_{2k+2}Q_{2k+1}+a_{2k+2}Q_{2k}$ for every $k\geq0.$
\[LemTransfVarona\]For every integer $n\geq1,$$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3n-1}}{b_{3n-1}} & =\frac{a_{1}}{Q_{1}}-\frac{a_{1}a_{2}}{Q_{1}Q_{2}}\label{SumVarona}\\
& \qquad+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots
a_{3k}\frac{b_{3k+1}b_{3k+2}+a_{3k+2}}{Q_{3k-1}Q_{3k+2}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We know by (\[SumEuler\]) that$$\begin{gathered}
\frac{P_{3n-1}}{Q_{3n-1}}=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3n-1}}{b_{3n-1}}=\frac{a_{1}}{Q_{1}}-\frac{a_{1}a_{2}}{Q_{1}Q_{2}}+\sum_{m=2}^{3n-2}\left( -1\right) ^{m}\frac{a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{m+1}}{Q_{m}Q_{m+1}}\\
=\frac{a_{1}}{Q_{1}}-\frac{a_{1}a_{2}}{Q_{1}Q_{2}}+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\left(
-1\right) ^{k-1}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{3k}\left( \frac{1}{Q_{3k-1}Q_{3k}}-\frac{a_{3k+1}}{Q_{3k}Q_{3k+1}}+\frac{a_{3k+1}a_{3k+2}}{Q_{3k+1}Q_{3k+2}}\right) .\end{gathered}$$ Since $Q_{3k+1}-a_{3k+1}Q_{3k-1}=b_{3k+1}Q_{3k},$ we obtain$$\frac{P_{3n-1}}{Q_{3n-1}}-\frac{a_{1}}{Q_{1}}+\frac{a_{1}a_{2}}{Q_{1}Q_{2}}=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{3k}\left(
\frac{b_{3k+1}}{Q_{3k-1}Q_{3k+1}}+\frac{a_{3k+1}a_{3k+2}}{Q_{3k+1}Q_{3k+2}}\right)$$$$\begin{aligned}
& =\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{3k}\frac{b_{3k+1}Q_{3k+2}+a_{3k+1}a_{3k+2}Q_{3k-1}}{Q_{3k-1}Q_{3k+1}Q_{3k+2}}\\
& =\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{3k}\frac{b_{3k+1}b_{3k+2}Q_{3k+1}+a_{3k+2}\left( b_{3k+1}Q_{3k}+a_{3k+1}Q_{3k-1}\right) }{Q_{3k-1}Q_{3k+1}Q_{3k+2}},\end{aligned}$$ which proves Lemma \[LemTransfVarona\].
Proofs of theorems \[ThEuler\] and \[ThHone\] {#sec:proofEandH}
=============================================
The two proofs are similar, and consist in transforming the continued fraction$$\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{m}}{b_{m}}$$ by (\[SumEuler\]) and (\[SumHone\]), with $m=n$ and $m=2n$ respectively.
*Proof of Theorem \[ThEuler\]*. With the notations of Section \[sec:notaion\], we prove first by induction that $Q_{k}=x_{k}$ $(k\geq0).$ Clearly $Q_{0}=1=x_{0}$ and $Q_{1}=x_{1}.$ Assuming that $Q_{k}=x_{k}$ and $Q_{k+1}=x_{k+1},$ we obtain by (\[CFEuler1\]) and (\[Rec\]) $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{k+2} & =\left( \theta x_{k+1}-\theta y_{k+1}\right) x_{k+1}+\left(
\theta y_{k+1}\theta x_{k}\right) x_{k}\\
& =x_{k+2}-\left( \theta y_{k+1}\right) x_{k+1}+\left( \theta
y_{k+1}\right) x_{k+1}=x_{k+2},\end{aligned}$$ which proves that $Q_{k}=x_{k}$ $(k\geq0).$ Here $P_{1}=y_{1},$ $Q_{1}=x_{1},$ and $$\prod_{j=1}^{k+1}a_{j}=a_{1}\prod_{j=2}^{k+1}\theta y_{j-1}\theta
x_{j-2}=y_{1}\frac{y_{k+1}x_{k}}{y_{1}x_{0}}=x_{k}y_{k+1}.$$ Since $Q_{k}=x_{k}$ $(k\geq0),$ we obtain by (\[SumEuler\])$$\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{k}\frac{y_{k+1}}{x_{k+1}},$$ which proves Theorem \[ThEuler\].
*Proof of Theorem \[ThHone\]*. We prove by induction that$$Q_{2k}=x_{k},\quad Q_{2k+1}=\theta x_{k}-\theta y_{k}\quad\left(
k\geq0\right) . \label{Hone5}$$ For $k=0,$ we have $Q_{0}=1=x_{0}$ and $Q_{1}=b_{1}=x_{1}-y_{1}=\theta
x_{0}-\theta y_{0}.$ Now assuming that it is true for some $k\geq0,$ we compute$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{2k+2} & =b_{2k+2}Q_{2k+1}+a_{2k+2}Q_{2k}=x_{k}\left( \theta x_{k}-\theta
y_{k}\right) +\theta y_{k}x_{k}=x_{k+1},\\
Q_{2k+3} & =b_{2k+3}Q_{2k+2}+a_{2k+3}Q_{2k+1}\\
& =\frac{\theta^{2}x_{k}-\theta^{2}y_{k}}{x_{k}}x_{k+1}+\theta^{2}y_{k}\left( \theta x_{k}-\theta y_{k}\right) =\theta x_{k+1}-\theta y_{k+1}$$ by using (\[Rule\]). Hence (\[Hone5\]) is proved by induction. Now we apply Lemma \[LemTransfHone\]. First we have$$a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{2k+1}=y_{k+1}\quad\left( k\geq0\right) .$$ Indeed, this is clearly true for $k=0$ since $a_{1}=y_{1}$ and $$a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{2k+3}=a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{2k+1}a_{2k+2}a_{2k+3}=y_{k+1}\theta y_{k}\theta^{2}y_{k}=y_{k+1}\theta y_{k+1}=y_{k+2}.$$ Replacing in (\[SumHone\]) yields$$\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{2n}}{b_{2n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\frac{y_{k+1}x_{k}}{x_{k+1}x_{k}}=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}},$$ which proves Theorem \[ThHone\].
Proof of Theorem \[ThVarona\] {#sec:proofV}
=============================
It is simpler to prove first a slightly different result, namely
\[ThVarona1\]For every integer $n\geq2,$$$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}}=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3n-4}}{b_{3n-4}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a_{1} & =y_{1}^{2},\quad a_{2}=x_{1}y_{2},\quad a_{3}=\frac{\theta y_{2}}{x_{1}},\\
b_{1} & =x_{1}y_{1},\quad b_{2}=\theta x_{1}-\theta y_{1},\quad b_{3}=\frac{\theta x_{2}}{x_{2}}-1,\end{aligned}$$ and for $k\geq1$$$\begin{aligned}
a_{3k+1} & =1,\quad a_{3k+2}=y_{k+2},\quad a_{3k+3}=y_{k+1}\theta^{2}y_{k+1},\\
\quad b_{3k+1} & =1,\quad b_{3k+2}=x_{k+1}y_{k+1}-y_{k+2},\quad
b_{3k+3}=\frac{\theta^{2}x_{k+1}-\theta^{2}y_{k+1}}{x_{k+1}}-1.\end{aligned}$$
We prove by induction that, for every $k\geq1,$$$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l}Q_{3k-1}=y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{k}x_{k+1},\\
Q_{3k}=y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{k}\left( \theta x_{k+1}-x_{k+1}+\theta
y_{k+1}\right) ,\\
Q_{3k+1}=y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{k}\left( \theta x_{k+1}+\theta y_{k+1}\right) .
\end{array}
\right. \label{Varona9}$$ We have $Q_{0}=1$ and $Q_{1}=b_{1}=x_{1}y_{1}.$ Therefore$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{2} & =b_{2}Q_{1}+a_{2}Q_{0}=\left( \theta x_{1}-\theta y_{1}\right)
x_{1}y_{1}+x_{1}y_{2}=x_{2}y_{1},\\
Q_{3} & =b_{3}Q_{2}+a_{3}Q_{1}=\left( \frac{\theta x_{2}}{x_{2}}-1\right)
x_{2}y_{1}+\frac{\theta y_{2}}{x_{1}}x_{1}y_{1}=y_{1}\left( \theta
x_{2}-x_{2}+\theta y_{2}\right) ,\\
Q_{4} & =b_{4}Q_{3}+a_{4}Q_{2}=Q_{3}+Q_{2}=y_{1}(\theta x_{2}+\theta y_{2}),\end{aligned}$$ which proves that (\[Varona9\]) is true for $k=1.$ Now assuming that it is true for some $k\geq1,$ we compute$$\begin{aligned}
Q_{3k+2} & =b_{3k+2}Q_{3k+1}+a_{3k+2}Q_{3k}\\
& =\left( x_{k+1}y_{k+1}-y_{k+2}\right) y_{1}\cdots y_{k}\left( \theta
x_{k+1}+\theta y_{k+1}\right) \\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad+y_{k+2}y_{1}\cdots y_{k}\left( \theta x_{k+1}-x_{k+1}+\theta y_{k+1}\right) \\
& =y_{1}\cdots y_{k}\left( x_{k+1}y_{k+1}\theta x_{k+1}+x_{k+1}y_{k+1}\theta
y_{k+1}-x_{k+1}y_{k+2}\right) \\
& =y_{1}\cdots y_{k+1}x_{k+2},\\
Q_{3k+3} & =b_{3k+3}Q_{3k+2}+a_{3k+3}Q_{3k+1}\\
& =\left( \frac{\theta^{2}x_{k+1}-\theta^{2}y_{k+1}}{x_{k+1}}-1\right)
y_{1}\cdots y_{k+1}x_{k+2}\\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad+y_{k+1}\theta^{2}y_{k+1}y_{1}\cdots y_{k}\left( \theta
x_{k+1}+\theta y_{k+1}\right) \\
& =y_{1}\cdots y_{k+1}\left( \theta^{2}x_{k+1}\theta x_{k+1}-x_{k+2}+\theta^{2}y_{k+1}\theta y_{k+1}\right) \\
& =y_{1}\cdots y_{k+1}\left( \theta x_{k+2}-x_{k+2}+\theta y_{k+2}\right)
,\\
Q_{3k+4} & =b_{3k+4}Q_{3k+3}+a_{3k+4}Q_{3k+2}=Q_{3k+3}+Q_{3k+2}\\
& =y_{1}\cdots y_{k+1}\left( \theta x_{k+2}+\theta y_{k+2}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Hence (\[Varona9\]) is proved by induction. Now we apply Lemma \[LemTransfVarona\]. We have$$a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{3k}=y_{k+2}\left( y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{k}\right)
^{2}\quad\left( k\geq1\right) . \label{Varona13}$$ Indeed, for $k=1$$$a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}=y_{1}^{2}x_{1}y_{2}\frac{\theta y_{2}}{x_{1}}=y_{3}y_{1}^{2},$$ and assuming that (\[Varona13\]) holds for some $k\geq1,$ $$a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{3k+3}=y_{k+2}\left( y_{1}y_{2}\cdots y_{k}\right)
^{2}y_{k+2}y_{k+1}\theta^{2}y_{k+1}=y_{k+3}\left( y_{1}y_{2}\cdots
y_{k+1}\right) ^{2}.$$ Using (\[Varona13\]) in (\[SumVarona\]), we obtain$$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3n-1}}{b_{3n-1}}\\
& =\frac{y_{1}}{x_{1}}-\frac{y_{1}x_{1}y_{2}}{x_{1}x_{2}y_{1}}+\sum
_{k=1}^{n-1}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}y_{k+2}\left( y_{1}\cdots y_{k}\right)
^{2}\frac{x_{k+1}y_{k+1}-y_{k+2}+y_{k+2}}{y_{1}\cdots y_{k}x_{k+1}y_{1}\cdots
y_{k+1}x_{k+2}}\\
& =\frac{y_{1}}{x_{1}}-\frac{y_{2}}{x_{2}}+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\left( -1\right)
^{k-1}\frac{y_{k+2}}{x_{k+2}}=\sum_{k=1}^{n+1}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}},\end{aligned}$$ which proves Theorem \[ThVarona1\].
Now, with the notations of Theorem \[ThVarona1\], we simply observe that$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left( -1\right) ^{k-1}\frac{y_{k}}{x_{k}} & =\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3}}{b_{3}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{4}}{b_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{5}}{b_{5}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3n-4}}{b_{3n-4}}\\
& =\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{x_{1}a_{3}}{x_{1}b_{3}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{x_{1}a_{4}}{b_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{5}}{b_{5}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3n-4}}{b_{3n-4}},\end{aligned}$$ which proves Theorem \[ThVarona\].
Generalization of Hone expansions {#sec:Hone}
=================================
In this section, we consider a sequence $F_{n}(X,Y)$ of nonzero polynomials with non-negative integer coefficients and such that $F_{n}(0,0)=0$ for every $n\geq0.$ Define the sequence $\left( x_{n}\right) _{n\geq0}$ by $x_{0}=1,$ $x_{1}\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and the recurrence relation$$x_{n+2}x_{n}=x_{n+1}^{2}\left( F_{n}\left( x_{n},x_{n+1}\right) +1\right)
\quad\left( n\geq0\right) . \label{Rec1}$$ If $x_{n}$ satisfies (\[Rec1\]), it is clear that$$\theta^{2}x_{n}=F_{n}\left( x_{n},x_{n+1}\right) +1.$$ It is easy to check by induction that $x_{n}$ is a positive integer and that $x_{n}$ divides $x_{n+1}$ for every $n\geq0.$ Therefore$$x_{n+2}\geq x_{n+1}^{2}\frac{x_{n}+1}{x_{n}}>x_{n+1}^{2}\quad\left(
n\geq0\right) . \label{Rec2}$$ Hence we deduce from (\[Rec2\]) that $x_{2}\geq2$ and$$x_{n}\geq\left( x_{2}\right) ^{2^{n-2}}\geq2^{2^{n-2}}\quad\left(
n\geq2\right) . \label{Min}$$ Now let $h$ be any positive integer. We define the series$$S=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{h^{n}}{x_{n+1}}=\frac{1}{h}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{h^{n}}{x_{n}},$$ which is convergent by (\[Min\]). We can apply Theorem \[ThHone\] above with $y_{n}=h^{n},$ in which case $\theta y_{n}=h$ and $\theta^{2}y_{n}=1$ for every $n\geq0.$ By letting $n\rightarrow\infty$ in Theorem \[ThHone\], we get $$S=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}, \label{S}$$ where $a_{1}=1,$ $b_{1}=x_{1}-h,$ and for $k\geq1$$$\begin{aligned}
a_{2k} & =h,\quad a_{2k+1}=1,\\
\quad b_{2k} & =x_{k-1},\quad b_{2k+1}=\frac{\theta^{2}x_{k-1}-1}{x_{k-1}}=\frac{F_{k-1}\left( x_{k-1},x_{k}\right) }{x_{k-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $x_{1}>h.$ As $F_{n}(0,0)=0$ and $x_{n}$ divides $x_{n+1}$ for every $n\geq0,$ we see that $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are positive integers for every $n\geq1$ in this case. If moreover $h=1$ and $F_{n}(x_{n},x_{n+1})+1=F(x_{n+1})$ for some $F(X) \in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq0}[X]$, then (\[S\]) gives the expansion in regular continued fraction of $S,$ already obtained by Hone in [@Hone].
\[ex:1\] \[ExHone1\]The simplest of all sequences $(x_{n})$ satisfy the recurrence relation$$x_{n+2}x_{n}=x_{n+1}^{2}\left( x_{n}+1\right) \quad\left( n\geq0\right) ,
\label{Simplest}$$ which means that $F_{n}(X,Y)=X$ for every $n\geq0.$ Let $h$ be a positive integer, and assume that $x_{1}>h.$ Then we can apply the above results and we get$$S=\frac{1}{x_{1}-h}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{h}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{h}{x_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{h}{x_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{h}{x_{k}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}.$$ In the case where $x_{1}=1$ and $h=1,$ we can apply this result starting with $x_{2}=2$ in place of $x_{1}$ and we get$$S-1=\frac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{1}{x_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{1}{x_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{1}{x_{k}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}.$$ Hence, assuming that $x_{0}=x_{1}=1$ and $x_{n}$ satisfies (\[Simplest\]), we have$$\left[ 1;1,x_{1},1,x_{2},1,x_{3},1,x_{4},\ldots,1,x_{k},\ldots\right]
=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{x_{n}}. \label{CF000}$$
If the condition $x_{1}>h$ is not realized, let $N\geq0$ such that $x_{N+1}>h.$ Then there exist a positive integer $t$ such that$$S=\frac{t}{x_{N}}+h^{N}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{h^{n}}{x_{n+N+1}}=\frac
{t}{x_{N}}+h^{N}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{h^{n}}{x_{n+1}^{\prime}}=\frac
{t}{x_{N}}+h^{N}S^{\prime},$$ where $x_{n}^{\prime}=x_{n+N}$ satisfies $x_{1}^{\prime}>h$ and the recurrence relation$$x_{n+2}^{\prime}x_{n}^{\prime}=\left( x_{n+1}^{\prime}\right) ^{2}\left(
F_{n+N}\left( x_{n}^{\prime},x_{n+1}^{\prime}\right) +1\right) \quad\left(
n\geq0\right) .$$ Hence we can apply the above result to $S^{\prime}$ and we get$$S=\frac{t}{x_{N}}+\frac{h^{N}a_{1}^{\prime}}{b_{1}^{\prime}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}^{\prime}}{b_{2}^{\prime}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}^{\prime}}{b_{n}^{\prime}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}.$$ This proves that$$\frac{1}{S}=\frac{x_{N}}{t}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{h^{N}a_{1}^{\prime}x_{N}}{b_{1}^{\prime}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}^{\prime}}{b_{2}^{\prime}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}^{\prime}}{b_{n}^{\prime}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}, \label{1/S}$$ which gives an expansion of $S^{-1}$ in a continued fraction whose terms are positive integers.
\[ex:2\] \[ExHone2\]Assume again that $x_{n}$ satisfies (\[Simplest\]), and take for example $x_{1}=1$ and $h=3.$ We have here$$S=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{3^{n}}{x_{n+1}}.$$ with $x_{1}=1,$ $x_{2}=2,$ $x_{3}=8.$ Hence $N=2$ and $a_{1}^{\prime}=1,$ $b_{1}^{\prime}=5,$ and for $k\geq1$$$a_{2k}^{\prime}=3,\quad a_{2k+1}^{\prime}=1,\quad b_{2k}^{\prime}=x_{k+2},\quad b_{2k+1}^{\prime}=1.$$ By applying (\[1/S\]), we obtain$$\frac{1}{S}=\frac{2}{5}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{18}{5}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{3}{x_{3}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{3}{x_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{3}{x_{k}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{1}{1}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}.$$
Generalization of Varona expansions {#sec:Varona}
===================================
With the notations of Section \[sec:Hone\], we define now the series$$T=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left( -1\right) ^{n}\frac{h^{n}}{x_{n+1}}=\sum
_{n=1}^{\infty}\left( -1\right) ^{n-1}\frac{h^{n-1}}{x_{n}}.$$ Here we have $y_{n}=h^{n-1}.$ By letting $n\rightarrow\infty$ in Theorem \[ThVarona\], we get $$T=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}, \label{T}$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
a_{1} & =1,\quad a_{2}=hx_{1},\quad a_{3}=h,\quad a_{4}=x_{1},\\
b_{1} & =x_{1},\quad b_{2}=\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}}-h,\quad b_{3}=F_{1}\left(
x_{1},x_{2}\right) +1-x_{1},\quad b_{4}=1,\end{aligned}$$ and for $k\geq2$$$\begin{aligned}
a_{3k-1} & =h^{k},\quad a_{3k}=h^{k-1},\quad a_{3k+1}=1,\\
\quad b_{3k-1} & =h^{k-1}\left( x_{k}-h\right) ,\quad b_{3k}=\frac
{F_{k}\left( x_{k},x_{k+1}\right) }{x_{k}}-1,\quad b_{3k+1}=1.\end{aligned}$$ Assume that $x_{1}\geq h$ and that $F_{k}(X,Y)\neq X$ for every $k\geq0.$ Then $b_{2}>0$ since $x_{2}>x_{1}^{2}\geq hx_{1}$ and all the $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are positive integers. If moreover $h=1$ and $x_{1}=1$ we obtain the expansion in regular continued fraction of $T$ given by Varona in [@Varona].
\[ex:3\] \[ExVarona1\]Assume that $(x_{n})$ satisfies (\[Simplest\]). Then we cannot apply directly the above results since $F_{k}(X,Y)=X$ for every $k\geq0$ and therefore $b_{3k}=0$ for every $k\geq1.$ However, by the concatenation formula we have$$\frac{A}{B}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3k}}{0}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{3k+1}}{b_{3k+1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3k+2}}{b_{3k+2}}=\frac{A}{B+\dfrac{a_{3k}}{a_{3k+1}}b_{3k+1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3k}a_{3k+2}}{a_{3k+1}b_{3k+2}}.$$ Applying this formula we see first that$$\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3}}{b_{3}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{4}}{b_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{5}}{b_{5}}=\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}+\dfrac{a_{3}}{a_{4}}b_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3}a_{5}}{a_{4}b_{5}}.$$ Then we have$$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3}}{b_{3}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{4}}{b_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{5}}{b_{5}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{6}}{b_{6}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{7}}{b_{7}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{8}}{b_{8}}\\
& =\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}+\dfrac{a_{3}}{a_{4}}b_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3}a_{5}}{a_{4}b_{5}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{6}}{b_{6}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{a_{7}}{b_{7}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{8}}{b_{8}}\\
& =\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}+\dfrac{a_{3}}{a_{4}}b_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3}a_{5}}{a_{4}b_{5}+\dfrac{a_{6}}{a_{7}}b_{7}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{6}a_{8}}{a_{7}b_{8}},\end{aligned}$$ and an easy induction shows that for $k\geq2$$$\frac{a_{2}}{b_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3}}{b_{3}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3k+2}}{b_{3k+2}}=\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\beta_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\beta_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{\alpha_{k}}{\beta_{k}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{a_{3k}a_{3k+2}}{a_{3k+1}b_{3k+2}},$$ where $$\alpha_{1}=a_{2}=hx_{1},\quad\beta_{1}=b_{2}+\dfrac{a_{3}}{a_{4}}b_{4}=\frac{x_{2}}{x_{1}}-h+\frac{h}{x_{1}},$$ $$\alpha_{2}=a_{3}a_{5}=h^3,\quad
\beta_{2}=a_{4}b_{5}+\dfrac{a_{6}}{a_{7}}b_{7}=x_{1}h(x_2-h)+h$$ and for $3\leq n\leq k$$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{n} & =a_{3n-3}a_{3n-1}=h^{2n-2},\quad\\
\beta_{n} & =a_{3n-2}b_{3n-1}+\dfrac{a_{3n}}{a_{3n+1}}b_{3n+1}=h^{n-1}\left(
x_{n}-h+1\right) .\end{aligned}$$
In the case where $x_{1}=1$ and $h=1,$ we get$$T=\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{\alpha_{1}}{\beta_{1}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{\alpha_{2}}{\beta_{2}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\frac{\alpha_{3}}{\beta_{3}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+}\dfrac{\alpha_{4}}{\beta_{4}}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}}{+\cdots},$$ which is the expansion of $T$ in regular continued fraction:$$\left[ 0;x_{1},x_{2},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},\ldots,x_{k},\ldots\right]
=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{x_{n}}.\label{CF001}$$ From (\[CF001\]) we deduce easily that, if $x_{0}=x_{1}=1$ and $x_{n}$ satisfies (\[Simplest\]), then$$T=\left[ 0;1,1+x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},\ldots,x_{k},\ldots\right] ,$$ and consequently$$\left[ 1;x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},x_{5},\ldots,x_{k},\ldots\right] =\frac{{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}}
\dfrac{\left( -1\right) ^{n-1}}{x_{n}}}{2{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}}
\dfrac{\left( -1\right) ^{n-1}}{x_{n}}-1}.\label{CF002}$$
Hone and Varona in [@Hone2] and [@Hone3] have recently generalized their results to sums of a rational number and certain Engel or Pierce series by giving their expansions in regular continued fractions.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The last named author was supported by the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, an International Joint Usage / Research Center located in Kyoto University.
[9]{}
L. Euler, Introductio in analysin infinitorum, Lausanne, 1748.
A. N. W. Hone, Curious continued fractions, non linear recurrences and transcendental numbers, J. Integer Seq. 18 (8) (2015), article 15.8.4, 10 pp.
A. N. W. Hone, Continued fractions for some transcendental numbers, Monatsh. Math. 182 (2017), 33–38.
A. N. W. Hone and J. L. Varona, Continued fractions and irrationality exponents for modified Engel and Pierce series, Monatsh. Math. 190 (2019), 501–516.
J. L. Varona, The continued fraction expansion of certain Pierce series, J. Number Theory 180 (2017), 573–578.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Centro Multidisciplinar de Astrofísica, Instituto Superior Técnico,\
Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal\
[email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
author:
- 'R. Ugoccioni, L. Teodoro and U. Wichoski'
title: Large Scale Structure and Cosmic Rays revisited
---
Introduction
============
FISIST/12-2000/CENTRA
Ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECR) are particles with kinetic energies above $\sim 10^{18}$ eV.[@nagano] The nature of these energetic particles is presently unknown. The reason is twofold: [*i)*]{} These particles interact on the top of the Earth’s atmosphere producing extensive air showers (EAS) that can be observed from the ground; in this case, the primary particle can not be observed directly; and [*ii)*]{} at these ultra high energies (UHE) the fluxes are extremely low (less than 1 particle per square kilometer per year). This makes it impracticable to observe the UHE particles directly using balloons, satellites or spacecrafts due to their small acceptance.
The observation methods are indirect and rely on the observation of the secondary particles produced in the EAS. The hadronic particles, as well as muons and electrons created by the interactions of the primary particle in the atmosphere, are detected on the ground. The EAS also produces detectable fluorescent light photons due to the excitation of nitrogen molecules in the air by the charged secondary particles. Yet, the secondary charged particles that travel with velocities higher than the velocity of the light in the air generate Cherenkov radiation that can also be detected. Despite the fact that the EAS can be observed by the detection of different kinds of secondaries using various techniques, the determination of the nature of the primary particle is very difficult and model dependent. As the fluxes are low it is necessary to use large ground arrays, and/or many fluorescent light and Cherenkov radiation detectors. Until the present moment, the ground arrays and the fluorescent light detectors have gathered only a handful of events in the UHE range. The number of events has not been enough to tell us whether the sources are extragalactic or are located in the Galaxy.
If the primary particle is a $\gamma$-ray or a neutrino the arrival direction would point back directly to the source. This would also be the case for charged particles if the Galactic magnetic field is $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ G and the extragalactic magnetic fields are $\lesssim 10^{-9}$ G in the case of extragalactic sources. The distance to the source is also constrained for most kinds of primaries: If the primary particle is a nucleus or a proton (antiproton) the distance to the source is limited to less than $\sim 100$ Mpc for particles with arrival energies above $\sim 6 \times 10^{19}$ eV (GZK cutoff, see Fig.(1)). Due to interactions with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons these particles rapidly lose energy. Sources of $\gamma$-rays must be even closer because of the short mean absorption length for the UHE photons traveling in the CMB.
The mechanism that provides particles with UHE is also not known. The ignorance about the sources makes it harder to determine the mechanism at work. For the UHE events no source candidate in the vicinity of the region to where the arrival direction points back has been found yet. On the other hand, some analysis of the showers profile have been favoring protons as the primary particle.[@ave] As it was mentioned above, the number of UHE events is still too small to allow us, based on the statistics, to answer questions about their isotropy and composition.
In this work, we assume that the UHECR primary particles above $10^{19}$ eV are predominantly extragalactic protons and that the sources are related to the distribution of matter on large scales. It means that without specifying the sources themselves or the acceleration mechanism, we would expect an excess of events coming from regions with mass overdensities and less events coming from regions with mass underdensities. In the § 2 we briefly describe the formalism used; the propagation code is described in the § 3; and the smoothing procedure of the density field is described in § \[density\_field\]. Our results are presented in the § 5.
Formalism {#sec:formalism}
=========
In this contribution we apply a generalization of the formalism described in Waxman, Fisher and Piran.[@waxman] We model the population of UHECR sources $S$ within a “box” $\Delta V$ centered at $(z,\hat{\Omega})$ as drawn from a Poisson distribution $$\mbox{prob}_S(z,\hat{\Omega})=\frac{\bar{S}(z,\hat{\Omega})^S}{S!} \exp \left [ -\bar{S}
(z,\hat{\Omega}) \right ],
\label{eq:s_dist}$$ whose mean value is $\bar{S}(z,\hat{\Omega})=\bar{s}(z)\frak{B}\left[\delta \rho(z,\hat{\Omega})\right]\Delta V$. Here $\bar{s}(z)$ denotes the average comoving number of UHECR sources at redshift $z$ and $\frak{B}$ is some bias functional of the local galaxy distribution $\delta \rho(z,\hat{\Omega})$. The generating function () of such a distribution is $$f_S(u;z,\hat{\Omega})=\exp\left[\bar{S}(z,\hat{\Omega})(u-1)\right],
\label{eq:gen_fun_S}$$ where $u$ is a dummy variable.
The detected number $N$ of UHECR produced by a source within $\Delta V$ with observed energy larger than $E$ is also modeled by a Poisson distribution $$\mbox{prob}_N( \ge E)=
\frac{\bar{N}(E,z)^N}{N!} \exp \left \{-\bar{N}(E,z) \right \},
\label{eq:n_ener}$$ with mean value $$\bar{N}(E,z) = {\cal{A\,T}}\frac{\dot{n}_0\left[E_{inj}(E,z)\right]}{\bar{s}_0} \frac{(1+z)}{4\pi d_L(z)^2},
\label{eq:n_mean}$$ where $\bar{s}_0 = \bar{s}(z = 0)$, $d_L^2(z)=4c^2 H^{-2}_0(2+z-2\sqrt{1+z})$ for an $\Omega = 1$ Universe; $\cal{A}$ and $\cal{T}$ denote the detector area and observation time, respectively; $E_{inj}$ is the energy with which a UHECR observed with energy $E$ was produced at redshift $z$; and $\dot n_0$ is the number of UHE protons emitted by a source per unit time and is assumed to be proportional to $dN/dE_{inj}$. We have assumed that the source differential spectrum is a power law in energy $ dN/dE_{inj} \propto E_{inj}^{-(\gamma+1)} $. The of the last probability distribution is given by $$g_N (u;z,E)= \exp\left[ \bar{N}(E,z)(u-1)\right].
\label{eq:gen_fun_N}$$ Hence, it is straightforward to show from equations (\[eq:gen\_fun\_S\]) and (\[eq:gen\_fun\_N\]) that the for the probability of observing a total of $N$ events from $\Delta V$, with an energy larger than $E$, is expressed by $$F(u;z,\hat{\Omega},E)= \exp\left\{\bar{S}(z,\hat{\Omega})
\left[\exp\left(\bar{N}(E,z)(u-1)\right)-1\right] \right \}.
\label{eq:gen_fun_NS}$$ The overall UHECR distribution coming from a collection of independent volume elements $\Delta V_i$ has the following : $$F(u;\bigcup_i \Delta V_i,E)=\prod_i F\left(u;z_i,\hat{\Omega}_i,E\right),$$ which for a given line of sight () can be expressed as an integral over $z$ $$F(u;\hat{\Omega},E)=\exp\left\{\int_0^{z_{max}} \bar{S}(z,\hat{\Omega}) \left[\exp\left(\bar{N}(E,z)(u-1)\right)-1\right] dV\right\},
\label{eq:gen_fun_NS_los}$$ where $dV = c\,\left | dt/dz \right | d_L^2(z)(1+z)^{-1}\,dz$.
In defining $\lambda(\hat{\Omega})$ as $$\lambda(\hat{\Omega})\equiv\int _0^{z_{max}}\bar{S}(z,\hat{\Omega})dV,$$ one can characterize the distribution of UHECR produced by sources along the with energy larger than $E$ by the . $$G(u;\hat{\Omega},E) \equiv \frac{1}{ \lambda(\hat{\Omega})} \int_{0}^{z_{max}} \bar{S}(z,\hat{\Omega})\exp\left(\bar{N}(E,z)(u-1)\right) dV.$$ From equation (\[eq:gen\_fun\_NS\_los\]) is then straightforward to show that $$F(u;\hat{\Omega},E)=\exp\left\{\lambda(\hat{\Omega})\left[G(u;\hat{\Omega},E)-1\right]\right\},$$ which still is a compound Poisson distribution, although $G$ is not Poissonian.
Propagation code
================
The propagation equation takes into account energy losses of the UHE protons due to: [*i)*]{} Adiabatic expansion of the Universe; [*ii)*]{} $e^+ e^-$ pair production; and [*iii)*]{} pion production due to interactions with CMB photons. A proton observed at present ($z=0$) with energy $E$ must have been produced at an epoch $z$ with energy $E_{inj} = E_{inj}(E,z)$. We assume that the influence of the magnetic fields on particles with energies $E > 10^{19}$ eV is negligible. Figure 1 shows the decrease of energy as a function of the distance from the source for UHE protons. We note that for a proton to be observed with energies above $\sim 6 \times 10^{19}$ eV the source must be within $\sim 100$ Mpc from the observer irrespective to $E_{inj}$.
Smoothed density field {#density_field}
======================
The galaxy distribution is estimated from the redshift survey.[@Saunders:2000] We have computed the smoothed density field on a spherical grid up to 200$h^{-1}$Mpc. The Gaussian-smoothed density field at a grid point $n$ is given by $$\label{smooth_dens_field}
1+\delta_g(c\vec z_n)= \frac{1}{(2\pi) ^{3/2}\sigma_{sm,n}^3}\sum _i \frac{1}{\phi(c{\vec z} _i)}\exp \left [ -\frac{(c\vec z _n -c\vec z_i)^2}{2\sigma ^2_{sm,n}} \right ].$$ We have divided the sphere in 72 bins of approximately equal area. Radially, the bin size increases in proportion to the inter-particle spacing $[\bar{n}\phi(cz)]^{-1/3}$. This smoothing scheme is tailored to keep the shot-noise uncertainties in the density field roughly constant through out the sampled volume. A more detailed analysis of the density field can be found in Branchini [*et al.*]{}[@Branchini:1999b]
Results {#subs:results}
=======
We have found that the final results are independent of the cosmological parameters $(\Omega,\Lambda)$. Thus, we have used $ \Omega =1 $ throughout our calculations for the sake of simplicity. For the bias functional $\frak{B} [\delta(\vec x)]$ we have considered $\frak{B} [\delta(\vec x)]= 1+\delta (\vec x)$.
Figure \[fig:sky\] presents maps of fluctuations in the mean Cosmic Ray intensity, $$\delta_{CR}(E,\hat{\Omega})= \dfrac{ 4\pi \bar N(E,\hat{\Omega})}{\int d \hat \Omega
\bar N (E,\hat{\Omega})} -1,$$ for $E = (6,10) \times 10^{19}$ eV. In the maps we clearly see the regions from where an excess and a deficit of UHECR events is expected following the LSS. The specific predictions for future experiments as the Auger project and HiRes will be presented elsewhere.[@lru]
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} This work has been supported by “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (FCT) under the program “PRAXIS XXI”. L.T. has also been supported by FCT under the project PRAXIS/C/FIS/13196/98.
[99]{}
M. Nagano and A.A. Watson, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{}, 689 (2000); see also A.A. Watson in these Proceedings.
M. Ave [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2244 (2000).
E. Waxman, K. B. Fisher, and T. Piran, Astrophys. J. [**483**]{}, 1 (1997).
W Saunders [*et al.*]{} collaboration . E Branchini [*et al.*]{} . L. Teodoro, R. Ugoccioni, and U. Wichoski, [*in preparation*]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The first part of this paper proposed a family of penalized convex relaxations for solving optimization problems with bilinear matrix inequality (BMI) constraints. In this part, we generalize our approach to a sequential scheme which starts from an arbitrary initial point (feasible or infeasible) and solves a sequence of penalized convex relaxations in order to find feasible and near-optimal solutions for BMI optimization problems. We evaluate the performance of the proposed method on the $\mathcal{H}_2$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ optimal controller design problems with both centralized and decentralized structures. The experimental results based on a variety of benchmark control plants demonstrate the promising performance of the proposed approach in comparison with the existing methods.'
author:
- 'Mohsen Kheirandishfard, Fariba Zohrizadeh, Muhammad Adil, and Ramtin Madani [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'egbib.bib'
title: |
**Convex Relaxation of Bilinear Matrix Inequalities\
Part II: Applications to Optimal Control Synthesis**
---
Introduction
============
The design of optimal controllers can be computationally challenging due to NP-hardness in general [@tsitsiklis1985complexity; @witsenhausen1968counterexample; @papadimitriou1986intractable]. This two part paper is motivated by the applications of bilinear matrix inequalities (BMIs) in optimal control. We study the class of optimization problems with BMI constraints and their applications in the design of optimal structured controllers. In Part I, we proposed a variety of convex relaxations and penalization methods for solving BMI optimization problems. In this part, we investigate the $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ optimal structured controller design tasks by means of the proposed convex relaxations. Structured controllers has been extensively explored for various systems, including for spatially distributed systems [@bamieh2002distributed; @motee2008optimal; @wu2017sparsity; @d2003distributed; @ehsan2018distributed], localizable systems [@wang2014localized], energy systems [@dorfler2014sparsity; @schuler2014decentralized; @zhang2017distributed], optimal static distributed systems [@lin2011augmented; @fardad2009optimal], strongly connected systems [@lavaei2012decentralized], as well as heterogeneous systems [@dullerud2004distributed].
The problems of designing distributed state-feedback and output-feedback controllers for linear time-invariant systems have been studied by several papers [@bahavarnia2015sparse; @lin2013design; @dhingra2016method; @scherer2000design; @lavaei2008control; @palacios2014recent; @de2000convexifying; @arastoo2015output]. The papers [@bamieh2002optimal; @fan1994centralized; @qi2004structured; @voulgaris2001convex; @hengster2015distributed] have considered special cases which make controller design problems computationally tractable. The paper [@rotkowitz2006characterization] introduces a condition regarded as quadratic invariance, which enables the transformation of optimal distributed controller design problems to convex optimization. This condition is further explored by other papers, including [@tanaka2014optimal; @lessard2012optimal; @lamperski2013output; @rotkowitz2012nearest; @shah2013cal; @alavian2013q; @matni2013dual; @Matni2016regul]. Inspired by [@toker1995np; @gross2011optimized; @de2002extended; @ikeda1996decentralized; @sojoudi2010interconnection], we cast a variety of controller design tasks as optimization subject to BMI constraints and employ a family of penalized convex relaxations to solve the resulting nonconvex optimization problems. Our work is related to the body of literature on convex relaxation of optimal controller design based on semidefinite programming in [@fazelnia2017convex; @fattahi2015transformation; @lin2017convex; @zhang2017distributed], as well as sequential methods in [@wang2009time; @zhai2001decentralized; @sadabadi2013lmi; @fardad2014design].
We discuss the state-of-the-art semidefinite programming (SDP) and second-order cone programming (SOCP) relaxations. Additionally, we introduce a computationally efficient parabolic relaxation which solely relies on convex quadratic inequalities as opposed to conic constraints. Next, a family of penalty functions are introduced that can leverage any arbitrary initial point. The incorporation of these penalty terms into the objective of SDP, SOCP, and parabolic relaxations is guaranteed to produce feasible points for BMI optimization problems, as long as the initial point is sufficiently close the BMI feasible set.
Built upon the theoretical results of Part I, in this part, we offer a sequential penalized relaxation which is able to find feasible and near-globally optimal solutions for BMI optimization. The proposed sequential method is applied to a variety of $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ static output-feedback controller design problems, and its performance is tested on control plants from the COMPl~e~ib [@leibfritz2006compleib] library. Numerical experiments demonstrate the promising performance of the proposed method in comparison with the existing methods and software packages.
Notation
--------
Throughout the paper, the scalars, vectors, and matrices are respectively shown by italic letters, lower-case bold letters, and upper-case bold letters. Symbols $\Rbb$, $\Rbb^{n}$, and $\Rbb^{n\times m}$ respectively denote the set of real scalars, real vectors of size $n$, and real matrices of size $n\times m$. The set of real $n\times n$ symmetric matrices is shown with $\Sbb_n$. For a given vector $\abf$ and matrix $\Abf$, symbols $a_i$ and $A_{ij}$ respectively indicate the $i^{th}$ element of $\abf$ and $(i,j)^{th}$ element of $\Abf$. For symmetric matrix $\Abf$, notations $\Abf\succeq 0$ and $\Abf\preceq 0$ show positive and negative semidefinite ($\Abf\succ 0$ and $\Abf\prec 0$ indicate positive and negative definite). For two arbitrary matrices $\Abf$ and $\Bbf$ of the same size, symbol $\langle\Abf,\Bbf\rangle=\tr\{\Abf^{\!\top}\Bbf\}$ shows the inner product between the matrices where $\tr\{.\}$ and $(.)^\top$ respectively denote the trace and transpose operators. Operator $\mathrm{diag}(.)$ gets a vector and forms a diagonal matrix with its input on the diagonal. For a symmetric matrix $\Bbf$ of size $n$, symbol $\Bbf(:)$ indicates a vector of size $\binom{n}{2}$ consists of all unique elements of $\Bbf$. Symbols $\Ibf$ and $\mathbf{0}$ respectively denote the identity matrix and zero matrix of appropriate dimensions and $\Ncal$ is a shorthand for the set $\{1,\dots,n\}$.
Problem Formulation
===================
In this part, we formulate the problem of structured static output-feedback controller design as an optimization problem with linear objective function and a bilinear matrix inequality (BMI) constraint, as follows:
\[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{{\xbf}\in{\Rbb}^{n}}{\text{minimize}} && \cbf^{\!\top}\xbf \label{eq:ODC_BMIOrig_obj}\\
&\text{subject to}
&&p(\xbf,\xbf\xbf^{\!\top})\preceq 0,\label{eq:ODC_BMIOrig_con_01}\end{aligned}$$
where $\cbf\in\Rbb^{n}$ is given, $p\!:\!\Rbb^{n}\!\times\! \Sbb_{n}\!\rightarrow\Sbb_{m}$ is a matrix-valued function defined as $$\label{eq:ODC_MatPen}
\begin{aligned}[b]
& p(\xbf,\Xbf)\triangleq{\Fbf}_{\sm{0}{6}}+\sum_{\sm{k\in\Ncal}{5.5}} {x}_{k}{\Kbf}_k+\sum_{\sm{i\in\Ncal}{5.5}}\sum_{\sm{j\in\Ncal}{5.5}}{X}_{ij}{\Lbf}_{ij},
\end{aligned}$$ and ${\Fbf_{\sm{0}{6}}}$, $\{{\Kbf}_k\}_{\sm{k\in\Ncal}{5.5}}$, and $\{{\Lbf}_{ij}\}_{\sm{i,j\in\Ncal}{5.5}}$ are fixed $m\times m$ real symmetric matrices. Due to the presence of bilinear terms, the problem \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_obj,eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\] is nonconvex and NP-hard in general. To address this issue, in Part I, we defined an auxiliary matrix variable $\Xbf\in\Sbb_n$ to account for $\xbf\xbf^{\top}$, and developed a computationally-tractable convex surrogate of the following form:
\[eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{{\xbf}\sm{\in}{6}{\Rbb}^{n}\!,{\Xbf}\sm{\in}{6}{\Sbb}_{n}}{\text{minimize}} && \cbf^{\!\top} \xbf+{\eta}\;(\mathrm{tr}\{\Xbf\}-2\;{\check{\xbf}}^{\!\top}{\xbf}+\check{\xbf}^{\!\top}{\check{\xbf}}) \label{eq:ODC_GenRelaxation_Pen_obj}\\
&\text{\,subject to}
&&p(\xbf,\Xbf)\;\preceq 0,\label{eq:ODC_GenRelaxation_Pen_con_01} \\
&&& \Xbf-\xbf\xbf^{\!\top}\!\in\Ccal, \label{eq:ODC_GenRelaxation_Pen_con_02}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\check{\xbf}$ is an arbitrary initial guess, $\Ccal$ is a proper convex cone, and $\eta\!>\!0$ is a regularization parameter which offers a trade-off between the linear objective function and the penalty term. Observe that the BMI constraint \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\] is transformed to the linear matrix inequality (LMI) constraint \[eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_con\_01\] with respect to $\xbf$ and $\Xbf$. Additionally, the relation $\Xbf=\xbf\xbf^{\!\top}$ is relaxed to the convex constraint \[eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_con\_02\]. In Part I, the following three choices for the convex cone $\mathcal{C}$ are discussed
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.2cm}\Ccal_{\sm{\mathrm{1}}{5}}\!\!\!&&\hspace{-0.26cm}=\!\{\Hbf\!\in\!\Sbb_{n}\!\mid\!\Hbf\!\!\!\!\!&&&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\succeq 0\},\\[2.5pt]
&\hspace{-0.2cm}\Ccal_{\sm{\mathrm{2}}{5}}\!\!\!&&\hspace{-0.26cm}=\!\{\Hbf\!\in\!\Sbb_{n}\!\mid\! H_{ii}\!\!\!\!\!&&&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\geq 0,H_{ii}H_{jj}\geq H_{ij}^2,\sm{\forall i,\!j\!\in\!\Ncal}{8}\}, \\[2.5pt]
&\hspace{-0.2cm}\Ccal_{\sm{\mathrm{3}}{5}}\!\!\!&&\hspace{-0.26cm}=\!\{\Hbf\!\in\!\Sbb_{n}\!\mid\! H_{ii}\!\!\!\!\!&&&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\geq 0,H_{ii}\!+\!H_{jj}\!\geq\! 2\left|H_{ij}\right|\!,\sm{\forall i,\!j\!\in\!\Ncal}{8}\},
\end{aligned}$$
leading to the semidefinite programming (SDP), second-order cone programming (SOCP), and parabolic relaxations, respectively. The resulting convex relaxations are efficiently solvable up to any desired accuracy using the standard numerical algorithms.
In the next section, we propose a sequential framework which solves penalized convex relaxations of form \[eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_obj,eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_con\_02\] to obtain feasible and near-globally optimal points for the original BMI problem \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_obj,eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\].
Sequential Penalized Relaxation
===============================
In Part I, it is proven that the proposed penalized convex relaxation is guaranteed to preserve the feasibility of any Mangasarian-Fromovitz regular initial point. Moreover, we proved that infeasible initial points that are sufficiently close to the BMI feasible set enjoy a similar property. In light of these theoretical guarantees, we propose an algorithm which can start from an arbitrary initial point and proceed sequentially until a satisfactory solution of the BMI problem is obtained. Once feasibility is attained, it is preserved and the objective value is improved in the subsequent round of algorithm. This procedure is detailed in \[al:ODC\_alg\_01\]. As it is shown, the algorithm is stopped if the number of rounds exceeds $\mathrm{maxRound}$ or if the improvement between two consecutive rounds is less than $\mathrm{progThresh}$. We observed that the Nesterov’s acceleration [@nesterov1983method] (line 8 of \[al:ODC\_alg\_01\]) can considerably improve the convergence behavior of the proposed algorithm.
$\xbf_0\phantom{k}\!\!\!\!\leftarrow\check{\xbf}$ $k\phantom{\xbf_0}\!\!\!\!\leftarrow 1$ $\xbf_k\leftarrow$ Solve penalized relaxation \[eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_obj,eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_con\_01,eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_con\_02\] **break** $\check{\xbf} \leftarrow\xbf_k+\frac{k-1}{k+2}(\xbf_k-\xbf_{k-1})$ $k\leftarrow k+1$ $k\leq\mathrm{maxRound}$ $\accentset{\ast}{\xbf}\leftarrow\xbf_{k-1}$
\[al:ODC\_alg\_01\]
The next section is concerned with the formulation of the $\mathcal{H}_2$ and $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}$ optimal structured control synthesis problems in the form the optimization \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_obj,eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\].
Optimal Structured Controller Synthesis
=======================================
Consider a linear-time invariant control plant $\Gbfc$ with the following dynamics:
$$\label{eq:ODC_PlantOl}
\begin{aligned}
\Gbfc:\begin{cases}
&\hspace{-0.2cm}\dot{\xbfc}=\\
&\hspace{-0.2cm}\zbfc=\\
&\hspace{-0.2cm}\ybfc=
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&\Abfc&&\hspace{-0.3cm}\xbfc+\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\\
&\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}&&\hspace{-0.3cm}\xbfc+\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}\\
&\Cbfc&&\hspace{-0.3cm}\xbfc+\Dbfc_{\sm{21}{6}}
\end{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.05cm}\wbfc+\Bbfc&&\hspace{-0.33cm}\ubfc\\
&\hspace{-0.05cm}\wbfc+\Dbfc_{\sm{12}{6}}&&\hspace{-0.33cm}\ubfc\\
&\hspace{-0.05cm}\wbfc\phantom{+\Dbfc_{\sm{12}{6}}}&&\hspace{-0.33cm}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\xbfc\in\Rbb^{\nxs}$ is the vector of states, $\wbfc\in\Rbb^{\nws}$ is the system inputs, $\ubfc\in\Rbb^{\nus}$ denotes the control commands, $\zbfc\in\Rbb^{\nzs}$ is the response outputs, and $\ybfc\in\Rbb^{\nys}$ indicate the vector of sensor measurements. The matrices $\Abfc$, $\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}$, $\Bbfc$, $\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}$, $\Cbfc$, $\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}$, $\Dbfc_{\sm{12}{6}}$, $\Cbfc$, $\Dbfc_{\sm{21}{6}}$ are all fixed and of appropriate dimensions. In what follows, we aim to design a structured static output-feedback controller for this plant. Define $\Kbfc:\Rbb^l\rightarrow\Rbb^{\nus\times\nys}$ as the controller with the following structure: $$\begin{aligned}
\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\triangleq \sum_{i=1}^l \hfc_i \Ebf_i,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\hbfc\in\Rbb^l$ represents nonzero elements of the controller and $\{\Ebf_i\}_{i=1}^l\in\{0,1\}^{\nus\times\nys}$ are fixed binary matrices. Given a vector $\ybfc$ of all measurements as the controller input, the controller outputs a command vector is given by the equation $\ubfc=\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\ybfc$. In order to obtain the optimal controller, we first derive the dynamic equations that represent the closed-loop system $\Gbfc$ as: $$\label{eq:ODC_PlantCl}
\Gbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}:
\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
& \\
&
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.4cm}\dot{\xbfc}&&\hspace{-0.4cm}=\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\xbfc+\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)&&&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\wbfc \\
&\hspace{-0.4cm}\zbfc&&\hspace{-0.4cm}=\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\xbfc+\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)&&&&\hspace{-0.7cm}\wbfc
\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix functions $\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\!:\!\Rbb^l\!\!\rightarrow\!\Rbb^{\nxs\!\times\nxs}$, $\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\!:\!\Rbb^l\!\!\rightarrow\!\Rbb^{\nxs\!\times\nws}$, $\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\!:\!\Rbb^l\!\!\rightarrow\!\Rbb^{\nzs\!\times\nxs}$, and $\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\!:\!\Rbb^l\!\!\rightarrow\!\Rbb^{\nzs\!\times\nws}$ are defined as
\[eq:ODC\_ClMa\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \phantom{\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}}\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\triangleq\Abfc_{\phantom{\sm{11}{6}}}\phantom{\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}}\hspace{-1.65cm}+\Bbfc_{\phantom{\sm{12}{6}}}\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc_{\phantom{\sm{21}{6}}},\label{eq:ODC_ClLoMatA} \\[1pt]
& \phantom{\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}}\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\triangleq\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}\phantom{\Abfc_{\phantom{\sm{11}{6}}}\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}}\hspace{-1.65cm}+\Bbfc_{\phantom{\sm{12}{6}}}\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Dbfc_{\sm{21}{6}}, \label{eq:ODC_ClLoMatB} \\[1pt]
& \phantom{\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}}\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\triangleq\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}\phantom{\Abfc_{\phantom{\sm{11}{6}}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}}\hspace{-1.65cm}+\Dbfc_{\sm{12}{6}}\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc_{\phantom{\sm{21}{6}}},\label{eq:ODC_ClLoMatC} \\[1pt]
& \phantom{\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}}\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\triangleq\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}\phantom{\Abfc_{\phantom{\sm{11}{6}}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}\phantom{\sm{1}{6}}}}\hspace{-1.65cm}+\Dbfc_{\sm{12}{6}}\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Dbfc_{\sm{21}{6}}.\hspace{1cm}\label{eq:ODC_ClLoMatD}\end{aligned}$$
In what follows, we cast the $\Hcal_2$- and $\Hcal_{\infty}$-norm optimal controller design problems for the plant $\Gbfc$ as BMI problems of form \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_obj,eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\].
$\Hcal_2$ Optimal Control
-------------------------
The $\Hcal_2$-norm of a control system is described as the average energy of the output signal, given white noise as the input. For the control plant $\Gbfc$, the $\Hcal_2$ optimal controller design problem aims to find a vector $\hbfc$ such that the structured controller $\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)$ stabilizes the plant (i.e. all the eigenvalues of $\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)$ have negative real part) and minimizes the $\Hcal_2$ norm of $\Gbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}$. With no loss of generality, we assume that $\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, $\Dbfc_{\sm{21}{6}}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, and that there exists a stabilizing controller gain $\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)$ for $\Gbfc$. Hence, the $\Hcal_2$ norm of the closed-loop plant is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\lVert\Gbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}{\rVert}_{\Hcal_2}=\mathrm{tr}\{\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Pbfc\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}\},
\end{aligned}$$ where matrix $\Pbfc\succ 0$ is the solution of the following Lyapunov equation: $$\label{eq:ODC_Lyap_011}
\begin{aligned}
\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Pbfc+\Pbfc\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}+\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}^{\!\top}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ It is well-known that, $\Pbfc$ can be obtained by solving the following relaxed matrix inequality [@boyd2004convex]: $$\label{eq:BMI_Lyap}
\begin{aligned}[b]
\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Pbfc+\Pbfc\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}+\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}^{\!\top}\preceq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the following optimization problem minimizes the $\Hcal_2$ norm, subject to a stabilizing controller with a desired zero-nonzero pattern:
\[eq:ODC\_Htwo\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{\begin{subarray}{c} {\Pbfc}\in{\Sbb}_{\nxs}\msh\msh,\msh\Wbfc\in\Sbb_{\nzs}\\{\hbfc}\in{\Rbb}^{l}\end{subarray}}{\text{minimize}} && \langle\Wbfc,\Ibf\rangle \label{eq:ODC_Htwo_obj}\\
&\text{~~subject to}
&& f_{\sm{\mathrm{LMI}}{4}}(\Pbfc,\Wbfc)+f_{\sm{\mathrm{BMI}}{4}}(\Pbfc,\hbfc)\preceq 0,\label{eq:ODC_Htwo_con_01}\end{aligned}$$
where the matrix functions $f_{\sm{\mathrm{LMI}}{4}}\!:\!\Sbb_{\nxs}\!\times\!\Sbb_{\nzs}\!\rightarrow\!\Sbb_{2\nxs+\nzs}$ and $f_{\sm{\mathrm{BMI}}{4}}\!:\! \Sbb_{\nxs}\!\times\!\Rbb^{l}\!\rightarrow\!\Sbb_{2\nxs+\nzs}$ are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
&f_{\sm{\mathrm{LMI}}{4}}(\Pbfc,\Wbfc)\triangleq\nonumber\\
&\begin{bmatrix} \Abfc\Pbfc+\Pbfc\Abfc^{\!\top}\!+\!{\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}}{\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}}^{\!\!\!\top}\phantom{a\,} & \zerbf & \zerbf \\
\ast & -\Wbfc & {\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}}\Pbfc \\
\ast & \ast & -\Pbfc \end{bmatrix},\label{eq:ODC_Htwo_f_LMI}\\
&f_{\sm{\mathrm{BMI}}{4}}(\Pbfc,\hbfc)\triangleq\nonumber\\
&\begin{bmatrix} \Bbfc\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc\Pbfc\!+\!{(\Bbfc\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc\Pbfc)}^{\!\top} & \zerbf & \zerbf \\
\ast & \zerbf & \Dbfc_{\sm{12}{6}}\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc\Pbfc \\
\ast & \ast & \zerbf \end{bmatrix}, \label{eq:ODC_Htwo_f_BMI} \end{aligned}$$
and $\ast$ account for the symmetric elements of the matrices.
Assume that $\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}^{\!\top}\succ 0$, $\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$, and $\Dbfc_{\sm{21}{6}}\!=\!\mathbf{0}$. If $(\accentset{\ast}{\Pbfc},\accentset{\ast}{\Wbfc},\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc})$ is an optimal solution of the problem \[eq:ODC\_Htwo\_obj,eq:ODC\_Htwo\_con\_01\], then $\Kbfc(\msh\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc}\msh)$ is the optimal $\Hcal_2$ static output-feedback controller gain for the plant $\Gbfc$.
It can be easily verified from the BMI constraint \[eq:ODC\_Htwo\_con\_01\], that $\accentset{\ast}{\Pbfc}$ is positive-definite, and satisfies the Lyapunov inequality \[eq:BMI\_Lyap\], which certifies that $\Kbfc(\msh\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc}\msh)$ is a stabilizing controller. On the other hand, we have $\accentset{\ast}{\Wbfc}=\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc}\msh)\accentset{\ast}{\Pbfc}\Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc}\msh)^{\!\top}$ which means that the closed-loop gain $\langle\accentset{\ast}{\Wbfc},\Ibf\rangle=\lVert\Gbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}{\rVert}_{\Hcal_2}$ is minimized subject to the stability condition.
The constraint \[eq:ODC\_Htwo\_con\_01\] is a BMI due to the presence of matrix product $\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc\Pbfc$. Hence, it can be easily observed that the controller design problem \[eq:ODC\_Htwo\_obj,eq:ODC\_Htwo\_con\_01\] can be cast in the form of \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_obj,eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\]. To this end, we stack all of the variables into a vector $$\label{eq:ODC_Htwo_xdef}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\xbf}\triangleq\mathrm{diag}(\tilde{\sbf})[\Wbfc(:)^{\!\top},\Pbfc(:)^{\!\top},\hbfc^{\!\top}]^{\top}\in\Rbb^{\tilde{n}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{n}\!=\!\binom{\nxs}{2}+\binom{\nzs}{2}+l$ and $\tilde{\sbf}\in\Rbb^{\tilde{n}}$ is fixed. Since the performance of the proposed sequential algorithm depends on the choice of coordinates, we consider the following values for the elements of the scale vector $\tilde{\sbf}$:
- ${\tilde{s}}_i=1$ if $\exists j\in\Ncal$, such that $\tilde{x}_i\tilde{x}_j$ appears in the BMI constraint \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\].
- ${\tilde{s}}_i=\mathrm{min}(0.5\eta,0.01)$ if $\nexists j\in\Ncal$, such that $\tilde{x}_i\tilde{x}_j$ appears in the BMI constraint \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\].
$\Hcal_{\infty}$ Optimal Control
--------------------------------
For a general control system, the $\Hcal_{\infty}$-norm is defined as the maximal amplification (system gain) from the input signal to the output. The problem of $\Hcal_{\infty}$ controller design for the linear system $\Gbfc$ aims at finding a vector $\hbfc$ such that the controller gain $\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)$ stabilizes the plant (i.e. all the eigenvalues of $\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)$ have negative real part) and minimizes the $\Hcal_{\infty}$ norm of the closed-loop system. Assume that $\Dbfc_{\sm{21}{5}}=\zerbf$, $\gamma>0$, and that there exists a stabilizing controller $\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)$. Then, $\lVert\Gbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}{\rVert}_{\Hcal_{\infty}}<\gamma$ holds true if there exist a unique matrix $\Ybfc\succeq 0$ and controller $\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)$ that satisfy the following algebraic Riccati equation [@leibfritz2006compleib]: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Ybfc+\Ybfc\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}+\gamma^{\smallMinus 1}\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}+\\
&{\gamma}^{\smallMinus 1}\Mbfc(\Ybfc,\!\!\:\hbfc,\!\!\:\gamma{)}^{\!\top}\!\Rbfc(\hbfc,\gamma)^{\smallMinus 1}\Mbfc(\Ybfc,\!\!\:\hbfc,\!\!\:\gamma)=0,
\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix functions $\Mbfc : \Sbb_{\nxs}\!\!\times\!\Rbb^l\!\times\!\Rbb\!\rightarrow\!\Rbb^{\nzs\times\nxs}$ and $\Rbfc : \Rbb^l\!\times\!\Rbb\!\rightarrow\!\Sbb_{\nzs}$ are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
&\Rbfc(\hbfc,\gamma) \hspace{-0.75cm}&& \triangleq \Ibf-\gamma^{\smallMinus 2}\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top},\\
&\Mbfc(\Ybfc,\!\!\:\hbfc,\!\!\:\gamma) \hspace{-0.75cm}&& \triangleq \Cbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Ybfc+\gamma^{\smallMinus 1}\Dbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}.\end{aligned}$$
The existence of such solution is guaranteed if there exist $\Qbfc\succ\Ybfc\succeq 0$ and $\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)$ that satisfy $$\label{eq:ODC_HinfCondO}
\begin{aligned}
&\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Qbfc+\Qbfc\Abfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}+\gamma^{\smallMinus 1}\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Bbfc_{\sm{\mathrm{cl}}{6}}(\msh\hbfc\msh)^{\!\top}+\\
&{\gamma}^{\smallMinus 1}\Mbfc(\Qbfc,\!\!\:\hbfc,\!\!\:\gamma{)}^{\!\top}\!\Rbfc(\hbfc,\gamma)^{\smallMinus 1}\Mbfc(\Qbfc,\!\!\:\hbfc,\!\!\:\gamma)\prec 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Using Schur complement, the $\Hcal_{\infty}$ control design problem can be cast as the following optimization problem:
\[eq:ODC\_Hinf\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\underset{\begin{subarray}{c} {\Qbfc}\in{\Sbb}_{\nxs},\gamma\in\Rbb\\ {\hbfc}\in{\Rbb}^{l}\end{subarray}}{\text{minimize}} && \gamma \label{eq:ODC_Hinf_obj}\\
&\text{~subject to}
&&g_{\sm{\mathrm{LMI}}{4}}(\Qbfc,\gamma)+g_{\sm{\mathrm{BMI}}{4}}(\Qbfc,\hbfc)\preceq 0, \label{eq:ODC_Hinf_con_01}\end{aligned}$$
where the matrix functions $g_{\sm{\mathrm{LMI}}{4}}:\Sbb_{\nxs}\!\!\times\!\Rbb\rightarrow\Sbb_{2\nxs+\nws+\nzs}$ and $g_{\sm{\mathrm{BMI}}{4}}:\Sbb_{\nxs}\!\!\times\!\Rbb^l\!\rightarrow\!\Sbb_{2\nxs+\nws+\nzs}$ are defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.1cm}g_{\sm{\mathrm{LMI}}{4}}(\Qbfc,\gamma)\!\triangleq\nonumber\\
&\hspace{-0.3cm}\begin{bmatrix} -\Qbfc & \zerbf & \zerbf & \zerbf \\
\ast & \Abfc\Qbfc\!+\!\Qbfc\Abfc^{\!\!\top} & (\Cbfc_{\sm{1}{5}}\Qbfc)^{\!\top} & \Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\phantom{\;} \\
\ast & \ast & -\gamma\Ibf & \Dbfc_{\sm{11}{5}} \\
\ast & \ast & \ast & -\gamma\Ibf \end{bmatrix}\!\!, \!\!\!\label{eq:ODC_Hinf_g_LMI}\\
&\hspace{-0.1cm}g_{\sm{\mathrm{BMI}}{4}}(\Qbfc,\hbfc)\!\triangleq\nonumber\\
&\hspace{-0.3cm}\begin{bmatrix} \zerbf & \!\!\zerbf & \!\!\!\zerbf & \!\!\!\zerbf \\
\ast & \!\!\Bbfc\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc\Qbfc\!+\!(\Bbfc\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc\Qbfc)^{\!\top} & \!\!\!(\Dbfc_{\sm{12}{5}}\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)\Cbfc\Qbfc)^{\!\top} & \!\!\!\zerbf \\
\ast & \!\!\ast & \!\!\!\zerbf & \!\!\!\zerbf \\
\ast & \!\!\ast & \!\!\!\ast & \!\!\!\zerbf \end{bmatrix}\!\!. \!\!\!\label{eq:ODC_Hinf_g_BMI}\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{5}}\neq\zerbf$ and $\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}^{\!\top}\succ 0$. If $(\accentset{\ast}{\Qbfc},\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc},\accentset{\ast}{\gamma})$ is an optimal solution of problem \[eq:ODC\_Hinf\_obj,eq:ODC\_Hinf\_con\_01\], then $\Kbfc(\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc})$ is the optimal $\Hcal_{\infty}$ static output-feedback controller gain for plant $\Gbfc$.
From the BMI constraint \[eq:ODC\_Hinf\_con\_01\], it can be easily verified that the assumption $\Dbfc_{\sm{11}{5}}\neq\zerbf$ concludes $\accentset{\ast}{\gamma}>0$. Moreover, the matrix $\accentset{\ast}{\Qbfc}$ is positive-definite and satisfies the inequality \[eq:ODC\_HinfCondO\], which certifies that $\Kbfc(\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc})$ is a stabilizing controller. On the other hand, $\accentset{\ast}{\gamma}$ is minimized by the optimization problem \[eq:ODC\_Hinf\_obj,eq:ODC\_Hinf\_con\_01\].
Observe that \[eq:ODC\_Hinf\_con\_01\] is a BMI constraint as well, because of the matrix product $\Qbfc\Bbfc\Kbfc(\msh\hbfc\msh)$. Hence, we can cast \[eq:ODC\_Hinf\_obj,eq:ODC\_Hinf\_con\_01\] as an optimization problem of form \[eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_obj,eq:ODC\_BMIOrig\_con\_01\], with respect to the vector $$\label{eq:ODC_Hinf_xdef}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{\xbf}\triangleq \mathrm{diag}(\bar{\sbf})[\Qbfc(:)^{\!\top},\hbfc^{\!\top},\gamma]^{\top}\in\Rbb^{\bar{n}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{n}\!=\!\binom{\nxs}{2}\!+\!l\!+\!1$ and the scale vector $\bar{\sbf}\in\Rbb^{\bar{n}}$ is created in a similar way as the $\Hcal_2$ case.
Next, we use \[al:ODC\_alg\_01\] to find feasible and near-optimal solutions for the $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ optimal structured control design problems.
Experimental Results
====================
In this section, the effectiveness of \[al:ODC\_alg\_01\] is tested through extensive experiments on benchmark control plants from COMPl~e~ib [@leibfritz2006compleib]. The test cases cover a variety of applications, such as aircraft models (AC), academic test problems (NN), and decentralized interconnected systems (DIS), etc. We investigate the $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ optimal controller design problems for plants that are inherently static output-feedback stabilizable.
We use the HIFOO [@arzelier2011h2; @burke2006hifoo] and the PENBMI [@kocvara2005penbmi] packages as competing solvers. The HIFOO is a publicly available MATLAB package which is based on a two-stage method for solving fixed order $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ output-feedback controller design problems. The first stage relies on the standard Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) algorithm, and the second stage is based on random gradient sampling. The PENBMI package is a commercial local optimization solver, that is able to handle general BMI constrained problems with quadratic objectives. In our experiments, we have initialized all of the solvers with zero input. Other parameters of HIFOO and PENBMI are set to their default values. The experiments are all performed in MATLAB 2017a on a desktop computer with a 4-core 3.6GHz CPU and 32GB RAM. MOSEK v7 [@mosek2015mosek] is used through CVX to solve the resulting convex programs.
The reminder of this section offers detailed discussion of our experiments on centralized and fully decentralized controller design problems.
Case Study I: Centralized Controller
------------------------------------
We use the proposed sequential method to find unstructured static output-feedback controllers that stabilize the plant and minimize the norm of the closed-loop system. This controller is allowed to use the entire measurements to generate the control decisions. Numerical results for $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ controller design problems are reported in \[tab:ODC\_Cent\_Htwo,tab:ODC\_Cent\_Hinf\], respectively.
The first two columns of the tables contain the model names and the corresponding norm of the open-loop systems. We compute the open-loop norms based on the following system: $$\nonumber
\begin{aligned}
\Gbfc_{\mathrm{ol}}
=\begin{bmatrix} \Abfc & \Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\\ \Cbfc_{\sm{1}{6}} & \Dbfc_{\sm{11}{6}}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{aligned}$$ The subsequent sections in Tables \[tab:ODC\_Cent\_Htwo\] and \[tab:ODC\_Cent\_Hinf\] consist of four different sections labeled as SDP, SOCP, parabolic, and competitors. The first three sections show the numerical results of the proposed method equipped with different relaxations. The last section contains the numerical results of HIFOO and PENBMI. The following numbers are reported in the SDP, SOCP and parabolic sections:
- $\eta$ denotes the choice of penalty parameter in \[eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_obj\]. This parameter is chosen from the set $\{1\times 10^i, 2\times 10^i, 5\times 10^i\}_{\sm{i=-2}{5.5}}^{\sm{4}{5.5}}$ in all experiments.
- $t$ denotes the average run time of solving each round of penalized convex relaxation in \[al:ODC\_alg\_01\].
- ${\kV}_{\fs}$ denotes the number of rounds necessary to obtain a feasible solution for the original BMI (i.e., the first round whose resulting solution satisfies $\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x}\mathbf{x}^{\top}$) and ${\objV}_{\fs}$ represents the corresponding objective value at round ${\kV}_{\fs}$ (without the penalty term).
- ${\kV}_{\ps}$ and ${\objV}_{\ps}$, respectively, denote the round number at which the stopping criteria is met and the corresponding objective value.
In all of the experiments, we terminate the sequential penalized relaxation when the percentage objective value improvement between two consecutive rounds is less than 0.1 for $\Hcal_2$ and 0.05 for $\Hcal_{\infty}$, or if the number of rounds exceeds 250. For cases where $\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}^{\!\top}$ is not positive definite, we substitute it with the matrix $\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}\Bbfc_{\sm{1}{6}}^{\!\top} + 10^{-5}\times\Ibf$. Given an optimal solution $\accentset{\ast}{\xbf}$ for either \[eq:ODC\_Htwo\_obj,eq:ODC\_Htwo\_con\_01\] or \[eq:ODC\_Hinf\_obj,eq:ODC\_Hinf\_con\_01\], let $\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc}$ represent the entries of $\accentset{\ast}{\xbf}$ corresponding to the controller element. We consider $\Kbfc(\msh\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc}\msh)$ as a stabilizing controller for the plant $\Gbfc$ if the real part of all eigenvalues of $\Abfc+\Bbfc\Kbfc(\msh\accentset{\ast}{\hbfc}\msh)\Cbfc$ are smaller than $10^{-5}$.
Case Study II: Decentralized Controller
---------------------------------------
This case study is concerned with the design of decentralized controllers. Despite the centralized case, this controller only have access to a subset of measurements to generate the control commands. In this experiment, we only consider those models in which the control commands vector $\ubfc$ and the sensor measurements vector $\ybfc$ are of the same dimensions. We apply \[al:ODC\_alg\_01\] to find $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ static output-feedback controllers with diagonal patterns. The results of this experiment are reported in \[tab:ODC\_DeCent\_Htwo,tab:ODC\_DeCent\_Hinf\].
As the results indicate, the performance of the proposed sequential scheme equipped with SDP, SOCP, and parabolic relaxations provide promising performance for both centralized and decentralized cases compared to both PENBMI and HIFOO packages (smaller norm means better performance).
Case Study III: Choice of Penalty Parameter $\eta$
--------------------------------------------------
This case study investigates the sensitivity of different convex relaxations to the choice of regularization parameter $\eta$. To this end, one round of the penalized relaxation problem \[eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_obj,eq:ODC\_GenRelaxation\_Pen\_con\_02\] (with zero initialization) is solved for a wide range of $\eta$ values. This experiment is run on the $\Hcal_2$-norm static output-feedback controller problem for the two models ”AC4” and “BDT1”. \[plt:ODC\_AC4,plt:ODC\_BDT1\] show that if $\eta$ is small, none of the proposed penalized relaxations methods provide feasible solutions for BMI. As the value of $\eta$ increases, the feasibility violation $\mathrm{tr}\{\mathbf{X}-\mathbf{x}\mathbf{x}^{\top}\}$ abruptly vanishes once crossing a certain threshold. In our experiments, this limit has been close for SDP and SOCP relaxations, which is smaller than that of the parabolic relaxation. According to \[plt:ODC\_AC4,plt:ODC\_BDT1\], all three methods produce feasible points for a wide range of $\eta$ values, and within that range, the objective cost is not very sensitive to the choice of $\eta$.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we proposed a feasibility preserving sequential algorithm to solve optimization problems with linear objectives subject to bilinear matrix inequality (BMI) constraints. The proposed method can start from any arbitrary initial point to obtain feasible and near-optimal solutions. The performance of the proposed sequential method is tested on the problems of $\Hcal_2$ and $\Hcal_{\infty}$ control design for benchmark plants from COMPl~e~ib [@leibfritz2006compleib]. The numerical results verify the promising performance of our sequential penalized relaxation in comparison with the HIFOO and the PENBMI packages.
[^1]: Mohsen Kheirandishfard and Fariba Zohrizadeh are with the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA (emails:[email protected], [email protected]), Muhammad Adil and Ramtin Madani are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA (emails:[email protected], [email protected]). This work is in part supported by the NSF award 1809454 and a University of Texas System STARs award.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Magnetic quadrupole and electric octupole transitions from the configurations $4p^54d^{N+1}$ and $4p^64d^{N-1}4f$ were calculated along with magnetic dipole, electric dipole and electric quadrupole radiative transitions in quasirelativistic Hartree-Fock approximation. Their significance in determining the metastable level radiative lifetimes was investigated along several isoelectronic sequences for the ions from $Z=50$ to $Z=92$. Strontium-like ions, zirconium-like ions, molybdenum-like ions and rhodium-like ions were studied comprehensively. Remaining isoelectronic sequences with the ground configuration $4d^{N}$ ($N=1,3,5,7,8,10$) were also reviewed albeit in less detail. A systematic trends of determined total radiative lifetimes were studied. The importance of magnetic quadrupole and electric octupole transitions from metastable levels of ions from these isoelectronic sequences was investigated and discussed. Inclusion of such transitions of higher multipole order can change theoretical radiative lifetime values for some levels more than ten times. These cases can not be established in advance, without ‘performing detailed calculations.'
author:
- 'R. Karpuškienė'
- 'P. Bogdanovich'
- 'R. Kisielius'
title: 'Significance of M2 and E3 transitions for $4p^54d^{N+1}$ and $4p^64d^{N-1}4f$ configuration metastable level lifetimes'
---
Introduction
============
Theoretical investigation of spectral parameters for multicharged tungsten ions with an open 4d shell [@pb12; @pb13] has clearly demonstrated that the electric octupole (E3) and magnetic quadrupole (M2) transitions from some levels of the excited configurations $4p^54d^{N+1}$ and $4p^64d^{N-1}4f$ to the ground configuration $4p^64d^N$ play very important role in determining their lifetimes. This is caused by the fact that these particular levels are metastable ones with high values of total angular momentum $J$. Hence the electric dipole (E1) transitions from these levels to the ground configuration levels are not allowed by selection rules for $J$. Furthermore, in case when the magnetic dipole (M1) or electric quadrupole (E2) transitions from these levels are weak, their radiative lifetimes $\tau$ are strongly influenced by M2 and E3 transitions to the ground configuration levels.
Transitions of higher multipole order, such as the M2 and E3 radiative transitions, previously were considered in [@biemont2004; @cff06; @safr06; @safr09]. Extensive investigation for the elements ranging from Na-like to Ar-like was presented in [@cff06] where the M2 transitions were computed for magnesium, sulfur and argon isoelectronic sequences. The calculation of Ar-like ions was extended to include E3 transitions. It is easy to explain since there are only few levels with quite high $J$. Various radiative transitions in Ni-like ions were thoroughly studied in [@safr06], including magnetic octupole transitions. Although this paper had presented a huge number of transitions, the cases when the M2 and E3 transitions were significant had not been underlined.
The higher multipole-order radiative transitions were also calculated for $4f^{13}nl$ levels in [@safr09], but their influence on the calculated radiative lifetimes was not revealed. In general, the mentioned works were not specifically dedicated to the investigation of higher multipole-order transitions and did not involve comprehensive study of these transitions. Furthermore, it should be noted, that some experimental studies [@lun07; @lun08; @bie07] have indicated possible contribution of the E2, M1, E3 and M2 transitions to the metastable level radiative lifetimes $\tau$.
In present work we investigate the influence of M2 and E3 transitions on the calculated radiative lifetimes of metastable levels for a wide range of ions, starting with $Z = 50$ and going up to $Z = 92$ in isoelectronic sequences with the ground configuration $4d^N$. We present comprehensive study for four isoelectronic sequences with $N=2,4,6,9$. The calculations for remaining open-$d$ shell sequences are performed also, but the results are discussed only in brief.
As a measure of significance of the radiative E2 and M3 transitions, we introduce parameter $$R = \tau_{\mathrm{E2+M1}}/\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}},$$ where $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ is a total radiative lifetime of a level determined from all (E2, M1, E3, M2) transition probabilities (E1 transition is forbidden for these levels), $\tau_{\mathrm{E2+M1}}$ is a radiative lifetime determined from transitions occurring inside the excited configurations $4p^54d^{N+1}$ and $4p^64d^{N-1}4f$ complex. The ratio $R$ shows how much a theoretical radiative lifetime decreases, when M2 and E3 transitions are included to $\tau$ calculation. Here we must underline that all possible transitions with their probability values $A \le 10^{-12}$ from the levels under considerations are included while determining $\tau$ values.
The radiative transition calculations were performed in a quasirelativistic approximation [@pbor06; @pbor07]. The correlation corrections were not included in our calculations, because the main purpose of current work was to determine what kind of transitions are imperative in determining radiative lifetimes of excited levels rather than to calculate very accurate and reliable parameters of radiative transitions. Therefore the ground configuration $4p^64d^N$ was investigated in a one-configuration approximation. Furthermore, only the interaction between two excited configurations $4p^54d^{N+1}$ and $4p^64d^{N-1}4f$, which is very strong in multicharged ions, was included for the odd-parity states.
Calculation method
==================
We use a quasirelativistic Hartree-Fock approximation (QRHF) in our [*ab initio*]{} calculations of ion energy levels and radiative transition parameters, such as transition wavelengths $\lambda$, line strengths $S$, oscillator strengths $f$, transition probabilities $A$. In this approach, the one-electron radial orbitals $P(nl|r)$ are obtained by solving the quasirelativistic equations having the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.1}
&\left\{ \frac{d^2}{dr^2}-\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}- V(nl|r)- \varepsilon_{nl}
\right\} P(nl|r) -
\nonumber \\
&X(nl|r) + \frac{\alpha^2}{4} \left( \varepsilon_{nl}+V\left(nl|r\right) \right)^2
P(nl|r) +
\nonumber \\
&\frac{\alpha^2}{4} \left( \varepsilon_{nl}+V(nl|r) \right) X(nl|r) +
\nonumber \\
&\frac{\alpha^2}{4} \left( 1- \frac{\alpha^2}{4} \left( \varepsilon_{nl}+V(nl|r)
\right) \right)^{-1}D(nl|r)P(nl|r) = 0.\end{aligned}$$
The first two lines of this equation represents the traditional Hartree-Fock equations, where $X(nl|r)$ denotes the exchange part of the potential and $V(nl|r)$ represents the direct part of the potential including the interaction of an electron with nucleus $U(r)$ and with other electrons. We take into account the finite size of a nucleus within the nuclear potential $U(r)$ [@pbor02; @pbor03]. This allows us to express the radial orbitals in powers of a radial variable in the nucleus region. Next two terms with the multiplier $(\epsilon_{nl} + V(nl|r))$ describe the relativistic correction of the mass-velocity dependence. The last term of equation represents the potential of the electron contact interaction with nucleus.
In our approach we include the contact interaction with the nucleus not only for the $s$ electrons but also some part of that interaction for the $p$ electrons [@pbor07]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.2}
D(nl|r) = \left( \delta(l,0)+\frac{1}{3}\delta(l,1) \right)
\frac{dU(r)}{dr}
\nonumber \\
\left( \frac{d}{dr} - \frac{1}{r}
\left( \alpha^2 Z^2 \delta(l,1) \left( - \frac{37}{30}
- \frac{5}{9n} + \frac{2}{3n^2} \right) + 1 \right) \right) .\end{aligned}$$
A detailed discussion of the particular features of main equation is given in [@pbor06; @pbor07], whereas their solution techniques are described in [@pbor03; @pbvjor05]. Concluding the description of the employed approximation, we want to emphasize that our quasirelativistic Hartree-Fock method significantly differs from widely used approach described in [@hfr]. The main differences arise from our adopted set of quasirelativistic Hartree-Fock equations (QRHF) featuring several distinctive properties which are described in more detail elsewhere [@pbor06; @pbor07; @pbor03; @pbvjor05].
The methods to calculate the energy level spectra were discussed extensively in [@pbor08]. For the energy level spectra calculation, we include all two-electron interactions in the same way as it is done in conventional Breit-Pauli approximation. This similarity makes it possible to apply widely used code [mchf breit]{} [@cff91a] for angular integration of Breit-Pauli Hamiltonian matrix elements. We adopt computer program [mchf mltpol]{} [@cff91b] to determine the matrix elements of transition operators along with the code [mchf lsjtr]{} [@cff91c], which has been adopted for use with the quasirelativistic radial orbitals.
Results
=======
One can define 10 isoelectronic sequences with the ${\mathrm 4d^{N}}$ shell. In present work we have investigated isoelectronic sequences with two ($N=2$, strontium-like ions), four ($N=4$, zirconium-like ions), six ($N=6$, molybdenum-like ions) and nine ($N=9$, rhodium-like ions) electrons in the $4d$ shell of the ground configuration very thoroughly. Remaining isoelectronic sequences with open ${\mathrm 4d^{N}}$ shell were examined also. Since the properties (and the behavior of the significance parameter $R$) are very similar, we do not present a detailed analysis of isoelectronic $4d^N$ ($N=1,3,5,7,8,10$) sequences in current work.
We have included ions with comparatively high $Z$ values in order to avoid strong interaction between $4d$ and $5s$ shell electrons. Such an interaction is more significant for elements in low-level ionization degrees. It is obvious that one needs to perform complex calculations with correlation corrections included by adopting extensive configuration bases in order to determine reliable data for radiative transitions or radiative lifetimes. We did not perform this kind of calculations in present study because our main purpose was to examine how inclusion of higher-multipole order transitions changes values of radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$. It was not an objective of current work to determine high-accuracy $\tau$ values, therefore we did not include correlation corrections in our study. Moreover, we have to point out that the influence of correlation corrections along isoelectronic sequence becomes less significant with increase of $Z$.
For all isoelectronic sequences studied in current work, the levels of excited configurations, which have radiative lifetimes affected by M2 and E3 transitions to the ground configuration, retain the same relative positions in energy level spectra. Nevertheless, their identification, based on the maximum contribution from a particular $LS$ term, can be different. Therefore, this identification in $LS$ coupling scheme is performed for the low-level ionization ion with $Z = 56$.
Sr-like ions {#sr}
------------
Figure \[fig1\] demonstrates energy levels of investigated configurations for the strontium-like ion with $Z = 56$. The excited configuration levels with high total angular momentum $J$ values are presented in a separate column, to the left from the column which shows all energy levels of two excited odd-parity configurations. Hence one can see the location and the quantity of these metastable levels in complete energy level spectra. The E1 transitions are not allowed from these levels. As a rule, the M1 and E2 transitions are allowed from these levels to the lower levels of excited configurations, and M2 and E3radiative transitions to the ground configuration are allowed too. In general case, the M1 transition probability values are the largest ones, whereas the E3 transition probabilities are the weakest ones. Therefore, there exists assumption that the M1 transitions become the most important ones in radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ calculation, when E1 transitions are not allowed. In present work, we will investigate properties of such levels further and will demonstrate that this is not a correct estimate for all cases.
![ \[fig1\] Energy levels, E3 and M2 transitions for strontium-like barium ion ](fig01)
There are six energy levels with $J=6$ and one level with $J=7$ ($J$-values are given beside corresponding levels) in Fig \[fig1\]. The ground configuration $4p^6 4d^2$ has only levels with $J=0,1,2,3,4$. The transitions, which are significant for the radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ and are discussed in Sect. \[sr\] also have been presented in Fig \[fig1\].
For the ions from the strontium isoelectronic sequence, we analyze the radiative lifetimes of three levels. The lifetimes of one of these levels, namely $4p^64d4f\,\,^3H_6$, are mostly affected by the M2 transition, although E3 transitions are possible here too. The lifetimes of the second level with $J=7$ are affected by the E3 transition, because M2 transitions are not allowed from this level. The third level is more particular one, because its lifetimes are affected by both the M2 and E3 transitions. The transition $4p^54d^3\,(^4F)\,\,^5G_6 - 4p^64d^2\,\,^3F_4$, presented in Fig. \[fig1\] by short-dashed line, demonstrates a particular case, when the excited level can decay not only by M1 transition, but by two additional different-type radiative transitions which have similar transition rate $A$ values.
Here and for other isoelectronic sequences, we present only those transitions, which are most significant for determined radiative lifetimes. Nevertheless, we must underline that all available transitions were included into calculation of radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$. All possible E2 and M1 transitions were included in $\tau_{\mathrm{E2+M1}}$ calculation, too. However, one must keep in mind that the E2 transition probabilities $A$ usually are much weaker than those of M1 transitions. Therefore, the allowed and probable decay channel is attributed to the M1 transitions. In this and further sections, when we refer to allowed (probable) transitions, we mean only the most probable transitions - two or more with the largest transition probability values.
![ \[fig5\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^64d4f\,\, ^3H_6$ of strontium-like ions ](fig05)
![ \[fig6\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^3\,( ^4F)\,\, ^3I_7$ of strontium-like ions ](fig06)
![ \[fig7\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^3\,( ^4F)\,\, ^5G_6$ of strontium-like ions ](fig07)
![ \[fig8\] Radiative transition probabilities originating from the level $4p^54d^3\,( ^4F)\,\, ^5G_6$ along the strontium isoelectronic sequence. M1 transitions are presented by grey triangles, two M2 transitions are presented by grey and black circles, E3 transitions are presented by white triangles and black squares. ](fig08)
Dependence of the parameter $R = \tau_{\mathrm{E2+M1}}/\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ on a nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^64d4f\,\,^3H_6$ in the strontium isoelectronic sequence is presented in Fig. \[fig5\], and for the level $4p^64d4f\,\,^3I_7$, it is given in Fig. \[fig6\]. The parameter $R$ is significantly larger than 1 at the beginning of isoelectronic sequence, but it decreases fast as the nuclear charge $Z$ increases for these levels as well as for some other levels not presented in plots. In the first case, for the level with $J = 6$, one or two M2 transitions are the most significant. For the next level with $J = 7$, this behavior is caused by E3 transition. The M2 transitions are not allowed from this levels because the maximum value of total angular momentum $J = 4$ for the ground $4d^2$ shell. We have cut the parameter $R$ dependence in Fig. \[fig6\] at $Z=80$ because it is very close to 1 for higher $Z$, meaning that the E3 transitions are not significant any more.
Completely different dependence of the parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ is presented in Fig. \[fig7\] for the level $4p^54d^3\,( ^4F)\,\, ^5G_6$ of the ions from the same isoelectronic sequence. Several decay channels: magnetic dipole transition M1 and two electric octupole transitions E3 as well as two magnetic quadrupole transitions M2, are important for this level. The dependences of the mentioned radiative transition probabilities on nuclear charge $Z$ are presented in Fig. \[fig8\]. Since the probability values change very significantly, a logarithmic scale is used for them here and in later plots. We do not provide identification for the final levels of these transitions deliberately, because the identification of them as well of the upper level can change along sequence due to a strong mixing of $LS$ terms.
At the beginning of the sequence, where the main decay channel is M1 transition, the parameter $R$ decreases. For higher $Z$ values, the M1 transition probability as well as the M2 transition probabilities decrease whereas the E3 transition probabilities increase very rapidly and, when $Z > 80$, these transition probabilities become most prominent and are most significant for the calculated radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$.
We want to add that there are other metastable levels with the parameter $R$ values and dependence on nuclear charge $Z$ similar to that presented in Fig. \[fig5\].
Zr-like ions {#zr}
------------
![ \[fig2\] Energy levels, E3 and M2 transitions for zirconium-like barium ion ](fig02)
Figure \[fig2\] presents energy levels of investigated configurations for the zirconium-like ion with $Z = 56$. The excited configuration levels with high total angular momentum $J$ values are presented in a separate column, to the left from the column which gives all energy levels of the odd-parity configurations like in Fig. \[fig1\]. The E1 transitions are not allowed from these levels. For the Zr-like ions, we have investigated six energy levels with $J = 8$ and one level with $J = 9$ originating from the complex of configurations $4p^54d^5 + 4p^64d^34f$. The ground configuration $4p^64d^4$ for these ions can have the fine-structure levels with $J=0,1,2,3,4,5,6$. The transitions from metastable levels are presented in Fig. \[fig2\] and are discussed further in this section.
![ \[fig9\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^5\,( ^2I)\,\, ^3K_8$ of zirconium-like ions ](fig09)
![ \[fig10\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^3\,( ^2H)4f\,\, ^3L_9$ of zirconium-like ions ](fig10)
Figures \[fig9\] and \[fig10\] show typical behavior of the parameter $R$ for the levels of ions from zirconium isoelectronic sequence. Figure \[fig9\] demonstrates the influence of the M2 transition on the determined radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ for the level $ 4p^54d^5\,( ^2I)\,\, ^3K_8$. That influence is quite formidable at the beginning of the isoelectronic sequence. For other levels with $J = 8$, the parameter $R$ is similar in its value and behavior as in the case of the $ 4p^54d^5\,( ^2I)\,\, ^3K_8$ level, even if these levels belong to another excited configuration, namely $4p^64d^34f$. We have dropped data for $Z > 80$ from Figs. \[fig9\] and \[fig10\], because the parameter $R$ is monotonous and very close to 1.
The E3 transitions affect radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ of the level $ 4p^64d^3\,( ^2H)4f\,\, ^3L_9$ not so significantly, as it can be seen from Fig. \[fig10\]. Nevertheless, their influence can not be neglected for small $Z$ values. It should be mentioned that, for the zirconium isoelectronic sequence and for all other isoelectronic sequences investigated in current work, the radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ for the levels with available M2 transitions have larger $R$ values compared to the levels with only E3 transitions available (see Fig. \[fig5\] and Fig. \[fig6\]). Nevertheless, even if contribution of the E3 transitions to the calculated radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ is not so substantial, these transitions must be included into consideration, especially for the levels with the highest $J$ values when the M2 transitions are forbidden.
Mo-like ions {#mo}
------------
![ \[fig3\] Energy levels, E3 and M2 transitions for molybdenum-like barium ion ](fig03)
Figure \[fig3\] demonstrates energy levels of investigated configurations for the molybdenum-like ion with $Z = 56$. The excited configuration levels with high total momentum $J$ values are presented in a separate column, to the left from the column which gives all energy levels of the odd-parity configurations (like in Fig. \[fig1\]). There are no E1 transitions from these levels.
The excited configurations $4p^54d^7$ and $4p^64d^54f$ of Mo-like ions have even larger number of metastable levels which have no decay channels through the E1 transitions. There are twelve levels with $J = 8$ and five levels with $J = 9$, see Fig. \[fig3\]. Moreover, there exists one level with $J=10$. Therefore, not only the E1 transitions are forbidden from this level. The M2 and E3 transitions also are forbidden, consequently, this metastable level is not related to our study in general. However, it constitutes quite a special case. The lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ of this $4d^5\,(2I)\,4f\,\,^3M_{10}$ level is approximately equal to $0.05$s for $Z = 56$ and it decreases to $2.5 \cdot 10^{-6}$s for $Z=92$. This radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ is defined by decay via two magnetic dipole transitions. The $J$ values for the ground configuration $4p^64d^6$ of this isoelectronic sequence is in range from 0 to 6.
![ \[fig11\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^5\,( ^2I)4f\,\, ^3L_9$ of molybdenum-like ions ](fig11)
![ \[fig12\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^5\,( ^2I)4f\,\, ^3M_8$ of molybdenum-like ions ](fig12)
![ \[fig13\] Radiative transition probabilities originating from the level $4p^64d^5\,( ^2I) 4f\,\,^3K_8$ along the molybdenum isoelectronic sequence. Two M1 transitions are presented by black squares and white triangles, two M2 transitions are presented by black and grey circles, E3 transitions are presented by grey triangles. ](fig13)
In the case of molybdenum isoelectronic sequence, we present the parameter $R$ for two levels. Figure \[fig11\] shows the dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^64d^5\,( ^2I) 4f\,\, ^3L_9$. Beside the M1 transitions, only E3 transitions are allowed from the level $4p^64d^5\,( ^2I) 4f\,\, ^3L_9$ to the ground configuration. Although the investigated configuration $4p^64d^54f$ has five levels with the total angular momentum $J = 9$, the mixing of terms is not significant here. Consequently, the parameter $R$ decreases very consistently for this configuration.
A completely different behavior of $R$ for the level $4p^64d^5\,( ^2I) 4f\,\,^3K_8$ is presented in Fig. \[fig12\]. Radiative transition probabilities $A$ for this level, presented in Fig. \[fig13\], clarify such an unusual behavior of the parameter $R$ along the isoelectronic sequence. Figure \[fig13\] presents only a part of isoelectronic sequence, ranging from $Z=50$ up to $Z=72$ because the transition probabilities dependence is smooth for higher $Z$ values. Furthermore, only the strong transitions out of all possible ones from this level are given here. It is evident from this figure, that one M2 transition is stronger than all other, but probability of another M2 transition has a sharp minimum near $Z=58$. Whereas the probabilities of the M1 transitions evenly increase, this minimum of the latter M2 transition causes the dip in Fig. \[fig12\].
A radiative transition probability $A$ is proportional to a square of the transition operator matrix element. When this matrix element changes its sign, its value becomes very close to a zero at some particular value of $Z$. Consequently, the square of the radiative transition operator matrix element has a sharp minimum at this $Z$, causing such a peculiar shape of $A(Z)$. Very similar behavior of radiative transition parameters proportional to a square of matrix element one can see in [@safr06].
Rh-like ions {#rh}
------------
![ \[fig4\] Energy levels, E3 and M2 transitions for rhodium-like barium ion ](fig04)
Figure \[fig4\] displays the energy level structure of investigated configurations for the rhodium-like ion with $Z = 56$. These ions are the most complex ones, with regard to metastable levels, when considering sequences with open $4d$ shell. There is a large number of excited levels having large $J$ values, whereas the ground configuration is $4p^64d^9\,\, ^2D$. So, only two levels, $J=3/2$ and $J=5/2$ make up the ground configuration. We have placed into a separate column all the levels with $J \geq 9/2$ from the configuration complex $4p^54d^{10} + 4p^64d^84f$. There are two levels with $J=15/2$, five levels with $J=13/2$, nine $J=11/2$ levels and thirteen levels with $J=9/2$. These 29 levels make up one third of complete set of excited odd-configuration levels. Not only E1, but also E3 and M2 transitions are forbidden from the levels with $J=13/2$ and $J=15/2$. Therefore these levels can decay only through transitions inside their configuration complex. The properties of these levels will be discussed further in this section. The significance of the transitions from three levels presented in Fig. \[fig4\] is studied further in this section where the radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ of these metastable and some other levels and their possible decay channels are discussed too.
![ \[fig14\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\, ^2H_{11/2}$ of rhodium-like ions ](fig14)
![ \[fig15\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\, ^4H_{9/2}$ of rhodium-like ions ](fig15)
![ \[fig16\] Dependence of parameter $R$ on nuclear charge $Z$ for the level $4p^54d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\, ^4F_{9/2}$ of rhodium-like ions ](fig16)
![ \[fig17\] Radiative transition probabilities originating from the level $4p^54d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\, ^4F_{9/2}$ along the rhodium isoelectronic sequence. Two M1 transitions are presented by grey circles and grey triangles, M2 transitions are presented by black circles ](fig17)
Properties of the energy levels for the ions from the rhodium isoelectronic sequence are presented in Figs. \[fig14\], \[fig15\], \[fig16\]. Only the E3 transitions to the ground configuration are allowed from the level $4p^64d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\,^2H_{11/2}$ (Fig. \[fig14\]). The value of $R$ is comparatively small and it decreases rapidly. For the $4p^64d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\,^4H_{9/2}$ level, the parameter $R$ increases sharply (see Fig. \[fig15\]) only at the end of the sequence. Quite a large number of transitions contribute to the defined radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ value of this level, such as strong M2 transition, two weak E3 transitions and several different M1 transitions. A sharp increase of $R$ is caused by the M2 transition probability being larger than that of the M1 transitions and increasing significantly faster. A small irregularity at $Z=60$ appears due to a minimum of the dominant M2 transition probability value at these $Z$.
The most interesting behavior of the parameter $R$ can be seen in Fig. \[fig16\], presenting the level $4p^54d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\, ^4F_{9/2}$. To explain it, we present calculated radiative transition probabilities from this level in Fig. \[fig17\]. In the first part of the isoelectronic sequence, $R$ demonstrates quite an usual behavior. Here the influence of the strongest M2 transition decreases, although the probability values of that transition increase. Nevertheless, this increase is slower comparing to increase of the M1 transition probability values. When $Z$ is close to 70, the M1 transition probability values begin to decrease and they reach minimum at $Z=81$. The decrease and subsequent increase is so sharp that we have performed calculations for several additional ions in the proximity of these $Z$ values. As it is mentioned in previous sections, such a dependence of the radiative transition probabilities is caused by the behavior of the corresponding radiative transition operator matrix element. For other levels with $J=9/2$ and $J=11/2$, the parameter $R$ values are small, because these levels are located comparatively high in energy spectra and have strong decay channels through M1 transitions.
As it was mentioned above, only the transitions inside excited configurations complex are allowed from levels with $J=13/2$ and $J=15/2$. In particular parts of the rhodium sequence, even M1 and E2 transitions are not possible for these metastable levels. This is caused by the location of these levels in energy spectra. The level with the highest $J$ value of $4p^64d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\,^4I_{15/2}$ is too low to have any radiative transition when $50 \leq Z \leq 60$, because the lower energy levels only have $J < 9/2$. For the higher-$Z$ ions, the $4p^64d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\, ^2I_{13/2}$ level energy is lower than that of $^4I_{15/2}$, therefore rather weak M1 transition becomes possible. The determined radiative lifetime of this level $\tau = 2500$ s for $Z=52$ and decreases to $\tau = 5.7 \cdot 10^4$ ns for $Z=92$.
The level $4p^64d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\,^2I_{13/2}$ does not have a radiative decay channel when $82 \leq Z \leq 92$. When $Z=80$, only one level with $J$ value high enough, namely, $4p^64d^8\,(3F)4f\,\,^2G_{9/2}$ lies below the level with $J=13/2$. Therefore, the E2 radiative transition becomes possible, but the calculated radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{E2}} = 1.5 \cdot 10^9$ s. This equals to approximately 46 days. The low lying level $4p^64d^8\,( ^3F)4f\,\,^2G_{9/2}$ also has some peculiar properties. For $Z < 66$, it has only one radiative decay channel via the M2 transition. When $Z \geq 66$, a decay channel through the M1 radiative transition is open, but due to a negligible transition probability values, it becomes somehow significant only when $Z = 86$. That means that only the magnetic quadrupole transition is meaningful for this level along all isoelectronic sequence.
There is one more quite unusual level $4d^8\,(^3F)\,4f\,\,^2S_{1/2}$ in this isoelectronic sequence. Formally, it does not satisfy our criteria, because the E1 transitions are allowed from it. Following comprehensive studies, we have noticed that, beside electric dipole transition to the $^2D_{3/2}$ level of the ground configuration, the M2 transition to the $^2D_{5/2}$ level becomes significant starting from $Z=78$. When $Z$ increases, the value of M2 transition probability becomes similar to that of E1 transition.
Remaining $4d^N$ sequences {#other}
--------------------------
We must highlight that in current work we present only a small part of our results. We have investigated metastable levels in all isoelectronic sequences with $4d^N$ shell in the ground configuration. Magnetic dipole transitions are the most common decay channel for the levels of excited configurations. In previous sections we have described the cases when the E3 and M2 radiative transitions become significant decay channels. As a rule, when the M2 radiative transitions are possible, these are much stronger comparing to the E3 transitions originating from the same level. In some particular cases, the E3 transition probabilities can be of the same magnitude as those of the M2 transitions. Moreover, there are energy levels with the highest $J$ values, which can not decay by the M2 transitions.
Furthermore, the radiative decay is possible to other lower levels with a suitable $J$ value, not only to those given in our plots. It was established, that, for some levels, the M2 and E3 transitions are significant only in a narrow $Z$ range of their isoelectronic sequence. In current work, we present the most typical dependences, where the parameter $R$ decreases when nuclear number $Z$ increases. Other particular cases, when $R$ increases with $Z$ increase, are given here too along with some more peculiar behavior of the parameter $R$. All these statements are valid both for the sequences described in Sects. \[sr\], \[zr\], \[mo\], \[rh\] and for remaining $4d^N$ sequences with $N=1,3,5,7,8,10$.
The ground configuration for Rb-like ions is $4p^64d\,\, ^2D$. The first two excited configurations do not have energy levels with significant M2 and E3 transitions. This is caused by the fact that levels with maximum $J$ values are located comparatively high, therefore M1 and E2 transitions to the lower levels of the same configurations are allowed. Only the level $4p^54d^2\,(^3F)\,\,^4F_{9/2}$ has $R > 2$ at the beginning of the sequence, but it becomes $R < 1.1$, when $Z = 64$.
The ground configuration for yttrium-like ions is $4p^64d^3$. The M2 and E3 transitions do not play an important role here because the configuration $4p^64d^3$ has levels with large $J$ values ($J_{\mathrm{max}}=11/2$). Only four excited levels have $J=15/2$ and just two of them have the M2 and E3 transitions with significant probability values. For the level $4d^2\,(^3F)4f\,\, ^4I_{15/2}$, the $R > 12$ at the beginning of the isoelectronic sequence when $Z = 52$ but it decreases sharply when $Z$ increases. Such a behavior is caused by one M2 transition with transition probability value more than 100 times larger than the value of strongest M1 transition at the beginning of isoelectronic sequence. At the top end of the isoelectronic sequence, the M2 transition probability becomes similar to that of several M1 transitions which determine radiative lifetime of this level. Another level, namely $4p^54d^4\,(^3H)\,\, ^4I_{15/2}$, has $R_{\mathrm{max}} = 4$ at the beginning of the isoelectronic sequence. For the higher-$Z$ ions, $R$ decreases rather slowly comparing to other levels. Such a behavior is caused by fact that decay of this level is going through many channels. There are three E3 transitions and one M2 transition to the ground configuration levels in addition to M1 and E2 transitions among the levels of this configuration. Moreover, this level is rather special one, because at higher $Z$ values, the E2 transitions become more important than M1 transitions for the calculated radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$, contrary to the most levels in this and other investigated isoelectronic sequences.
The ground configuration for niobium isoelectronic sequence is $4p^64d^5$. The excited configuration levels with $J=19/2$ are located rather high in energy level spectra. Therefore, strong M1-type transitions are possible to lower-lying levels with $J=17/2$. There are six levels with $J=17/2$, but only two of them have their radiative lifetimes significantly affected by transitions of higher multipolar order. For the first of them, $4d^4\,(^3H)4f\,\, ^4K_{17/2}$, the parameter $R$ gradually decreases from the top value of $R = 255$ with $Z$ increase. The decay of this level is going mainly through a strong M2 transition. Meanwhile, the parameter $R$ changes non-monotonously along the $Z$ and has a maximum value of $R=39$ at $Z=72$ for the level $4d^4\,(^3H)4f\,\, ^2L_{17/2}$. Such a non-standard behavior can be explained in a similar way as it has been done for Mo-like ions (Fig. \[fig12\]) and for Rh-like ions (Fig. \[fig16\]).
The ground configuration for technetium-like ions is $4p^64d^7$. For the excited-configuration levels with $J = 17/2$, only the E3 transitions are allowed. Furthermore, these transitions are weak and have some significance only for the level $4d^6\,(^3H)4f\,\, ^2L_{17/2}$ at the lower end of this isoelectronic sequence. The parameter $R = 4$ at $Z = 52$, and it decreases sharply for higher $Z$ values. There are fifteen energy levels with $J=15/2$, but only two of them are significantly affected by the M2 and E3 radiative transitions. For other levels, the influence of these transitions is insignificant even at the low end of the isoelectronic sequence.
In the case of $4d^6\,(^3H)4f\,\, ^2K_{15/2}$ level, inclusion of the M2 decay channel changes the value of radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ more than 4000 times at the beginning of the isoelectronic sequence. It decreases fast down to $R=7$ at $Z=76$. On the other hand, the M2 transition is not so important for the level $4d^6\,(^3H)4f\,\, ^4I_{15/2}$. The parameter $R$ is approximately equal to 40 at the beginning of the sequence. It decreases rather slowly, and $R=2$ when $Z=76$.
The ground configuration for Ru-like ions is $4p^64d^8$. The total angular momentum $J$ maximum values can be 9 and 8 for the excited configurations $4p^64d^74f$ and $4p^54d^8$. The E3 and M2 transitions from these levels are forbidden. They have one or more M1 transitions to lower levels with $J=8$ and $J=7$ from the same configuration complex.
An interesting case constitutes the level $4d^7\,(^4F)4f\,\, ^3I_7$. The main decay channels for this level are the radiative E3 and M1 transitions. The parameter $R$ increases from the beginning of the isoelectronic sequence (like in Fig. \[fig7\]) and reaches maximum value of $R=30$ at $Z=92$.
There are nineteen $J=6$ levels, most of them having radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ significantly affected by transitions of higher multipole orders. This is especially noticeable at the beginning of isoelectronic sequence where the parameter $R$ values are close to 10. Very high $R$ values were determined for three lowest energy levels with $J = 6$. The level $4d^7\,(^4F)4f\,\, ^5G_6$ is very special one because of possible M2 transition being virtually the only available decay channel (except for very weak E2 transition), therefore $R > 900,000$ when $Z = 52$. The value of $R$ becomes smaller than 1000 only starting with $Z>80$ ions. Only in the case, when some level with $J=5$ has an energy lower than this $4d^7\,(^4F)4f\,\, ^5G_6$ level, the decay through the M1 transition becomes possible. For the levels $4d^7\,(^4F)4f\,\, ^3H_6$ and $4d^7\,(^2G)4f\,\, ^1I_6$, the $R$ values reach 30 and 40, correspondingly, at the beginning of this isoelectronic sequence, but they decrease sharply for higher-$Z$ ions.
The ground configuration of palladium isoelectronic sequence is $4p^64d^{10}$. Therefore, only one excited configuration $4p^64d^94f$ can be considered. Only three levels from this excited configuration can decay through E1 transitions, because the ground configuration has the only $^1S_0$ level. Two levels, $4d^9\,(^2D)4f\,\, ^3P_0$ and $4d^9\,(^2D)4f\,\, ^3H_0$, have no radiative decay channels at all. In general, the radiative lifetimes of this configuration levels are determined by M1 transitions. Certainly, E2 transitions are allowed, too, but their transition probabilities are significantly smaller than those of M1 transitions. However, there are levels where transitions of higher multipole order play an important role. Four levels with $J=2$ can decay not only through M1 transitions but also via M2 transitions. This channel is extremely important for the levels $4d^9\,(^2D)4f\,\, ^3F_2$ and $4d^9\,(^2D)4f\,\, ^3P_2$. The parameter $R$ decreases from 800 to 10 when $Z$ changes from 52 to 92, i.e. over all range of examined ions, for the $^3F_2$ level and from 1400 to 5 for the $^3P_2$ level. For other two levels with $J=2$, the influence of M2 transitions on total radiative lifetime $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ is not so very large but still rather noticeable. The M1 and E3 transitions are allowed from the levels with $J=3$. The E3 transitions are not significant comparing to M2 transitions. Therefore $R$ values are close to 1. Only the level $4d^9\,(^2D)4f\,\, ^1F_3$ makes some exception having $R$ close to 4 at $Z=52$. Nevertheless, it decreases fast and reaches 1.4 at $Z=60$.
Conclusions
===========
The magnetic quadrupole and electric octupole transitions from some levels of the first excited configurations $4p^54d^{N+1}$ and ${\mathrm 4p^64d^{N-1}4f}$ to the ground configuration $4p^64d^N$ can play very significant role for their radiative lifetimes. These levels have large total angular momentum $J$ values, therefore the radiative decay to the ground configuration via electric dipole transitions is not allowed. Consequently, these levels are metastable ones, therefore one assumes that the M1 and E2 transitions shall become the main decay channels and determine the lifetimes of such excited levels. Nevertheless, since such levels are located in the lower part of their own configuration complex energy spectra, possible transitions (M1 and E2) among the excited configuration $4p^54d^{N+1}$ and ${\mathrm 4p^64d^{N-1}4f}$ levels are severally restricted. Our investigation has demonstrated that radiative transitions of higher multipole order, such as M2 and E3, become significant.
Inclusion of additional decay through radiative M2 and E3 transition channels decreases values of determined radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$. The main impact on calculated radiative lifetimes $\tau_{\mathrm{TOT}}$ originates from M2 transitions if these are allowed by $J$ selection rules, whereas E3 transition probability values are smaller. The E3 transitions become significant when $J$ acquires maximum values and therefore the M2 transitions are forbidden.
The influence of E3 and M2 transitions can both to decrease and to increase along the isoelectronic sequence. This originates both from the variation of transition probability values and from the location changes of investigated levels in respect to other levels of the same configuration and variation of corresponding M1 and E2 transition probabilities.
Most of investigated levels belong to configurations $4p^64d^{N-1}4f$. It is simple to explain that such an excitation always allows to get large values of the final $LS$ momenta and the total momentum $J$. For the excitation of the $4p$ electrons to the states with $4d$ electrons, large total angular momenta $J$ appear only in the case when a number of electrons in $4d$ shell is small. When $N$ is large ($N=9,10$), there exists levels with forbidden both E1, E2, E3 and M1,M2 transitions.
Performed investigation has demonstrated that it is difficult to predict the significance of the E3 and M2 transitions without performing detailed calculations. This is consequence of the fact that the values of different radiative transition probabilities can change dramatically along the isoelectronic sequences due to changes of the eigenfunctions and transition energies.
Current research is funded by the European Social Fund under the Global Grant measure, project VP1-3.1-[Š]{}MM-07-K-02-013.
[99]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
P. Bogdanovich and R. Kisielius, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, (2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adt.2012.11.001 (in press).
P. Bogdanovich and R. Kisielius, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, (2012) (submitted).
E. Biémont, A. Derkatch, P. Lundin, S. Mannervik, L.-O. Norlin, D. Rostohar, P. Royen, P. Palmeri, and P. Schef, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**93**]{}, 063003 (2004).
C. Froese Fischer, G. Tachiev, and A. Irimia, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, [**92**]{}, 607 (2006).
U. I. Safronova, A. S. Safronova, S. M. Hamasha, and P. Beiersdorfer, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, [**92**]{}, 47 (2006).
U. I. Safronova and M. S. Safronova, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 032511 (2009).
P. Lundin, J. Gurell, L.-O. Norlin, P. Royen, S. Mannervik, P. Palmeri, P. Quinet, V. Fivet, and E. Biemont, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 213001 (2007).
P. Lundin, J. Gurell, S. Mannervik, P. Royen, L.-O. Norlin, H. Hartman, and A. Hibbert, Phys. Scr. [**78**]{}, 015301 (2008).
E. Biemont, A. Ellmann, P. Lundin, S. Mannervik, L.-O. Norlin, P. Palmeri, P. Quinet, D. Rostohar, P. Royen, and P. Schef, Eur. Phys. J. D [**41**]{}, 211 (2007).
P. Bogdanovich and O. Rancova, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 052501 (2006).
P. Bogdanovich and O. Rancova, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 012507 (2007).
P. Bogdanovich and O. Rancova, Lithuan. J. Phys. [**42**]{}, 257 (2002).
P. Bogdanovich and O. Rancova, Lithuan. J. Phys. [**43**]{}, 177 (2003).
P. Bogdanovich, V. Jonauskas, and O. Rancova, Nucl. Instr. Meth. B [**235**]{}, 145 (2005).
R.D. Cowan, [*The Theory of Atomic Structure and Spectra*]{}, (University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1981).
P. Bogdanovich and O. Rancova, Phys. Scr. [**78**]{}, 045301 (2008).
A. Hibbert, R. Glass, and C. F. Fischer, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**64**]{}, 445 (1991).
C. F. Fischer, M. R. Godefroid, and A. Hibbert, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**64**]{}, 486 (1991).
C. F. Fischer and M. R. Godefroid, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**64**]{}, 501 (1991).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the crossover from self–similar scaling behavior to asymptotically self–affine (anisotropic) structures. As an example, we consider bond percolation with one preferred direction. Our theory is based on a field–theoretical representation, and takes advantage of a renormalization group approach designed for crossover phenomena. We calculate effective exponents for the connectivity describing the entire crossover region from isotropic to directed percolation, and predict at which scale of the anisotropy the crossover should occur. We emphasize the broad range of applicability of our method.'
address:
- |
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Physik-Department der Technischen Universität München,\
James-Franck-Straße, D-85747 Garching, Germany
- 'Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.'
- |
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Physik-Department der Technischen Universität München,\
James-Franck-Straße, D-85747 Garching, Germany
author:
- Erwin Frey
- Uwe Claus Täuber
- Franz Schwabl
title: |
Crossover from Self–similar to Self–affine Structures\
in Percolation
---
= 10000
(to be published in Europhys. Lett. 1994)
= 20pt
= 20pt
Scale–invariance appears in a great variety of physical problems and processes [@Man82]. The simplest scaling laws are [*isotropic*]{}, and thus describe [*self–similar*]{} structures; on the other hand, in growth models frequently [*self–affine*]{} clusters emerge, which we consider as defined by [*anisotropic*]{} scaling. The important point now is that whether a structure appears self–similar or self–affine is always a matter of scale, i.e.: a structure, which on a large length scale is characterized by anisotropic scaling laws, may be indistinguishable from a self–similar entity on sufficiently small scales.
Perhaps the most simple growth models incorporating these features are provided by percolation [@Ess80]. In ordinary, isotropic percolation sites or bonds are filled at random with equal probability $p$, and the emerging clusters are self–similar. However, in directed percolation [@Kin83], there is one distinct preferred direction (which we shall call the $t$ direction) with a bias along the positive $t$ direction, and anisotropic scaling laws apply. If the effective anisotropy parameter $g$ is low, one expects almost isotropic scaling behavior in a large region of parameter space, and only if the percolation threshold $p_c$ is approached the asymptotic self–affine scaling will become apparent, if one views the system at very large length scales.
Our aim is to provide a quantitative description of the crossover from isotropic to directed percolation, and to calculate the characteristic anisotropy scale, at which the scaling behavior turns over from self–similarity to self–affinity. For these issues, the central quantity of interest is the pair correlation function $G({\bf r}_2,{\bf r}_1)$, which measures the probability that sites ${\bf r}_2 = ({\bf x}_2,t_2)$ and ${\bf r}_1 = ({\bf x}_1,t_1)$ belong to the same cluster. Lines of constant $G$ describe the average shape of the percolating structure. Following the work of Cardy et al. [@Car80; @Ben84], we apply their mapping of the statistical percolation problem onto a field–theoretical representation. The final result for $G^0$ (the superscript “0” denotes unrenormalized quantities) is a sum $G^0({\bf r}_2;{\bf r}_1) = \sum_{m,n=1}^\infty [(-i)^{m+n-2} / m! n!]
G^0_{mn}({\bf r}_2;{\bf r}_1)$, where $$G^0_{mn} ({\bf r}_2;{\bf r}_1) = P \int {\cal D} [\phi_0,{\tilde \phi}_0]
\phi_0({\bf r}_2)^m {\tilde \phi}_0({\bf r}_1)^n
e^{- {\cal J} [\phi_0,{\tilde \phi}_0]} \; .
\label{1}$$ $P$ is an operator projecting out those contributions which violate “causality”, and the probability measure explicitly reads [@Car80; @Ben84] $${\cal J} = \! \int \! \! d^Dx \! \! \int \! \! dt
\biggl\{ {\tilde \phi}_0 \!
\left[ r_0 - {\bf \nabla}^2 - {1 \over c_0^2} \partial_t^2
+ {2 g_0 \over c_0} \partial_t \right] \! \phi_0
+ {u_0 \over 2} \left[ {\tilde \phi}_0^2 \phi_0
- {\tilde \phi}_0 \phi_0^2 \right] \biggr\} \; ,
\label{2}$$ with $r_0 \propto p - p_c$. The anisotropy of the underlying percolation problem is reflected in the parameter $g_0$. For $g_0 = 0$ the problem is symmetric with respect to inversion of the lattice ${\bf r} \rightarrow
-{\bf r}$, which corresponds to isotropic bond percolation [@Ben84]. For any non–zero $g_0$ the inversion symmetry is broken in the $t$ direction. A scaling anlaysis shows that $g_0$ grows under rescaling. For $g_0 \rightarrow
\infty$, with $c_0 \rightarrow \infty$ such that $g_0/c_0$ remains finite, one arrives at Reggeon field theory describing directed bond percolation [@Car80]. On the basis of Eqs. (\[1\],\[2\]) the perturbation expansion [@Ami84; @Jan76] with respect to the nonlinearity $u_0$ may be constructed.
In order to derive the anomalous dimensions leading to non–Gaussian behaviour we proceed to study the ultraviolet divergences at the upper critical dimension $d_c$. In the dimensional regularization scheme [@Hoo72] these UV singularities appear as poles $\propto 1/(d - d_c)$. The technical difficulty here is now that these poles will be different in the two limiting cases $g_0 = 0$ and $g_0 \rightarrow \infty$. In addition, via a simple rescaling of the model one finds that the upper critical dimensions for isotropic (I) and directed (D) percolation differ, namely $d_c^{\rm I} = 6$ and $d_c^{\rm D} =
5$, respectively. Thus the “traditional” procedure of investigating the scaling behavior near one of the fixed points in the framework of a $(d_c - d)$ expansion, and then describing the crossover by calculating the accompanying scaling function, is bound to fail.
However, a certain extension of Amit and Goldschmidt’s [*“generalized minimal subtraction” procedure*]{} [@Ami78] has proven to be most successful in a variety of interesting crossover scenarios [@Law81; @Fre88; @Tau92]. Indeed, by refraining from any $(d_c - d)$ expansion, we have demonstrated that the crossover between fixed points of different upper critical dimension can be consistently incorporated into the formalism [@Fre93]. The essential point is that one has to assure that the renormalization constants take account of the UV poles for [*any*]{} value of the anisotropy parameter $g_0$, [*including*]{} the limit $g_0 \rightarrow \infty$. Thus the $Z$ factors become functions of both the anharmonic coupling [*and*]{} the additional mass $g_0$. By keeping the full dimension dependence of the corresponding residua, a smooth interpolation between the different scaling regimes is achieved (for details we refer to our forthcoming paper [@Fre93]). The prize that we have to pay is that (i) there is no a-priori small expansion parameter, and (ii) the flow equations require a numerical solution.
Thus we define renormalized fields $\phi = Z_\phi^{1/2} \phi_0$ and ${\tilde
\phi} = Z_\phi^{1/2} {\tilde \phi}_0$, and dimensionless renormalized parameters $r = Z_\phi^{-1} Z_r (r_0 - r_{0c}) \mu^{-2}$, $c^2 = Z_\phi
Z_c^{-1} c_0^2$, $g = Z_\phi^{-1/2} Z_c^{-1/2} Z_g g_0 \mu^{-1}$, and $u =
Z_\phi^{-3/2} Z_u u_0 B_d^{1/2} \mu^{(d-6)/2}$, where $\mu$ is an arbitrary momentum scale, $B_d = \Gamma(4-d/2) / (4 \pi)^{d/2}$ is a geometric factor, and $r_{0c}$ denotes the fluctuation–induced shift of the percolation threshold, $$r_{0c} = \left[
{u_0^2 c_0 B_d \over (d-4) (6-d)} I^d_{13}(g_0/\sqrt{r_{0c}})
\right]^{2 / (6 - d)} \quad .
\label{4}$$ Here we defined $I^d_{mn}(g) = \int_0^1 {x^{m/2 - 1} (1 + x g^2)^{(d-m-n)/2}}
dx $, with the limits $I^d_{mn}(0) = 2/m$, and $\lim_{g \rightarrow \infty}
[g^m I^d_{mn}(g)] = \Gamma(m/2) \Gamma((n-d)/2) / \Gamma((m+n-d)/2)$.
The renormalization group (RG) equation explicitly takes advantage of the scale invariance of the system near the percolation threshold. More precisely, we observe that the bare pair correlation functions do not depend on the arbitrary renormalization scale $\mu$. By introducing Wilson’s flow functions (we list the explicit one-loop results here; the symbol $\vert_0$ indicates that all the derivatives are to be taken at fixed bare parameters) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\zeta_\phi = \mu {\partial \over \partial \mu} \bigg \vert_0 \ln Z_\phi
= {v \over 8}
\left[ 1 - {I^d_{35}(g) \over I^d_{17}(g)} \right] \, , \quad
\zeta_r = \mu {\partial \over \partial \mu} \bigg \vert_0
\ln {r \over r_0 - r_{0c}} = -2 + {3 v \over 8}
+ {v \over 8} {I^d_{35}(g) \over I^d_{17}(g)} \, , \label{5}\\
&&\zeta_c = \mu {\partial \over \partial \mu} \bigg \vert_0
\ln {c \over c_0} = - {v g^2 (d-8) \over 16}
\left[ 2 {I^d_{37}(g) \over I^d_{17}(g)} -
{I^d_{55}(g) \over I^d_{17}(g)} \right] \, , \label{6}\\
&&\zeta_g = \mu {\partial \over \partial \mu} \bigg \vert_0
\ln {g \over g_0} = -1 - \zeta_\phi + \zeta_c + {v \over 4}
\left[ 1 - {I^d_{35}(g) \over I^d_{17}(g)} \right] \, , \label{7}\\
&&\zeta_u = \mu {\partial \over \partial \mu} \bigg \vert_0
\ln {u \over u_0} =
{d-6 \over 2} + {13 v \over 16} + {3 v \over 16}
{I^d_{35}(g) \over I^d_{17}(g)} \, , \label{8}\end{aligned}$$ one arrives at the following RG equation for the renormalized two–point vertex function $$\left[ \mu {\partial \over \partial \mu} + \! \!
\sum_{a = \{ r,c,g,u \}} \! \! \! \zeta_a a {\partial \over \partial a} +
\zeta_\phi \right]
\Gamma_{11}(\mu,r,c,g,u,{\bf q},\omega) = 0 \quad .
\label{11}$$ The RG equation (\[11\]) is solved by introducing the characteristics $a(\ell)$, which define the running parameters and couplings. They are given by the solutions of $\ell {d a(\ell) / d \ell} = \zeta_a(\ell) a(\ell)$, with $a(1) = a$. Defining the dimensionless vertex function ${\hat \Gamma}_{11}$ according to $\Gamma_{11}(\mu, r, c, g, u, {\bf q}, \omega) = \mu^2 {\hat
\Gamma}_{11} (r, v, {\bf q} / \mu, g \omega / c \mu, \omega^2 / c^2 \mu^2)$, the solution of Eq. (\[11\]) reads $$\Gamma_{11}(\mu,r,c,g,u,{\bf q},\omega) =
\mu^2 \ell^2 e^{ \int_1^\ell \zeta_\phi(\ell') d\ell' / \ell' }
{\hat \Gamma}_{11} \left( r(\ell), v(\ell), {{\bf q} \over \mu \ell},
{g(\ell) \omega \over c(\ell) \mu \ell},
{\omega^2 \over c(\ell)^2 \mu^2 \ell^2} \right) \quad .
\label{13}$$ Here we have introduced an effective anharmonic coupling $v = u^2 c
I^d_{17}(g)$, which is finite in both limits, $g \rightarrow 0$ and $g
\rightarrow \infty$. The flow of the running coupling $\ell {d v(\ell) / d
\ell} = \beta_v(\ell)$ is given by the corresponding $\beta$ function $\beta_v
= \mu {\partial v / \partial \mu} \vert_0$. The flow parameter $\ell$ may be considered as describing the effect of a scaling transformation upon the system. The theory becomes scale–invariant near a fixed point $v^*$, defined as a zero of the $\beta$ function, and will yield the correct asymptotic behavior, if it is infrared–stable.
We now turn to study Eq. (\[13\]) in the vicinity of such a fixed point $v^*$; introducing $\zeta_a^* = \zeta_a(v = v^*)$ we find that $\Gamma_{11}$ is a generalized homogeneous function $$\Gamma_{11}(\mu,r,c,g,u,{\bf q},\omega) \propto \mu^2 \ell^{2 + \zeta_\phi^*}
{\hat \Gamma}_{11} \left( r \ell^{\zeta_r^*}, v^*, {{\bf q}
\over \mu \ell},
{g / c \mu \omega \over \ell^{1 + \zeta_c^* - \zeta_g^*}},
{\omega^2 / c^2 \mu^2 \over \ell^{2 (1 + \zeta_c^*)}} \right) \quad .
\label{15}$$ Using an appropriate matching condition, we can now map the asymptotic theory with manifest infrared divergences, onto a region in parameter space where the anharmonic coupling is finite. E.g., with the choice ${\ell = q / \mu}$, we arrive at the following [*self–affine*]{} scaling form $$\Gamma_{11}(\mu,r,c,g,u,{\bf q},\omega) \propto q^{2 - \eta_\perp}
{\hat \Gamma}_{11} \left( {r \over (q / \mu)^{1 / \nu_\perp}}, v^*, 1,
{g / c \mu \omega \over (q / \mu)^z},
{\omega^2 / c^2 \mu^2 \over (q / \mu)^{2 z (1 - \Delta)}} \right) \, ,
\label{16}$$ where we have defined [*four*]{} independent critical exponents according to $\eta_\perp = - \zeta_\phi^*$, $\nu_\perp = - 1 / \zeta_r^*$, $z = 1 +
\zeta_c^* - \zeta_g^*$, and $z \Delta = - \zeta_g^*$. Here, $\eta_\perp$ and $\nu_\perp$ correspond to the two independent indices familiar from the theory of static critical phenomena. The “dynamic” exponent $z$ is related to the anisotropic scaling behavior. Finally, $\Delta$ is a positive crossover exponent describing the transition from isotropic to directed percolation. In the asymptotic limit of directed percolation, $g \rightarrow \infty$, the second scaling variable disappears, and the scaling behavior is described by the [*three*]{} exponents $\eta_\perp$, $\nu_\perp$, and $z$.
Similarly, with the choice $\ell = \left( g \omega / c \mu \right)^{1 / (1 +
\zeta_c^* - \zeta_g^*)}$ Eq. (\[15\]) reads $$\Gamma_{11}(\mu,r,c,g,u,{\bf q},\omega)
\propto \omega^{2 - \eta_\parallel}
{\hat \Gamma}_{11} \left( {r \over (q / \mu)^{1 / \nu_\parallel}}, v^*,
{q / \mu \over (g \omega / c \mu)^{1 / z}}, 1,
{\omega^2 / c^2 \mu^2 \over (g \omega / c \mu)^{2 (1 - \Delta)}} \right)
\, ,
\label{18}$$ where $2 - \eta_\parallel = (2 - \eta_\perp)/z$ and $\nu_\parallel = z
\nu_\perp$. Moreover, $\ell = r^{-1 / \zeta_r^*}$ leads to $$\Gamma_{11}(\mu,r,c,g,u,{\bf q},\omega) \propto r^\gamma
{\hat \Gamma}_{11} \left( 1, v^*, {q \over \mu} r^{- \nu_\perp},
{g \omega \over c \mu} r^{- \nu_\parallel},
{\omega^2 \over c^2 \mu^2} r^{-2 \nu_\parallel (1 - \Delta)} \right) \quad ,
\label{20}$$ where the exponent $\gamma$ is related to $\nu_\perp$ and $\nu_\parallel$ via $\gamma = \nu_\perp (2 - \eta_\perp) = \nu_\parallel (2 - \eta_\parallel)$. In the special case of isotropic percolation, the scaling relations simplify considerably, describing [*self–similar*]{} scaling with only [*two*]{} independent critical exponents $\eta = - \zeta_\phi^*$ and $\nu = -1 /
\zeta_r^*$.
In the two limiting cases of isotropic and directed percolation, we can explicitly determine the critical indices to one–loop order. For $g_0 = 0$ and $d < d_c^{\rm I} = 6$ one finds a stable, nontrivial fixed point $v^*_{\rm I} =
4 (6 - d) / 7$, while for $d \geq 6$ the Gaussian fixed point $v^*_{\rm GI} =
0$ is approached. In the opposite case, $g_0 \rightarrow \infty$, the nontrivial directed fixed point is stable only if $d < d_c^{\rm D} = 5$, while for $d = D + 1 \geq 5$ the mean–field exponents of the Gaussian fixed point $v^*_{\rm GD}$ apply. The fixed–point values and the corresponding independent critical indices are collected in Table I (there the coupling ${\tilde g} = g /
(1+g)$ was defined). The other critical exponents may be inferred from the scaling relations.
Thus we have demonstrated that both the self–similar and the self–affine scaling behavior are within the scope of the present theory, at least for dimensions $d < 5$; for $5 < d \leq 6$ the model is not renormalizable in the directed limit, and simply characterized by the exponents corresponding to the Gaussian fixed point $v^*_{\rm GD}$, with logarithmic corrections for $d = 5$. This again emphasizes the fact that no expansion with respect to a fixed upper critical dimension can be applied consistently.
The interchange from self–similar to self–affine scaling is most conveniently described by effective exponents for the pair–correlation function. Using the zero–loop result for the two–point vertex function $$\Gamma_{11} (r,{\bf q},\omega) = \mu^2 \ell^2
e^{\int_1^\ell \zeta_\phi(\ell') d \ell'/ \ell'}
\left[ r(\ell) + \left( {q \over \mu \ell} \right)^2 +
{\omega^2 \over \mu^2 \ell^2 c(\ell)^2} +
2 i {\omega g (\ell) \over \mu \ell c(\ell)} \right] \; ,$$ we specialize to $r = 0$ and ${\bf q} = {\bf 0}$ and define \[compare Eq. (\[18\])\] $$2 - \eta_{\parallel \, \rm eff}(\omega) =
{d \ln {\sqrt{\mid \Gamma_{11}(0,{\bf 0},\omega) \mid^2 }}
\over d \ln \omega} \quad .
\label{23}$$ Using $\left \vert \omega^2 / \mu^2 \ell^2 c(\ell)^2 + 2 i \omega g(\ell) / \mu
\ell c(\ell) \right \vert^2 = 1$ yields $2 - \eta_{\parallel \, \rm eff}(\ell)
= [ 2 + \zeta_{\phi}(\ell) ] d \ln \ell / d \ln \omega$. Similarly, in the case $r = \omega = 0$ \[see Eq. (\[16\])\], let $$2 - \eta_{\perp \, {\rm eff}}(q) = { d \ln \Gamma_{11}(0,{\bf q},0)
\over d \ln q} \quad ,
\label{24}$$ which reduces to $2 - \eta_{\perp \, {\rm eff}} = 2 + \zeta_\phi(\ell)$, if $(q
/ \mu \ell)^2 = 1$ is inserted. Finally, considering ${\bf q} = {\bf 0}$ and $\omega = 0$ we introduce \[compare Eq. (\[20\])\] $$\gamma_{\rm eff}(r) = {d \ln \Gamma_{11}(r,0,0) \over d \ln r} \quad ,
\label{25}$$ and choosing the matching condition $r(\ell) = 1$ we find $\gamma_{\rm
eff}(\ell) = - [2 + \zeta_\phi(\ell)] / \zeta_r(\ell)$.
The flow of the effective exponents $\eta_{\parallel \, \rm eff}(\ell)$, $\eta_{\perp \, \rm eff}(\ell)$, and $\gamma_{\rm eff}(\ell)$ in $d = D + 1 =
3$ dimensions (with $\mu = 1$) is depicted in Fig. 1, with the initial value for the coupling $v(1) = v^*_{\rm I}$ of the isotropic scaling fixed point. The dependence on the anisotropy scale $g$ was eliminated by plotting versus the scaling variable $\ln g(\ell)$; the graphs corresponding to different initial values $g(1)$ then all collaps onto one master curve. The most important conclusion to be drawn from Fig. 1 is that the anisotropy scale, at which the crossover occurs, considerably differs for the effective exponents defined above ! $\eta_{\parallel \, \rm eff}$ starts to cross over from the isotropic to the directed fixed point value already at $\ln g(\ell_{\rm cross}) \approx
-0.8$, whereas $\gamma_{\rm eff}$ shows this crossover at $\ln g(\ell_{\rm
cross}) \approx -0.2$, and $\eta_{\perp \, \rm eff}$ only at $\ln g(\ell_{\rm
cross}) \approx +0.8$. Note that the sizeable change of $\eta_{\parallel \, \rm
eff}$ is already apparent at mean-field level, where it acquires the values $0$ and $1$ in the isotropic and directed limit, respectively. However, a crossover of the exponents $\eta_{\perp \, \rm eff}$ and $\gamma_{\rm eff}$ requires the $\zeta$ functions at least on the one–loop level.
We remark that a calculation of the above crossover features has not been possible up to this present work. Of course, the exponents for the limits of both isotropic and directed percolation have been determined to a much higher accuracy than is provided in our one–loop approximation [@Ess80; @Kin83; @Car80; @Ben84]. However, our aim was rather to describe the crossover features, and we believe that the crossover loci should not be affected too severely by, say, higher orders of perturbation theory. The expectation that our [*“renormalized mean–field theory”*]{}, accompanied with the one–loop results for the flowing parameters, is a reasonably good approximation, is based on the experience that amplitude functions are usually smooth and enter the results less sensitively than the exponent functions. In fact, our method was designed to incorporate the entire crossover behavior into the Wilson flow functions. The proposed approach to crossover phenomena, which is an extension of Amit and Goldschmidt’s “generalized minimal subtraction” scheme [@Ami78], should thus be applicable to a large variety of crossover phenomena. It would therefore be of considerable interest to compare our predictions concerning the crossover scales of the different effective exponents with the outcome of precise computer simulations and/or experiments in order to estimate the quality of our approximations also in different situations, where numerical simulations are either very cumbersome or not feasible at all.
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} [This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Contracts No. Fr. 850/2-1,2, Ta. 177/1-1, and Schw. 348/4-2.]{}
B. B. Mandelbrot, [*The Fractal Geometry of Nature*]{}, (Freeman, San Francisco, 1982); J. Feder, [*Fractals*]{}, (Plenum, New York, 1988). See, e.g., J. W. Essam, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**43**]{}, 834 (1980); D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, [*Introduction to Percolation Theory*]{}, 2nd ed. (Taylor and Francis, London, 1992). See, e.g., W. Kinzel, in: [*Percolation Structures and Processes*]{}, Ann. Isr. Phys. Soc. Vol. 5, Eds. G. Deutscher, R. Zallen, and J. Adler (Bar-Ilan University 1983), p. 425. J. L. Cardy and R. L. Sugar, J. Phys. A [**13**]{}, L 423 (1980). J. Benzoni and J. L. Cardy, J. Phys. A [**17**]{}, 179 (1984). D. J. Amit, [*Field Theory, the Renormalization Group, and Critical Phenomena*]{}, 2nd ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1984). H. K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B [**23**]{}, 377 (1976); R. Bausch, H. K. Janssen, and H. Wagner, Z. Phys. B [**24**]{}, 113 (1976). G. t’Hooft and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B [**44**]{}, 189 (1972). D. J. Amit and Y. Y. Goldschmidt, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**114**]{}, 356 (1978). I. D. Lawrie, J. Phys. A [**14**]{}, 2489 (1981); [**18**]{}, 1141 (1985). E. Frey and F. Schwabl, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 8261 (1990); [**43**]{}, 833 (1991). U. C. Täuber and F. Schwabl, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 3337 (1992); [**48**]{}, 186 (1993). E. Frey, U. C. Täuber, and F. Schwabl, Physical Review E (to be published) (1994).
0.00
----------------- --------------------- ---------------- -------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- -------------------------------------
[Fixed Point]{} $v^*$ ${\tilde g}^*$ $\eta_\perp$ $\nu_\perp^{-1}$ $z$ $\Delta$
$0$ $0$ $0$ ${2}$ $2$ ${1 \over 2}$
[I]{} ${4 \over 7} (6-d)$ $0$ $-{6-d \over 21}$ $2 - {5 (6-d) $2 - {6-d \over 21}$ ${1 - (6-d)/21 \over 2 - (6-d)/21}$
\over 21}$
[GD]{} $0$ $1$ $0$ ${2}$ $2$ ${1 \over 2}$
[D]{} ${2 \over 3} (5-d)$ $1$ $- {5-d \over 12}$ $2 - {5-d $2 - {5-d \over 12}$ ${1-(5-d)/6 \over 2 - (5-d)/12}$
\over 4}$
----------------- --------------------- ---------------- -------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- -------------------------------------
: Fixed point values for the couplings $v(\ell)$ and ${\tilde g}(\ell)$ at the isotropic (I), Gaussian isotropic (GI), directed (D), and Gaussian directed (GD) fixed points, respectively, and the corresponding values of the four independent critical exponents.
\[table1\]
=5.0truein
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
nocite: '[@Blau:2002dy]'
---
[ABSTRACT]{}
We briefly review the spin-bit formalism, describing the non-planar dynamics of the $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ Super Yang-Mills $SU(N)$ gauge theory.\
After considering its foundations, we apply such a formalism to the $su(2)$ sector of purely scalar operators. In particular, we report an algorithmic formulation of a deplanarizing procedure for local operators in the planar gauge theory, used to obtain planarly-consistent, testable conjectures for the higher-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonians.\
Finally, we outlook some possible developments and applications.
*Contribution to the Proceedings of the\
43rd Erice International School of Subnuclear Physics\
“Towards New Milestones in our Quest to go Beyond the Standard Model”\
“Ettore Majorana" Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture,\
Erice, Italy (29 August–7 September 2005)*
6 mm
Introduction
============
Large $N$ physics [@'tHooft:1974jz] gained noticeable interest in the past few years (for a recent review see e.g. [@Tseytlin:2004xa]) due to the AdS/CFT conjecture enlightenment [@Maldacena:1998re; @Gubser:1998bc] and, more recently, to the consideration of various limits of this correspondence ([@Berenstein:2002jq]-[@Bellucci:2004rub]). Initially formulated in the $N\to\infty$ limit, the conjecture in its strong form extends to finite $N$. It relates the strongly coupled regime of ${\cal N}=4$ SYM to the weakly coupled string theory and viceversa. This property, which makes out of this correspondence a very strong and efficient predictive tool, appeared to be an obstacle in proving the duality in itself.
Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase studied in [@Berenstein:2002jq; @Berenstein:2002sa] the correspondence in the neighborood of null geodesics of AdS$_5\times S^5$, where the geometry appears to resemble that of a gravitational wave [@Blau:2001ne]-[@Blau:2002mw]. On the CFT side this corresponds to focusing on SYM operators with a large ${\cal R}$-charge. The possibility to find a solution of string theory [@Metsaev:2001bj; @Metsaev:2002re] in such a background allows for a quantitative comparison with predictions coming from perturbative SYM computations [@Kristjansen:2002bb](see [@Spradlin:2003xc] for recent reviews on the BMN correspondence and references). This led to an intensive study of the anomalous dimensions of local gauge-invariant (g.i.) composite operators in $\mathcal{N}=4$, 4-dimensional ($d=4$) Super Yang–Mills (SYM) theory [@Beisert:2003jj]. A real breakthrough was the discovery of the integrability of the Hamiltonians governing anomalous dimensions in the planar limit $N\rightarrow \infty $ [@Minahan:2002ve; @Beisert:2004ry]. Then, these results were extended to $2$ and higher loops [@Serban:2004jf; @Beisert:2003jb]. Indeed, the dynamics in the sector of single-trace bosonic operators of SYM can be mapped into that of the Heisenberg SO(6) spin one model, so that the matrix of planar one-loop anomalous dimensions is identified with the spin chain Hamiltonian [@Minahan:2002ve]. The Bethe Ansatz techniques used for diagonalizing the Hamiltonian become then a powerful tool in determining anomalous dimensions in the gauge theory. As it is now clear, there is a one-to-one correspondence between single-trace operators in SYM theory and spin states in spin-chain models. The improved understanding of SYM overshadowed, to some extent, the study of nonplanar contributions. The latter has to correspond through AdS/CFT to considering the string production on the AdS side. String bits [@Verlinde:2002ig] were proposed as a model which mimics this feature out of (but not very far from) the BMN limit. Although the string bit model yields a good tool for the computation of the relevant bosonic quantities, it is affected by serious consistency problems related to the fermionic doubling [@Bellucci:2004rub; @Danielsson:2003yc].
On the SYM side the exact one-loop dilation operator was derived in [@Beisert:2003jj; @Minahan:2002ve; @Beisert:2003tq]. When non-planarity is taken into account, single and multi-trace operators get mixed. This could still not be tested in the string dual picture. Waiting for a better understanding of string physics on AdS space, one could hope to learn about string interactions there by exploiting the dual gauge theory picture. This was the main motivation of the work carried out by the LNF research group over the past two years. We studied the corresponding spin system which mixes the integrable spin approach and the string bits one. Such a theory can be called a *spin bit* model. Since it allows for dynamical splitting and joining of chains and its variable content is given by spins, the spin bit model differs from the spin chain and the string bit ones, although it can be considered as a mixture of them. In particular, there is no fermion doubling, and supersymmetry in the spin bit model is consistently implemented.
At $N\to \infty$ the spin Hamiltonian is a local and integrable operator. The Hamiltonian and the total spin generator represent the first two charges, in the tower of commuting ones, predicted by integrability [@Beisert:2003tq]. Higher charges are given in terms of higher powers of next-to-nearest spin generators summed up over the chain. Corrections in ${1\over N}$ spoil locality and integrability. The Hamiltonian and its higher spin analogs, which can be interpreted as broken symmetries of the would-be integrable system, can still be defined in terms of powers of spin generators. However, now there is no more restriction to next-to-nearest interactions and the corresponding charges are no longer commuting among themselves. The role of these broken charges in the theory near the “integrable" point $N\to \infty$ remains to be understood.
If the non-planar contributions are considered, the single-trace sector is not conserved anymore, and one ends up with trace splitting and joining in the operator mixing [@Beisert:2002ff]. Even in this case one can still consider a one-to-one map, the so-called spin-bit map, between local g.i. operators and a spin system [@Bellucci:2004ru; @Bellucci:2004qx]. In this case one has to introduce a set of new degrees of freedom, beyond the spin states, which describes the linking structure of the sites in the spin-chain. This can be encoded in a new field, taking values in the spin-bits permutation group and introducing a new gauge degree of freedom [@Bellucci:2004qx].
In this paper we use conventions and notations of [@Bellucci:2004ru; @Bellucci:2004qx; @Bellucci:2005ma1]. 0
The $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM $SU(N)$ gauge theory
================================================
In the following we will consider a particular quantum field theory, namely the $\mathcal{N}$=4,$d=4$ SYM $SU(N)$ gauge theory. Such a theory has the noteworthy property to be conformally-invariant, due to the vanishing of its beta function (see e.g. [@Lemes:2001]). It has the following field content: $$\begin{array}{l}
F_{\mu \nu }\text{ gauge field strength, }\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3; \\
\\
\phi ^{i}\text{ real scalars, }i=1,...,6\text{ (vector repr. of }SO(6)\text{);} \\
\\
\lambda _{\alpha }^{\mathcal{A}},\overline{\lambda }_{\mathcal{A}\overset{\cdot }{\alpha }}\text{ gauginos, }\mathcal{A}=1,...,\mathcal{N}=4,\text{ \ }\alpha ,\overset{\cdot }{\alpha }=1,2.
\end{array}$$ All the fields take value in the adjoint representation (repr.) of the gauge group $SU(N)$, i.e. for example $\phi ^{i}=\phi _{a}^{i}T^{a}$, where $T^{a}$ ($a=1,...,N^{2}-1$) are the generators of $SU(N)$ in the adjoint. The scalars also span the vector repr. of $SO(6)$, which is the maximal compact bosonic subgroup of the whole $\mathcal{N}=4$ supergroup $SU(2,2\mid 4)$; moreover, the underlying algebra $so(6)\sim su(4)$ is the automorphism, or $\mathcal{R} $-symmetry, algebra of the whole $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ superconformal algebra (SCA) $psu(2,2\mid 4)$. In the following we will use a compact notation for the $SU(N)$-gauge covariant derivatives of the fields, namely ($s\in N\cup \left\{ 0\right\} $) $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla ^{s}\phi &\equiv &\nabla _{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}...\mu _{s}}\phi ^{i},
\notag \\
&& \notag \\
\nabla ^{s}\lambda &\equiv &\nabla _{\mu _{1}\mu _{2}...\mu _{s}}\lambda
_{\alpha }^{\mathcal{A}},\end{aligned}$$ and so on. All the elementary fields, as well their derivatives, can be obtained by acting with generators of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SCA on the “primary" fields $\phi ^{i}$.
By adopting a convenient “philological" nomenclature, we may say that the $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM “alphabet" is composed by the set of “letters” $$W_{A}\equiv \left\{ \nabla ^{s}F,\nabla ^{s}\phi ,\nabla
^{s}\lambda ,\nabla ^{s}\overline{\lambda }\right\} .$$ The components of $W_{A}$ transform in the so-called “singleton” (infinite-dimensional) repr. $V_{F}$ of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SCA. Out of the “letters" $W_{A}$ one can build $SU(N)$ g.i. “words”, i.e. single-trace composite operators given by traces (in the adjoint of $SU(N)$) of a sequence of “letters” $W_{A}$’s. Examples are given by $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{O}^{i_{1}i_{2}...i_{n}}\equiv Tr\left( \phi ^{i_{1}}\phi
^{i_{2}}...\phi ^{i_{n}}\right) ; \\
\\
\mathcal{O}_{\alpha \overset{\cdot }{\alpha }}^{i_{1}i_{2}...i_{m+1}}\equiv
Tr(\phi ^{i_{1}}\phi ^{i_{2}}...\phi ^{i_{m}}\nabla _{\mu _{1}...\mu
_{n}}\phi ^{i_{m+1}} \\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nabla ^{\mu _{1}...\mu _{n-2}}\lambda _{\alpha }^{\mathcal{A}}\nabla ^{\mu _{n-1}\mu _{n}}\overline{\lambda }_{\mathcal{A}\overset{\cdot }{\alpha }})
\end{array}$$ with $$\nabla ^{\mu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }\nabla _{\nu },$$ where $\eta ^{\mu \nu }$ is the 4-dim. Minkowski metric. Moreover, out of “words” one can produce “sentences”, which are sequences of “words”, i.e. products of single-trace composite operators, given by products of traces (in the adjoint of $SU(N)$) of sequences of “letters”. Some examples are $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{O}^{i_{1}i_{2}...i_{n_{1}}j_{1}j_{2}...j_{n_{2}}}\equiv Tr\left(
\phi ^{i_{1}}\phi ^{i_{2}}...\phi ^{i_{n_{1}}}\right) Tr\left( \phi
^{j_{1}}\phi ^{j_{2}}...\phi ^{j_{n_{2}}}\right) ; \\
\\
\mathcal{O}_{\overset{\cdot }{\alpha }\overset{\cdot }{\beta }}^{i_{1}...i_{n_{2}}\nu }\equiv Tr\left( \nabla _{\mu _{1}...\mu
_{n_{1}}}\phi ^{i_{1}}...\phi ^{i_{n_{2}}}\right) \cdot \\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\cdot Tr\left( \nabla ^{\mu _{1}...\mu _{n_{1}-1}}\overline{\lambda }_{\mathcal{A}\overset{\cdot }{\alpha }}\right) Tr\left(
\lambda _{\overset{\cdot }{\beta }}^{\mathcal{A}}F^{\mu _{n_{1}}\nu }\right)
.
\end{array}
\notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ The length of a “word” or “sentence” in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM is defined as the number of “letters” $W_{A}$’s composing the considered trace structure.
Summarizing, the above introduced “words” and “sentences” correspond to (possibly multitrace) $SU(N)$ g.i. polynomial composite operators in $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM. As we will see further below, the spin-bit map gives an one-to-one spin description of such (multi)trace structures, and thus allows one to perturbatively calculate the non-planar ($N<\infty $) anomalous dimensions in (certain sectors of) the considered conformally-invariant gauge theory. 0
The spin-bit model
==================
A generic $M$-trace g.i. polynomial composite operator of length $L$ will have the general form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O} &\equiv &Tr\left( W_{A_{1}}...W_{A_{L_{1}}}\right) Tr\left(
W_{A_{L_{1}+1}}...W_{A_{L_{1}+L_{2}}}\right) ... \notag \\
&&...Tr\left( W_{A_{L-L_{M}+1}}...W_{A_{L}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Let us now consider an element of the permutation group $S_{L}$ (of rank $L!$) of $L$ elements, namely $$\gamma \equiv \left( \gamma _{1}\gamma _{2}...\gamma _{L}\right) :\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
a_{1} & a_{2} & ... & a_{L} \\
a_{\gamma _{1}} & a_{\gamma _{2}} & ... & a_{\gamma _{L}}
\end{array}
\right) ,$$ or equivalently $$S_{L}\ni \gamma =\left( L_{1}\right) \left( L_{2}\right) ...\left(
L_{M}\right) :\sum_{r=1}^{M}L_{r}=L, \label{gamma}$$ where $S_{L_{r}}\ni \left( L_{r}\right) $ is a cyclic permutation of $L_{r}$ elements ($r=1,...,M$). Actually, Eq. (\[gamma\]) has a deeper meaning, because in general $S_{L}$ is split in equivalence classes (labelled by $L_{1},L_{2}...L_{k}$ such that $\sum_{r=1}^{k}L_{r}=L$) of permutations consisting of cycles of respective lengths. By reducing to (products of the) minimal, non-trivial permutational “bricks”, that is to (products of the) pair-site permutations $\sigma _{kl}$, $\left( k,l\right) \in \left\{ 1,...,L\right\}
^{2}$ (which simply exchange the $k$-th and $l$-th elements), the decomposition expressed by Eq. (\[gamma\]) leads to (planar and) non-planar (pair-site) permutational identities, extensively treated in [@Bellucci:2005ma2].
Thus, by suitably choosing $\gamma $, the operator $\mathcal{O}$ may be rewritten as $$\mathcal{O}=\left( W_{A_{1}}\right) ^{a_{1}a_{\gamma _{1}}}\left(
W_{A_{2}}\right) ^{a_{2}a_{\gamma _{2}}}...\left( W_{A_{L}}\right)
^{a_{L}a_{\gamma _{L}}},$$ where the matrix structure (with values in the adjoint repr. of $SU(N)$) of the “letters” $W_{A}$’s is manifest (by convention the first upper index is a row index, whereas the second is a column one).
As it may be easily seen, the fundamental features we have to take into account are the length $L$ of the operator, the number $M$ of traces, and the “linking” configuration expressed by $\gamma $. By thinking each “letter” as sitting on a distinct spin-chain site, we may therefore write the following equivalence relation (which we will extensively comment in the following) $$\mathcal{O}\equiv \left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle ,
\label{equiv1}$$ where $A_{k}$ is the direction in $V_{F}$ determined by the “letter” $W_{A_{k}}$, i.e. the direction of the spin state at the $k$-th spin-chain site. The r.h.s. of Eq. (\[equiv1\]) represents a state in the Hilbert space of a spin-chain model, but with an explicit extra degree of freedom (represented by $\gamma $), properly describing the structure of the interconnections among spin-chain sites: such an “improved” spin-chain model will be called “spin-bit” model. Due to the separating action of the semicolon in Eq. (\[equiv1\]), the spin-bit Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sb} $ naturally gets divided in an usual spin-part $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$ (the usual spin-chain Hilbert space) and in a so-called “linking” part. As we will see later, this latter will allow one to correctly take into account also the non-planar contributions to anomalous dimensions. Eq. (\[equiv1\]) defines the so-called spin-bit map in $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM, whose isomorphicity we are going to discuss. 0 [.]{}[3.1.]{}
Spin part of $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$: the spin-chain picture
-------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, the spin part of the “improved” spin-chain state, i.e. of the spin-bit state, is given by $$\mathcal{H}_{sc}\ni \left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle =\left|
S_{1},...,S_{L}\right\rangle =\left| S_{1}\right\rangle \otimes ...\otimes
\left| S_{L}\right\rangle . \label{spin-part-1}$$ As it is well known, the spin-chain Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$ is the tensor product of the one-spin (or, equivalently, one-site) Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{k}$’s. Consequently, as shown by Eq. (\[spin-part-1\]), a generic spin-chain state is given by the tensor product of the one-spin states at each spin-chain site. $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ is given by the representation space of the considered symmetry (which in the case at hand will be described by a subalgebra of $psu(2,2\mid 4)$) at the $k$-th site. Indeed, $A_{k}\equiv S_{k}$ is the direction in $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ determined by the symmetry of the $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM “letter” $W_{A_{k}}$ in $V_{F}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{sc} &=&\mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes \mathcal{H}_{2}\otimes ...\otimes
\mathcal{H}_{L}=\left( V_{F}\right) _{1}\otimes \left( V_{F}\right)
_{2}\otimes ...\otimes \left( V_{F}\right) _{L}, \notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ where $\left( V_{F}\right) _{k}$ stands for the “singleton” representation space of the (relevant subalgebra of the) SCA $psu(2,2\mid 4)$ at the $k$-th site.
In the following treatment we will assume that the same representation of the same symmetry algebra will hold at each spin-chain site. With such an assumption we get $$\mathcal{H}_{sc}=\left( V_{F}\right) ^{L},$$ where $V_{F}$ is the “singleton” repr. space of the (relevant subalgebra of the) SCA $psu(2,2\mid 4)$, which will determine the symmetry of the spin-chain model.
In $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM theory, the most general symmetry is given by the whole SCA $psu(2,2\mid 4)$, implying that the dimension of the one-spin Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ is the same for every spin-chain site, and it is infinite, because $\dim
\left(
V_{F}\right) =\infty $$$\dim \left( \mathcal{H}_{sc}\right) =\dim \left( \left( V_{F}\right)
^{L}\right) =\infty ^{L}.$$ The situation changes if compact symmetries (having finite-dimensional unitary representations) are considered (an example is the $su(2)$ sector which will be extensively treated later). Also the possibilities to have non-ultralocalizations and/or different representations of symmetries from site to site along the chain could be taken into account, but here we will not deal with such cases (however, see e.g. [@Kundu:2002-1]).
Of course, $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ can be endowed with a consistent scalar product $\left\langle \cdot \mid \cdot \right\rangle $. Consequently, by choosing an orthonormal basis $\left\{ e_{\alpha }\right\} $ (with $\alpha $ ranging in a numerable set) $$\left\langle e_{\alpha }\mid e_{\beta }\right\rangle =\delta _{\alpha \beta
},$$ we get $$S_{k}=S_{k}^{\alpha }e_{\alpha },$$ denoting the decomposition of the spin vector $S_{k}$ along the orthonormal basis $\left\{ e_{\alpha }\right\} $ of the “singleton” repr. space $V_{F}$ of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SCA $psu(2,2\mid 4)$ at the spin-chain site labelled by $k$. Therefore, we may rewrite Eq. (\[spin-part-1\]) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle &=&S_{1}^{\alpha _{1}}...S_{L}^{\alpha
_{L}}\left| e_{\alpha _{1}}\right\rangle \otimes ...\otimes \left| e_{\alpha
_{L}}\right\rangle = \notag \\
&& \notag \\
&=&\prod_{k=1}^{L}\otimes S_{k}^{\alpha _{k}}\left| e_{\alpha
_{k}}\right\rangle \equiv \left| S\right\rangle \in \mathcal{H}_{sc}.
\label{spin-part-2}\end{aligned}$$ 0 [.]{}[3.2.]{}
The “linking” part and the permutational redundance in $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, by considering only the “linking” part of the spin-bit state, we obtain $$\left| \gamma \right\rangle \in \zeta _{L}, \label{linking-part-1}$$ where $\zeta _{L}$ is nothing but the representation space of the permutation group $S_{L}$. It may be considered a metrizable space, too, and consequently it may be endowed with a consistent scalar product $\left\langle \gamma \mid \gamma ^{\prime }\right\rangle =\delta _{\gamma
\gamma ^{\prime }}$.
Thus, it would seem reasonable to define the whole Hilbert space of the spin-bit model $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$ as the tensor product of the spin part $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$ (given by Eq. (\[spin-part-2\])) and of the “linking” part $\zeta _{L}$ (given by Eq. (\[linking-part-1\])) $$\left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle \equiv \left|
A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \otimes \left| \gamma \right\rangle \in
\mathcal{H}_{sc}\otimes \zeta _{L}. \label{direct}$$ But, by simply doing a tensor product, we would then over-estimate the spin-bit Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$. Indeed, an extra symmetry exists, given by the action of $S_{L}$ on the direct tensor product $\mathcal{H}_{sc}\otimes \zeta _{L}$ and determining the following equivalence relation of “permutational conjugation"[^1] $$\begin{array}{l}
\left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle \sim \left| A_{\sigma
_{1}},...,A_{\sigma _{L}};\sigma \cdot \gamma \cdot \sigma
^{-1}\right\rangle , \\
\\
\forall \left( \gamma ,\sigma \right) \in \left( S_{L}\right) ^{2};
\end{array}
\label{equiv}$$ in particular, for $\sigma =\gamma $ we obtain the property of cyclicity of the trace: $$\left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle \sim \left| A_{\gamma
_{1}},...,A_{\gamma _{L}};\gamma \right\rangle ,\text{ \ \ }\forall \gamma
\in S_{L}.$$
Otherwise speaking, we may define the representation of the action of the permutational symmetry group $S_{L}$ on the factorized Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sc}\otimes \zeta _{L}$ with the operator $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\Sigma }_{\sigma }\left( \left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle
\otimes \left| \gamma \right\rangle \right) &\equiv &\left| A_{\sigma
_{1}},...,A_{\sigma _{L}}\right\rangle \otimes \left| \sigma \cdot \gamma
\cdot \sigma ^{-1}\right\rangle . \notag \\
&& \label{redund}\end{aligned}$$ Actually, the action of $\widehat{\Sigma }_{\sigma }$ corresponds to nothing but an $S_{L}$-covariant relabelling of the spin-chain site indices. It is a symmetry of the spin-bit model, in the sense that it can be easily checked that the r.h.s.’s of Eqs. (\[direct\]) and (\[redund\]) describe the same (multi)trace polynomial composite g.i. operator of length $L$.
It should also be noticed that, due its very definition, the operator $\widehat{\Sigma }_{\sigma }$ may be naturally decomposed as the direct product of two independent operators, acting on distinct spaces ($\forall \sigma \in S_{L}$) $$\widehat{\Sigma }_{\sigma }=U_{\sigma }\otimes \widetilde{\Sigma }_{\sigma },$$ with the definitions $$\begin{array}{l}
U_{\sigma }\left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \equiv \\
\\
\equiv \left( P_{1,\sigma _{1}}\otimes P_{2,\sigma _{2}}\otimes ...\otimes
P_{L,\sigma _{L}}\right) \left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle = \\
\\
=\left| A_{\sigma _{1}},...,A_{\sigma _{L}}\right\rangle ,
\end{array}
\label{Usigma}$$ where $P_{k,l}\equiv P_{kl}$ is the pair-site index permutation operator, acting in the spin-chain Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$ as follows (upperscripts denote the site positions): $$\begin{array}{l}
P_{kl}\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A_{k}},...,\overset{l}{A_{l}},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \equiv \\
\equiv \left| A_{1},...,\overset{l}{A_{k}},...,\overset{k}{A_{l}},...,A_{L}\right\rangle = \\
=\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A_{l}},...,\overset{l}{A_{k}},...,A_{L}\right\rangle ,
\end{array}
\label{Pkl}$$ and $$\widetilde{\Sigma }_{\sigma }\left| \gamma \right\rangle \equiv \left|
\sigma \cdot \gamma \cdot \sigma ^{-1}\right\rangle . \label{sigmatilde}$$
Thus, in order to make the spin-bit map a one-to one (i.e. isomorphic) map, we have to quotient by this extra symmetry $S_{L}$, obtaining the following rigorous definition of (state in the) spin-bit Hilbert space: $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{H}_{sb}\equiv \left\{ \left( V_{F}\right) ^{L}\otimes \zeta
_{L}\right\} /S_{L}\ni \left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle \equiv
\\
\\
\equiv \left\{ \left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \otimes \left| \gamma
\right\rangle \right\} /S_{L}\equiv \left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle
\otimes _{S_{L}}\left| \gamma \right\rangle ,
\end{array}
\label{correct-def}$$ where $\otimes _{S_{L}}$stands for the direct tensor product, modulo the action of $S_{L}$ represented by $\widehat{\Sigma }_{\sigma }$.
Therefore, given an arbitrary factorized basis element $\left|
A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \otimes \otimes \left| \gamma
\right\rangle $, one can find the corresponding element of the quotient space $\left\{ \left( V_{F}\right) ^{L}\otimes \zeta
_{L}\right\} /S_{L}$, i.e. the corresponding state in the spin-bit Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$, by “averaging” with respect to the action of $S_{L}$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \otimes _{S_{L}}\left| \gamma
\right\rangle \equiv \left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle \equiv \\
\\
\equiv \frac{1}{\left| S_{L}\right| }\sum_{\sigma \in S_{L}}\widehat{\Sigma }_{\sigma }\left( \left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \otimes \left| \gamma
\right\rangle \right) = \\
\\
=\frac{1}{\left| S_{L}\right| }\sum_{\sigma \in S_{L}}\left( \left|
A_{\sigma _{1}},...,A_{\sigma _{L}}\right\rangle \otimes \left| \sigma \cdot
\gamma \cdot \sigma ^{-1}\right\rangle \right) \equiv \\
\\
\equiv \widehat{\Pi }\left( \left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \otimes
\left| \gamma \right\rangle \right) ,
\end{array}$$ where $\widehat{\Pi }$ is the cyclic symmetry operator, defined as $$\widehat{\Pi }\equiv \frac{1}{\left| S_{L}\right| }\sum_{\sigma \in S_{L}}\widehat{\Sigma }_{\sigma }=\frac{1}{\left| S_{L}\right| }\sum_{\sigma \in
S_{L}}\left( U_{\sigma }\otimes \widetilde{\Sigma }_{\sigma }\right) ,
\label{Pi}$$ and $\left| S_{L}\right| =L!$ is the rank of $S_{L}$.
From Eqs. (\[Usigma\]), (\[sigmatilde\]) and (\[Pi\]), it is not hard to check that $\widehat{\Pi }$ is actually a projective operator $$\left( \widehat{\Pi }\right) ^{2}=\widehat{\Pi },$$ and that it commutes with permutationally-invariant operators. Therefore the state $\left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle
$, defined by Eq. (\[correct-def\]), is $S_{L}$-invariant, as it has to be in order to correctly estimate the spin-bit Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$, and therefore to make the spin-bit map an isomorphic one.
At 1 loop in SYM perturbation theory, it can be also explicitly shown that the “extra” symmetry $S_{L}$ of $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$ is nothing but a “gauge" symmetry, in the sense that the spin-bit model may be seen as arising from the corresponding spin-chain model by “gauging” with respect to the permutational symmetry $S_{L}$ [@Bellucci:2004qx], where, as previously mentioned, $L$ is the length of the considered operator, i.e. the total number of spin-chain sites, and also the total length of the spin-chain (if unit distance between neighboring sites is assumed). 0 [.]{}[3.3.]{}
Canonical reduction of $S_{L}$
------------------------------
By recalling Eq. (\[gamma\]), a generic element $\gamma \in
S_{L}$ may be decomposed (uniquely, up to some possible pair-site permutational identities [@Bellucci:2005ma2]) as follows: $$S_{L}\ni \gamma =\left( L_{1}\right) \left( L_{2}\right) ...\left(
L_{M}\right) :\sum_{r=1}^{M}L_{r}=L,\text{ }M\leqslant L,$$ where $\left( L_{r}\right) $ is a cyclic permutation of $L_{r}$ elements ($r=1,...,M$). Due to the “extra” symmetry $S_{L}$ determining the equivalence relation (\[equiv\]), by choosing $\sigma \in S_{L}$ (in a suitable way, depending on the starting element $\gamma \in S_{L}$) it is always possible to reduce $\gamma $ to its canonical form, i.e. to the form where each spin-chain site index is sent to the immediate next one modulo cyclicity $$\begin{gathered}
\gamma =\left( L_{1}\right) \left( L_{2}\right) ...\left( L_{M}\right)
\notag \\
\downarrow \notag \\
\overset{\left( \sim \right) }{\gamma }=\sigma \cdot \gamma \cdot \sigma
^{-1}=\sigma \left( L_{1}\right) \left( L_{2}\right) ...\left( L_{M}\right)
\sigma ^{-1}: \notag \\
k_{r}\longmapsto \left[ k_{r}+1\right] \equiv k_{r}+1,\text{ }mod.\text{ }L_{r},\end{gathered}$$ where $k_{r}$ is a spin-chain site index running inside the $r$-th trace.
Even though in what follows we will not restrict ourselves to consider (only) the canonical form of the permutations, one should bear in mind that the $S_{L}$-covariant relabelling of site indices corresponding to the permutational conjugation given by Eq. (\[equiv\]) determines an equivalence relation which makes the switching to canonical permutational forms not implying any loss of generality. 0 [.]{}[.]{}
The dilatation operator in $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM
===================================================
The anomalous dimensions of g.i. operators in the conformally-invariant $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM gauge theory are given by the action of the dilatation operator $\Delta $.
In perturbation theory, it may be written as $$\Delta \left( g_{YM}\right) =\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }H_{2n}\lambda ^{n},
\label{delta-perturb}$$ where $g_{YM}$ is the Yang-Mills coupling constant, and $$\lambda =\lambda \left( g_{YM}\right) \equiv \frac{g_{YM}^{2}N}{16\pi }
\label{'t Hooft}$$ is the ’t Hooft coupling. $H_{2n}$ is the $n$-loop effective vertex, determined by an explicit evaluation of the divergencies of the $n$-loop, 2-point function Feynman amplitudes $\left\langle \mathcal{O}(0)\mathcal{O}(x)\right\rangle $ in $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM.
The first few effective vertices read [@Beisert:2003jj]
$$n=0\text{ (tree level): }H_{0}=\Delta _{0A}Tr\left( W_{A}\check{W}^{A}\right) ; \label{n=0}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
&&
\begin{array}{l}
n=1\text{ (1-loop level):} \\
\\
H_{2}=-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty }h(j)\left( P_{j}\right) _{CD}^{AB}:Tr\left[ W_{A},\check{W}^{C}\right] \left[ W_{B},\check{W}^{D}\right] :,
\end{array}
\notag \\
&&\label{n=1}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\left( \check{W}^{A}\right) _{ab}\equiv \frac{\partial }{\partial \left(
W_{A}\right) ^{ba}}$$ is the “letter” operatorial derivative in $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM, such that $$\left( \check{W}^{A}\right) _{ab}\left( W_{A}\right) ^{bc}=\delta _{a}^{c},$$ and $::$ denotes the “normal-ordering” of the operators inside, namely the fact that the derivatives $\left( \check{W}^{A}\right)
_{ab}$ never act on the “letters” from the same group inside the colons. Moreover, $\Delta _{0A}$ stands for the classical (bare) dimension of the “letter” $W_{A}$. For the elementary fields previously mentioned, it is $\Delta _{0}=1$ for each scalar field $\phi ^{i}$ and each ($SU(N)$-covariant) derivative, $\Delta _{0}=\frac{3}{2}$ for the gauginos and $\Delta _{0}=2$ for the gauge field strength.
$\left( P_{j}\right) _{CD}^{AB}$ is the (rank 4) $psu(2,2\mid 4)$ projector to the irreducible module $V_{j}$ in the expansion of the tensor product of two $\infty $-dim. “singleton” $V_{F}$ representations of the $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SCA $psu(2,2\mid 4)$ $$V_{F}\otimes V_{F}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty }V_{j}.$$ In general, the first modules $V_{0}$, $V_{1}$and $V_{2}$ contain the symmetric, antisymmetric and trace components in the tensor product of two SYM scalars and their superpartners. Higher modules $V_{j}$, $j\geqslant 3$, contain spin $\left( j-2\right) $ currents and their superpartners. Finally, $h(j)$ is the $j$-th harmonic number, defined as $$h(j)\equiv \sum_{s=1}^{j}\frac{1}{s},\text{ }h(0)\equiv0.$$ 0
The spin-bit Hamiltonian at 1 loop
==================================
In general, by applying the isomorphic spin-bit map to the dilatation operator of $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM $SU(N)$ gauge theory, we obtain an operator acting on the spin-bit Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$. Such an operator may be identified with the spin-bit Hamiltonian; as we will see, it yields a “deplanarized” form of the related spin-chain Hamiltonian, in the sense that it perfectly reproduces the known results from the theory of spin-chains in the planar limit $N\rightarrow \infty $.
Since on the SYM side the dilatation operator is perturbatively known, we will correspondingly obtain a perturbatively expanded expression of the spin-bit Hamiltonian.
At tree level, we trivially get (see Eqs. (\[delta-perturb\]) and (\[n=0\])) $$\Delta _{n=0}=H_{0}=\Delta _{0A}Tr\left( W_{A}\check{W}^{A}\right) ;$$ by applying the spin-bit map, i.e. by applying $H_{0}$ on a generic spin-bit state, we get that the tree-level spin-bit Hamiltonian $H_{0,sb}$ is simply proportional to the identity, namely: $$H_{0,sb}=\Delta _{0}1,$$ where, as previously mentioned, $\Delta _{0}$ is the total classical dimension of the $SU(N)$-g.i. $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM (composite) operator uniquely associated to the considered spin-bit state.
Let us now consider $n=1$, i.e. the 1-loop contribution to $\Delta
$; from Eqs. (\[delta-perturb\]), (\[’t Hooft\]) and (\[n=1\]) we obtain $$\begin{array}{l}
\Delta _{n=1}= \\
\\
=-\frac{g_{YM}^{2}}{8\pi ^{2}}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty }h(j)\left(
P_{j}\right) _{CD}^{AB} \\
\\
:Tr\left[ W_{A},\check{W}^{C}\right] \left[
W_{B},\check{W}^{D}\right] :;
\end{array}$$ in order to obtain the 1-loop spin-bit Hamiltonian, we simply have to apply the 1-loop $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM effective vertex $H_{2}$ (given by Eq. (\[n=1\])) to a generic spin-bit state $$H_{2}\left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle .$$ In such a way we will map (by means of the spin-bit isomorphic correspondence) $H_{2}$ to the 1-loop spin-bit Hamiltonian $H_{2,sb}$. Clearly, since $H_{2}$ is a second-order differential operator (it contains two operatorial derivatives), the Leibnitz rule will decompose the result in a sum over all possible couples of spin-chain sites: $$\begin{array}{l}
H_{2}\left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle = \\
\\
=-\frac{2}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty }h(j)\left( P_{j}\right) _{CD}^{AB} \\
\\
:Tr\left[ W_{A},\check{W}^{C}\right] \left[ W_{B},\check{W}^{D}\right]
:\left| A_{1},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle = \\
\\
=\sum_{k,l=1}^{L}H_{2,kl}\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A_{k}},...,\overset{l}{A_{l}},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle ,
\end{array}
\label{rot}$$ where $H_{2,kl}$ is nothing but the restriction of the 1-loop effective vertex to the couple of sites $\left( k,l\right) \in
\left\{ 1,...,L\right\} ^{2}$, and it will be later identified, by the spin-bit map, with the two-site 1-loop spin-bit Hamiltonian.
A number of technical, permutational results are used in the explicit calculations; they respectively read: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Fission formula} &:&\text{ \ \ }Tr\left( A\check{W}^{C}BW_{D}\right)
=\delta _{D}^{C}Tr\left( A\right) Tr(B); \notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Fusion formula} &:&\text{ \ \ }Tr\left( A\check{W}^{C}\right) Tr\left(
W_{D}B\right) =\delta _{D}^{C}Tr\left( AB\right) , \notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ and $B$ are supposed not to depend on $W$’s. An useful property (holding true for any permutation $\gamma $ and for any pair-site permutation $\sigma _{kl}$ in $S_{L}$) is $$\sigma _{kl}\gamma =\gamma \sigma _{\gamma _{k}\gamma _{l}};$$ by using it, Eq. (\[equiv\]) yields $$\begin{array}{l}
\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{B},...,\overset{l}{A},...,A_{L};\gamma \sigma
_{kl}\right\rangle = \\
\\
=\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A},...,\overset{l}{B},...,A_{L};\gamma \sigma
_{\gamma _{k}\gamma _{l}}\right\rangle
\end{array}$$ or, in terms of operators $$P_{kl}\Sigma _{kl}=\Sigma _{\gamma _{k}\gamma _{l}},$$ where $P_{kl}$ is the $\left( k,l\right) $-site permutation operator acting on $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$ defined by Eq. (\[Pkl\]), and $\Sigma _{k,l}\equiv\Sigma _{kl}$ is the (1-loop) chain “splitting and joining” (or “twist”) operator, acting on $\zeta _{L}$, and defined as $$\Sigma _{kl}\left| \gamma \right\rangle \equiv \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\left| \gamma \sigma _{kl}\right\rangle , & k\neq l \\
N\left| \gamma \right\rangle , & k=l
\end{array}
\right. ,$$ or equivalently $$\Sigma _{kl}=N\delta _{kl}+\left( 1-\delta _{kl}\right) \overline{\Sigma }_{kl},\text{ with }\overline{\Sigma }_{kl}\left| \gamma \right\rangle
=\left| \gamma \sigma _{kl}\right\rangle . \label{sigma-decomp}$$ The factor $N$ in the case $k=l$ appears because splitting and joining a trace/chain at the same site leads to a new chain of length zero, whose corresponding trace is $Tr\left( 1\right) =N$, because $1$ stands for the identity in the adjoint repr. of the gauge group $SU(N)$.
The final result is the 1-loop spin-bit Hamiltonian $$H_{2,sb}=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\underset{(k\neq l)}{k,l=1}}^{L}H_{kl}\left(
\Sigma _{\gamma _{k}l}+\Sigma _{k\gamma _{l}}-\Sigma _{kl}-\Sigma _{\gamma
_{k}\gamma _{l}}\right) \label{rot-rot}$$ or, using the canonical form of the permutation $\gamma \in
S_{L}$, $$\begin{array}{l}
H_{2,sb}= \\
\\
=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\underset{(k\neq l)}{k,l=1}}^{L}H_{kl}\left( \Sigma _{\left[ k+1\right], l}+\Sigma _{k,\left[ l+1\right] }-\Sigma _{k,l}-\Sigma _{\left[ k+1\right], \left[ l+1\right] }\right) ,
\end{array}
\label{rot-rot-rot}$$ where $H_{k,l}\equiv H_{kl}\equiv H_{kl,sb}$ is the two-site Hamiltonian, acting on $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$, and defined as follows ($k\neq l$): $$\begin{array}{l}
H_{kl}\left| A_{1},...,A_{L}\right\rangle \equiv \\
\\
\equiv 4\sum_{j=0}^{\infty }h(j)\left( P_{j}\right) _{A_{k}A_{l}}^{AB}\left|
A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A},...,\overset{l}{B},...,A_{L}\right\rangle .
\end{array}
\label{Hkl}$$ Notice that $P_{kl}$ and $H_{kl}$ act on $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$, whereas $\Sigma
_{kl}$ acts on $\zeta _{L}$, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ P_{kl},\Sigma _{mn}\right] &=&0=\left[ H_{kl},\Sigma _{mn}\right] ,\text{ \ \ }\forall \left( k,l,m,n\right) \in \left\{ 1,...,L\right\} ^{4}.
\notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ By comparing Eq. (\[rot\]) with Eqs. (\[rot-rot\]) and (\[rot-rot-rot\]), and by disregarding the degenerate case of coinciding sites $k=l$ (this can be shown not implying any loss of generality), we may conclude that $$\begin{array}{l}
H_{2}\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A_{k}},...,\overset{l}{A_{l}},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle = \\
\\
=\sum_{\underset{(k\neq l)}{k,l=1}}^{L}H_{2,kl}\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A_{k}},...,\overset{l}{A_{l}},...,A_{L};\gamma \right\rangle = \\
\\
=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\underset{(k\neq l)}{k,l=1}}^{L}H_{kl}\left( \Sigma
_{\gamma _{k}l}+\Sigma _{k\gamma _{l}}-\Sigma _{kl}-\Sigma _{\gamma
_{k}\gamma _{l}}\right) \\
\\
\left| A_{1},...,\overset{k}{A_{k}},...,\overset{l}{A_{l}},...,A_{L};\gamma
\right\rangle \Leftrightarrow \\
\\
\Leftrightarrow H_{2,kl}\left( \gamma \right) \equiv H_{2,kl}= \\
\\
=\frac{1}{2N}H_{kl}\left( \Sigma _{\gamma _{k}l}+\Sigma _{k\gamma
_{l}}-\Sigma _{kl}-\Sigma _{\gamma _{k}\gamma _{l}}\right) ,\text{ } \\
\\
\forall \left( k,l\right) \in \left\{ 1,...,L\right\} ^{2},k\neq l,
\end{array}$$ where, as previously mentioned, $H_{2,kl}$ is the ($\gamma
$-dependent) restriction of the 1-loop spin-bit Hamiltonian to the couple of sites $\left( k,l\right) \in \left\{ 1,...,L\right\} ^{2}$, $k\neq l$. 0 [.]{}[5.1.]{}
The planar limit
----------------
From Eq. (\[sigma-decomp\]), the planar limit $N\rightarrow
\infty $ affects just the (1-loop) “twist” operator in the following way: $$\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{N}\Sigma _{kl}=\delta _{kl}.
\label{sigma-planar}$$ Therefore the planar contributions to the 1-loop spin-bit Hamiltonian come from terms involving $\Sigma _{kk}$, i.e. from the cases $l=\gamma _{k}$ and $k=\gamma _{l}$ (because $k\neq l$); the final result is $$\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }H_{2,sb}=\sum_{k=1}^{L}H_{k\gamma
_{k}}=\sum_{k=1}^{L}H_{k,\left[ k+1\right] }=H_{2,sc}.$$ Otherwise speaking, by construction the planar limit of the 1-loop spin-bit Hamiltonian coincides with the 1-loop spin-chain Hamiltonian $H_{2,sc}$. 0 [.]{}[.]{}
Spin-bits in the $su(2)$ sector of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM
======================================================
We will now consider the “minimal” sector of $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM $SU(N) $ gauge theory, made by “purely-scalar” g.i. (polynomial) operators, i.e. by operators generated only by two holomorphic combinations of the real SYM scalars, which may be defined as $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Phi \equiv \phi ^{5}+i\phi ^{6}, \\
\\
Z\equiv \phi ^{1}+i\phi ^{2}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Thus, $\Phi $ and $Z$ will be the only SYM “letters” used to compose “words” and “sentences” in such an operator sector, which may be shown to be closed under the operator mixing due to perturbative renormalization of the theory. $\Phi $ and $Z$ will transform in the $2$-dim. $s=1/2$ fundamental repr. of $su(2)$, and therefore the whole sector will be $su(2)$-symmetric. Notice that $su(2)$ is the smallest non-trivial bosonic compact subalgebra of the whole $\mathcal{N}=4$ SCA $psu(2,2\mid 4)$, and the following chain of inclusions holds: $$\begin{aligned}
su(2) &\subset &so(6)\sim su(4)\subset so(4,2)\oplus su(4)\subset
psu(2,2\mid 4). \notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ A generic $M\left( \leqslant L\right) $-trace g.i. operator in such a $su(2)$ closed subsector reads $$\mathcal{O}\equiv \underset{L_{1}\text{ ``letters''}}{Tr\left(
\Phi Z\Phi \Phi ...\right) }\underset{L_{2}\text{
``letters''}}{Tr\left( \Phi \Phi \Phi Z...\right)
}...\underset{L_{M}\text{ ``letters''}}{Tr\left( \Phi ZZ\Phi
Z...\right) ,} \label{OM}$$ with $\sum_{r=1}^{M}L_{r}=L$.
As previously shown, we may use the isomorphic spin-bit map to equivalently represent $\mathcal{O}$ as $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{O}=\left( \phi ^{i_{1}}\right) ^{a_{1}a_{\gamma _{1}}}\left( \phi
^{i_{2}}\right) ^{a_{2}a_{\gamma _{2}}}...\left( \phi ^{i_{L}}\right)
^{a_{L}a_{\gamma _{L}}}\equiv \\
\\
\equiv \left| S;\gamma \right\rangle \equiv \left| S\right\rangle \otimes
_{S_{L}}\left| \gamma \right\rangle ,
\end{array}$$ where now the range of all “$i$-indices” of the scalars is $\left\{ \widehat{1},\widehat{2}\right\} $, with $\phi
^{\widehat{1}}\equiv \Phi $ and $\phi ^{\widehat{2}}\equiv Z$ by convention. In the case of Eq. (\[OM\]) we have $$S_{L}\ni \gamma =\left( L_{1}\right) \left( L_{2}\right) ...\left(
L_{M}\right) ,$$ with $\left( L_{r}\right) $ denoting a cyclic permutation of $L_{r}$ elements, $r=1,...,M\leqslant L$. The correspondence operated by the spin-bit map is completed by associating to each spin-chain site the spin value $\left| -1/2\right\rangle $ if we find $\Phi $ there, and $\left|
1/2\right\rangle $ if we find $Z$.
By specializing the general expression (\[Hkl\]) of the two-site Hamiltonian to the case of $2$-dim. $s=1/2$ (representation of) $su(2)$ symmetry, the final result is simply [@Beisert:2003jj]
$$H_{kl,su(2)}=2\left( 1-P_{kl}\right) ,$$
and therefore, by substituting it in the general formulae (\[rot-rot\]) and (\[rot-rot-rot\]), we obtain the 1-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian $H_{2,sb,su(2)}\equiv H_{2,su(2)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_{2,su(2)} &=&\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{k,l=1}^{L}H_{kl,su(2)}\left( \Sigma
_{\gamma _{k}l}+\Sigma _{k\gamma _{l}}-\Sigma _{kl}-\Sigma _{\gamma
_{k}\gamma _{l}}\right) = \notag \\
&& \notag \\
&=&\frac{2}{N}\sum_{k,l=1}^{L}\left( 1-P_{kl}\right) \Sigma _{k\gamma _{l}}.
\label{H2,su(2)}\end{aligned}$$ In the planar limit, by recalling Eq. (\[sigma-planar\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\begin{array}{l}
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }H_{2,su(2)}=2\sum_{k,l=1}^{L}\left(
1-P_{kl}\right) \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{N}\Sigma _{k\gamma _{l}}=
\\
\\
=2\sum_{k,l=1}^{L}\left( 1-P_{kl}\right) \\
\\
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{N}\left[ N\delta _{k\gamma _{l}}+\left(
1-\delta _{k\gamma _{l}}\right) \overline{\Sigma }_{k\gamma _{l}}\right] =
\\
\\
=2\sum_{k=1}^{L}\left( 1-P_{k\gamma _{k}}\right) =\sum_{k=1}^{L}H_{k\gamma
_{k},su(2)}= \\
\\
=H_{2,sc,su(2)}.
\end{array}
\notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the planar limit of the 1-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian coincides with the integrable $XXX_{s=1/2}$ Heisenberg $su(2)$ spin-chain Hamiltonian $H_{2,sc,su(2)}$ [@Faddeev:1996].
The expression (\[H2,su(2)\]) of $H_{2,su(2)}$ might also be obtained by starting from the known combinatorial formula of the 1-loop $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM effective vertex on the $su(2)$-symmetric closed subsector of “purely scalar” composite (polynomial) g.i. operators, reading [@Beisert:2003tq] $$H_{2}=-\frac{4}{N}:Tr\left( \left[ \Phi ,Z\right] \left[ \check{\Phi},\check{Z}\right] \right) :,$$ where $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\left( \check{\Phi}\right) ^{ab}\equiv \frac{\partial }{\partial \Phi ^{ba}},
\\
\\
\left( \check{Z}\right) ^{ab}\equiv \frac{\partial }{\partial Z^{ba}}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ 0 [.]{}[.]{}
$su(2)$ spin-bits at 2 loops
============================
The $su(2)$ sector of $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM is the only one, as far as we know, for which a detailed treatment of non-planar ($N<\infty $) 2-loop anomalous dimensions has been given. This is due to the noteworthy fact that a combinatorial formula of the 2-loop $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM effective vertex on the $su(2)$-symmetric closed subsector of “purely scalar” composite (polynomial) g.i. operators is known [@Beisert:2003tq]: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{4} &=&\frac{2}{N^{2}}\left[
\begin{array}{l}
:Tr\left( \left[ Z,\Phi \right] \left[ \check{Z},\left[ Z,\left[ \check{Z},\check{\Phi}\right] \right] \right] \right) :+ \\
\\
+:Tr\left( \left[ Z,\Phi \right] \left[ \check{\Phi},\left[ \Phi ,\left[
\check{Z},\check{\Phi}\right] \right] \right] \right) :+ \\
\\
+2N:Tr\left( \left[ \Phi ,Z\right] \left[ \check{\Phi},\check{Z}\right]
\right) :
\end{array}
\right] . \notag \\
&&\end{aligned}$$ By applying such a combinatorial formula on a generic $su(2)$-symmetric $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM operator/spin-bit state $\left| S;\gamma
\right\rangle $, we obtain, after some permutational algebra and technical tricks, the following expression for the 2-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian $H_{4,sb,su(2)}\equiv H_{4,su(2)}$ : $$H_{4,su(2)}=\frac{2}{N^{2}}\sum_{k,l,m=1}^{L}\left(
2P_{lm}+2P_{kl}-P_{km}-3\right) \Sigma _{klm}\left( \gamma \right) ,
\label{H4,su(2)}$$ where $\Sigma _{klm}\left( \gamma \right) $ is the ($su(2)$) 2-loop “twist” operator, acting on $\zeta _{L}$, and defined as $$\Sigma _{klm}\left( \gamma \right) \equiv \Sigma _{k\gamma
_{l}}\Sigma _{l\gamma _{m}}.$$ 0 [.]{}[7.1.]{}
The planar limit
----------------
From Eq. (\[sigma-decomp\]), the planar limit $N\rightarrow
\infty $ affects just $\Sigma _{klm}\left( \gamma \right) $ in the following way: $$\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{N^{2}}\Sigma _{klm}\left(
\gamma \right) =\delta _{k\gamma _{l}}\delta _{l\gamma _{m}}.$$ Therefore, we obtain $$\begin{array}{l}
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty }H_{4,su(2)}=2\sum_{k=1}^{L}\left( 4P_{k\gamma
_{k}}-P_{k\gamma _{k}^{2}}-3\right) = \\
\\
=2\sum_{k=1}^{L}\left( 4P_{k,\left[ k+1\right] }-P_{k,\left[
k+2\right] }-3\right) =H_{4,sc,su(2)}.
\end{array}$$ Otherwise speaking, by construction the planar limit of the 2-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian coincides with the integrable $su(2)$ spin-chain Hamiltonian $H_{4,sc,su(2)}$, which in turn corresponds to an integrable (higher-order) deformation of the previously mentioned $XXX_{s=1/2}$ Heisenberg $su(2)$ spin-chain Hamiltonian $H_{2,sc,su(2)}$ [@Beisert:2003jb; @Beisert:2003tq; @Beisert:2004di]. 0
$su(2)$ spin-bits beyond 2 loops
================================
0 [.]{}[8.1.]{}
The “deplanarizing operator lifts” (d.o.l.) method
--------------------------------------------------
$su(2)$-symmetric spin-chain Hamiltonians are known explicitly up to (and including) 5 loops [@Beisert:2003jb; @Beisert:2003tq]. Unfortunately, combinatorial formulae for the SYM effective vertices in the $su(2)$ sector are not known beyond 2 loops, and therefore higher-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonians are not directly obtainable as in the cases of 1 and 2 loops. Thus, other approaches have to be pursued in order to derive them. After the failure of the elegant and geometrically meaningful “spin-edge differences” Ansätze [@Bellucci:2005ma2], the only planarly-consistent, fully testable set of conjectures for the higher-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonians are those obtained by applying the recently proposed [@Bellucci:2005ma2; @Bellucci:2005ma3] “deplanarizing operator lifts” (“d.o.l.") method, eventually with the additional hypothesis of “symmetrization of deplanarizing operator splittings” (hp. “s.d.o.s.”).
In the following we will present such a deplanarizing approach in a sketchy, algorithmic way, addressing the interested reader to the original literature for further elucidations.
The d.o.l. algorithm may be realized through the following steps:
$1$) we have to start from the known planar results for the Hamiltonian. Since the non-planar $1$- and $2$-loop orders are already known and have been previously treated, we have to consider the $3$-, $4$- and $5$-loop expressions of the**planar $su(2)$ spin-chain Hamiltonian [@Beisert:2003jb; @Beisert:2003tq](*input* of the deplanarizing algorithm);
$2$) then, we have to perform the (non-reductive) conventional site-index identifications $$l=k+1,\text{ }m=k+2,\text{ }...;$$
$3$) therefore, we have to consider all possible products of operators $P$’s that, in the planar limit, would give the considered planar permutational term; this will determine some proper “deplanarizing operator lifts”. All such non-planar permutational terms will come with free (real) coefficients, constrained by two requests:
$3.i$) their algebraic sum must give the right numerical known coefficient of the considered planar permutational term;
$3.ii$) they must make the spin part of the non-planar Hamiltonian completely symmetric under the particular, inverting exchange of site indices $$\left( k,l,...,r,s\right) \leftrightarrow \left( s,r,...,l,k\right) ,
\label{exchange}$$ as requested by the site index structure determined by the “linking" part.
$4$) Indeed, for what concerns the “linking" part of the Hamiltonian, i.e. the “twisting” operators $\Sigma $’s, we may generalize the “linking" part of Eqs. (\[H2,su(2)\]) and (\[H4,su(2)\]) by introducing the ($S_{L}\ni \gamma $-dependent) “splitting and joining chain operator of order $n$” as $$\Sigma _{k_{1}k_{2}...k_{n+1}}\left( \gamma \right) \equiv \Sigma
_{k_{1}\gamma _{k_{2}}}\Sigma _{k_{2}\gamma _{k_{3}}}...\Sigma
_{k_{n-1}\gamma _{k_{n}}}\Sigma _{k_{n}\gamma _{k_{n+1}}}.$$
$5$) Generally, at higher-loop orders, some (real) parameters still remain undetermined at this step. In order to obtain a completely determined expression of the higher-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian as output of the proposed deplanarization procedure, we may proceed as follows.
As a reasonable conjecture, we may formulate an additional assumption, that we are going to call hypothesis of “symmetrization of deplanarizing operator splittings” (hp. “s.d.o.s.”). This conjecture has to be applied *after* the symmetrization of the non-planar terms with respect to the peculiar renaming of spin-chain site indices given by (\[exchange\]); it amounts to say that each of the sets of non-planar terms arising from a considered planar term in the deplanarization procedure will *equally* contribute in the planar limit $N\rightarrow \infty $.
For example, if, after the symmetrization with respect to (\[exchange\]), a planar term $\Im $ is deplanarized by the $3$-fold splitting $$\Im \rightarrow a_{1}\Im _{M_{1}}+a_{2}\Im _{M_{2}}+a_{3}\Im _{M_{3}},
\label{split1}$$ where $\Im _{M_{1}}$, $\Im _{M_{2}}$ and $\Im _{M_{3}}$ are respectively sets consisting of $M_{1}$, $M_{2}$ and $M_{3}$ non-planar terms made by permutation operators, then we will assume that $$M_{1}a_{1}=M_{2}a_{2}=M_{3}a_{3}.$$ Hence the contribution of $\Im _{M_{1}}$, $\Im _{M_{2}}$ and $\Im _{M_{3}}$ to the planar limit $\Im $ is the same, and therefore the operator splitting given by (\[split1\]) may be considered symmetric.
As it will be seen explicitly further below at 3-loops, this additional hypothesis will allow to fix *all* the free real parameters, otherwise necessarily introduced by the deplanarizing operator lifts acting at the considered higher-loop order. Notice that the constraints $3.i$ and $3.ii$ are implied by the hp. s.d.o.s. .
Thus, a complete Ansatz for the $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian at the considered loop order is obtained[^2] (*output* of the deplanarizing algorithm). 0 [.]{}[8.2.]{}
Application at 3 loops
----------------------
Let us consider an explicit example of application of the described method, in order to build a consistent Ansatz for the expression of the $3$-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian. Let us follow the previously mentioned steps:
$1$) we start from the known expression of $H_{6,sc,su(2)}$, namely the 3-loop, integrable, perturbative deformation of the $XXX_{s=1/2}$ Heisenberg $su(2)$ spin-chain Hamiltonian $H_{2,sc,su(2)}$ [@Beisert:2003jb; @Beisert:2003tq; @Beisert:2004di], given by (*input* of the deplanarizing algorithm for $n=3$-loop order) $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\begin{array}{l}
H_{6,sc,su(2)}= \\
\\
=4\sum_{k=1}^{L}\left[
\begin{array}{l}
15-26P_{k,k+1}+ \\
\\
+6\left( P_{k,k+1}P_{k+1,k+2}+P_{k+1,k+2}P_{k,k+1}\right) + \\
\\
+P_{k,k+1}P_{k+2,k+3}+ \\
\\
-(P_{k,k+1}P_{k+1,k+2}P_{k+2,k+3}+ \\
\\
+P_{k+2,k+3}P_{k+1,k+2}P_{k,k+1})
\end{array}
\right] ;
\end{array}
\notag \\
&&\label{D6}\end{aligned}$$
$2$) we conventionally identify (without loss of generality) the spin-chain site indices in the following way: $$\text{ \ }l\equiv k+1,\text{ \ }m\equiv k+2,\text{ \ }n\equiv k+3;$$
$3$) therefore, we have to find *all* possible non-planar permutational terms giving rise, in the planar limit $N\rightarrow
\infty $, to each of the permutational terms of $H_{6,sc,su(2)}$ given by Eq. (\[D6\]).
$3.i$) We have that:
$3.i.a$) the planar term $P_{k,k+1}$ receives three contributions from the non-planar level, respectively from $P_{k,k+1}=P_{kl}$, $P_{k+1,k+2}=P_{lm}$ and $P_{k+2,k+3}=P_{mn}$, whence the proper “deplanarizing operator lift” of $P_{k\gamma _{k}}$ reads ($\xi
_{1},\xi _{2}\in R$) $$-26P_{k,k+1}\rightarrow \xi _{1}P_{kl}+\xi _{2}P_{lm}-(26+\xi _{1}+\xi
_{2})P_{mn};$$
$3.i.b$) the planar-level product $P_{k,k+1}P_{k+1,k+2}$ instead receives contribution just from two non-planar terms, i.e. $P_{k,k+1}P_{k+1,k+2}=P_{kl}P_{lm}$ and $P_{k+1,k+2}P_{k+2,k+3}=P_{lm}P_{mn}$, whence the proper “deplanarizing operator lift” of the term $P_{k,k+1}P_{k+1,k+2}$ reads ($\xi _{3}\in R$) $$6P_{k,k+1}P_{k+1,k+2}\rightarrow \xi _{3}P_{kl}P_{lm}+\left( 6-\xi
_{3}\right) P_{lm}P_{mn};$$
$3.i.c$) analogously, for the other terms of $H_{6,sc,su(2)}$ we obtain the following proper “deplanarizing operator lifts” ($\xi
_{4}\in R$): $$\begin{array}{l}
6P_{k+1,k+2}P_{k,k+1}\rightarrow \xi _{4}P_{lm}P_{kl}+\left( 6-\xi
_{4}\right) P_{mn}P_{lm}, \\
\\
P_{k,k+1}P_{k+2,k+3}\rightarrow P_{kl}P_{mn}, \\
\\
P_{k,k+1}P_{k+1,k+2}P_{k+2,k+3}\rightarrow P_{kl}P_{lm}P_{mn}, \\
\\
P_{k+2,k+3}P_{k+1,k+2}P_{k,k+1}\rightarrow P_{mn}P_{lm}P_{kl};
\end{array}$$
$3.ii$) thence, we impose the symmetry of the spin part under the site index exchange $$\left( k,l,m,n\right) \leftrightarrow \left( n,m,l,k\right) ;$$ the imposition of such a condition on the spin part decreases the number of free (real) parameters from four to two, thence renamed $\eta _{1}$ and $\eta _{2}$;
$4$) finally, we put $$\frac{1}{N^{3}}\Sigma _{klmn}\left( \gamma \right) =\frac{1}{N^{3}}\Sigma
_{k\gamma _{l}}\Sigma _{l\gamma _{m}}\Sigma _{m\gamma _{n}}$$ as the linking variable part.
Thus, we may finally write the most general expression of the $3$-loop $su(2) $ spin-bit Hamiltonian ($\eta _{1},\eta _{2}\in R$): $$\begin{gathered}
H_{6,su(2)}\left( \eta _{1},\eta _{2}\right) =\frac{4}{N^{3}}\sum_{k,l,m,n=1}^{L} \label{H6,su(2)free} \\
\notag \\
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
15+\eta _{1}\left( P_{kl}+P_{mn}\right) -2\left( \eta _{1}+13\right) P_{lm}+
\\
\\
+\eta _{2}\left( P_{kl}P_{lm}+P_{mn}P_{lm}\right) + \\
\\
+\left( 6-\eta _{2}\right) \left( P_{lm}P_{kl}+P_{lm}P_{mn}\right) + \\
\\
+P_{kl}P_{mn}-P_{kl}P_{lm}P_{mn}-P_{mn}P_{lm}P_{kl}
\end{array}
\right] \Sigma _{k\gamma _{l}}\Sigma _{l\gamma _{m}}\Sigma _{m\gamma _{n}}.
\notag\end{gathered}$$
Formulating the hp. s.d.o.s.* *we get $\left( \eta _{1},\eta
_{2}\right) =\left( -\frac{13}{2},3\right) $, and therefore we obtain a *completely fixed* expression for the $3$-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian (*output* of the deplanarizing algorithm for $n=3$-loop order): $$\begin{gathered}
H_{6,su(2)}=\frac{4}{N^{3}}\sum_{k,l,m,n=1}^{L} \label{H6,su(2)} \\
\notag \\
\left[
\begin{array}{l}
15-\frac{13}{2}\left( P_{kl}+P_{lm}+P_{mn}\right) + \\
\\
+3\left( P_{kl}P_{lm}+P_{mn}P_{lm}+\right. \\
\\
\left. +P_{lm}P_{kl}+P_{lm}P_{mn}\right) + \\
\\
+P_{kl}P_{mn}-P_{kl}P_{lm}P_{mn}-P_{mn}P_{lm}P_{kl}
\end{array}
\right] \Sigma _{k\gamma _{l}}\Sigma _{l\gamma _{m}}\Sigma _{m\gamma _{n}}.
\notag\end{gathered}$$
Analogous, more and more involved, expressions for the $4$- and $5$-loops $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonian (with or without the additional hp. s.d.o.s.) have been obtained by applying the d.o.l. method [@Bellucci:2005ma2; @Bellucci:2005ma3]. 0 [.]{}[.]{}
Outlook and further developments
================================
The d.o.l. method [@Bellucci:2005ma3] is fully compatible with (independently obtained) known results at the $1$- and $2$-loop, non-planar level [@Bellucci:2004ru; @Bellucci:2004qx; @Bellucci:2005ma1], and it allows one to obtain explicit formulae for the $3$-, $4$- and $5$-loop $su(2) $ spin-bit Hamiltonians. By construction, such expressions are planarly-consistent, i.e. they have the correct planar limit, matching the known results reported in the literature (see e.g. [@Beisert:2003jb; @Beisert:2003tq; @Beisert:2004di]).
It is also worth noticing that, by construction, all the higher-loop $su(2)$ spin-bit Hamiltonians (for 3-loops, see Eqs. (\[H6,su(2)free\]) and (\[H6,su(2)\])) show an explicit full factorization in the spin and chain-splitting parts; as already pointed out in [@Bellucci:2005ma1], such a property is expected to hold at every loop order, since the Hilbert space of the spin-bit model $\mathcal{H}_{sb}$ is given by the direct product (modulo the action of the permutation group $S_{L}$) of the spin-chain Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{sc}$ and of the linking space $\zeta _{L}$.
Attention must also be paid to the fact that, while (both at non-planar and planar level) the $1$- and $2$-loop formulae for the $su(2)$ Hamiltonians are *linear* in the site permutation operators $P$’s, the $3$-, $4$- and $5$-loop level expressions, both at non-planar and planar level, show a non-linearity (and non-linearizability) in $P$’s. For example, the non-linearizability of the $3$-loop $su(2)$ spin-chain Hamiltonian (\[D6\]) caused the failure of the elegant and geometrically meaningful “spin edge-differences” [@Bellucci:2005ma2] approach to higher-loop Ansätze.
Thus, the non-linearity (and non-linearizability) in site permutation operators seems to be a crucial and fundamental feature, starting to hold at the $3$-loop order, of the spin part of the Hamiltonian of the $su(2)$ spin-bit model, underlying the non-planar dynamics of the $su(2)$ sector of the $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM theory. Reasonably, one would expect that such a breakdown of “permutational linearizability” at $3$ loops (for the first evidences from $3$-loop calculations, see e.g. [@Beisert:2003jb; @Beisert:2003tq]; for further subsequent developments see e.g. [@Tseytlin:2004xa; @Tseytlin:2003ac; @D'Hoker:2003]) gives rise, by means of the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena:1998re; @Gubser:1998bc], to some “new” features in the dynamics of the (closed) superstrings in the bulk of $AdS_{5}\times S^{5}$. Actually, in the AdS/CFT correspondence framework, there is a problem of discrepancy between the calculations made with fast spinning, semiclassical strings (i.e. in the so-called Frolov-Tseytlin limit) and the calculations made in the thermodynamical limit of long spin-chains with a large number of excitations (i.e. the so-called Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase limit) (see e.g. [@Beisert:2004di] and Refs. therein). Such a disagreement starts to hold at 3 loops, and it is one of the most intriguing “mysteries" of the AdS/CFT conjecture. Recently, an explanation for such $3$- and higher-loop disagreement has been proposed: it should be related to an “order-of-limit" non-commutation problem in the perturbative expansions and thermodynamical asymptotical regimes or, equivalently, to the presence of operational “wrapping" interactions (see e.g. [@Beisert:2004di; @Beisert:2004cr]). Conjecturally, we may here put forward the suggestion that the breakdown of “permutational linearizability” of $su(2)$ spin-chain/spin-bit Hamiltonians, which starts to hold at $3$ loops, could be related to such a “$3$-loop discrepancy mystery" in AdS/CFT, and possibly it could be extended also to larger symmetries inside $psu(2,2|4)$.
Also, the application of the d.o.l. method, originally introduced for the Hamiltonian, to the higher-order charges of the $su(2)$ spin-chain model [@Bellucci:2005ma3] raises some interesting and intriguing questions, such as:
$1$) the d.o.l. appears to be consistent only for odd higher-order charges, sharing the symmetry properties of the Hamiltonian. Thus, the extension of the deplanarization procedure to even higher-order charges, and in general to antisymmetric operators, should be needed, in order to have a complete deplanarizing algorithm for the local operators in $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM theory;
$2$) we know that the spectrum of the (perturbatively expanded) Hamiltonian of the spin-chain/spin-bit model is related to the spectrum of the (perturbatively expanded) anomalous dimensions and mixing of local operators on the $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ $SU(N)$ SYM gauge theory side of AdS/CFT. Then a natural question [@Beisert:2003tq] to ask is: *do the spectra of the higher-order planar charges (and of their deplanarized counterparts) have a physical meaning in* $\mathcal{N}=4$*SYM ?*
The deep question is evidently: *why does exact integrability seem to hold for every loop-order in the planar* $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$* SYM* [@Serban:2004jf; @Beisert:2004di; @Aru; @Beisert:2005st]*, and why and how is it lost at the non-planar level?*
By the way, even if the exact (classical) integrability is lost when deplanarizing, i.e. when passing from the (all-loop) $su(2)$ Heisenberg spin-chain to the (all-loop) $su(2)$ spin-bit model, nevertheless we may put forward the following intriguing suggestion: could the $su(2)$ spin-bit model still be an integrable model, but in a sort of generalized, broader sense, e.g. in the sense of *quasi-integrability* and *quasi-exact solvability* (see e.g. [@Falqui:1992]) or *quantum-integrability* (see e.g. [@Kazakov:2004])?
If yes, then in general the deplanarization procedure here presented might algebraically correspond to some kind of *“deformation”* of the (dynamical) symmetries of the system being considered, and thence of the structure and properties of its (eventually conserved) charges.
In our opinion, this is an interesting problem, strictly related to the consistent definition of the higher-order charges of the spin-bits as the deplanarization of the infinitely many conserved charges of the spin-chains, and it is currently under study.
Moreover, we notice that it would be interesting, following recent research directions, to extend the considered deplanarizing method to other operatorial sectors of the $\mathcal{N}=4,d=4$ SYM theory [@Bellucci:2005np1]. Indeed, sectors with non-compact symmetries have been shown to be relevant, in order to describe the renormalization in the large $N_{c}$ (non-)SUSY QCD, also in relation with the attempts to construct a string description of QCD (see e.g. [@Ferretti:2004-1] and Refs. therein).
Finally, some possible additional directions for further research are briefly summarized as follows:
- All the spin-chain/spin-bit models treated so far are characterized by periodic boundary conditions, corresponding to closed chains. The possibility to modify the boundary conditions yields open spin-chain models, corresponding to a dynamical discretization of the open strings [@Wu:2004jh]. The issue of deplanarizability, and the related problem of integrability, of such models remains to be discussed.
- In general, the spin-bits may be considered as a dynamical polymer model with decaying and fusing chains; potential applications to relativity theory [@Ashtekar:1996int], field theory [@Bergman:1997npb] and biophysics could be addressed.
- Interesting analogies could be explored with the spin-network approach to discrete quantum gravity [@Penrose:1971].
- The above mentioned non-planar permutational identities could be linked to the random graph theory on a lattice [@Bellucci:2005ma2].
- The spin representation of the permutation operators in the $su(2)$ sector leads to some “generalized” Fierz identities for Pauli $\sigma $ matrices [@Bellucci:2005ma2], deserving a more detailed analysis.
- An alternative approach to the calculation of anomalous dimensions in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM is based on matrix models [@Agarwal], which can be also formulated in terms of a non-commutative field theory on a torus [@Bellucci:2004rua; @Sochichiu:2002], and whose equivalence with spin-chain/spin-bit models in the $N\rightarrow \infty $ (planar) and $N\rightarrow 0^{+}$ limits is still under study. An interesting direction of research to be pursued would be the formulation of such matrix models on other “fuzzy" manifolds, such as the “fuzzy sphere" [@Valtancoli:2002], and the study of the relation of such non-toroidal “fuzzy" matrix models with the initial non-commutative torus representation.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
Most of the results here presented have been obtained during the last years by the LNF team, directed by S. Bellucci, and composed, beside the author, by P.-Y. Casteill, F. Morales and C. Sochichiu. I would like to gratefully acknowledge stimulating discussions with all of them.
[99]{} G. ’t Hooft, “A planar diagram theory for strong interactions”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B72** (1974) 461.
A. A. Tseytlin, “Semiclassical strings and AdS/CFT”, contribution to the Proceedings of Cargese Summer School, June 7-19, 2004, [`hep-th/0409296`]{}.
J. M. Maldacena, “The large [N]{} limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity”, *Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.* **2** (1998) 231, [`hep-th/9711200`]{}.
S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory”, *Phys. Lett.* **B428** (1998) 105, [`hep-th/9802109`]{}.
D. Berenstein, J. M. Maldacena, and H. Nastase, “Strings in flat space and pp waves from $\mathcal{N}=4$ super [Yang]{} [Mills]{}”, *JHEP* **04** (2002) 013, [`hep-th/0202021`]{}.
D. Berenstein and H. Nastase, “On lightcone string field theory from super [Yang]{}–[Mills]{} and holography”, [`hep-th/0205048`]{}.
D. Berenstein, E. Gava, J. M. Maldacena, K. S. Narain, and H. Nastase, “Open strings on plane waves and their [Yang–Mills]{} duals”, [`hep-th/0203249`]{}.
A. A. Tseytlin, “On semiclassical approximation and spinning string vertex operators in $AdS_{5}\times S^{5}$”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B664** (2003) 247, [`hep-th/0304139`]{}.
S. Frolov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Multi-spin string solutions in $AdS_{5}\times S^{5}$”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B668** (2003) 77, [`hep-th/0304255`]{}.
S. Frolov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Rotating string solutions: [AdS/CFT]{} duality in non- supersymmetric sectors”, *Phys. Lett.* **B570** (2003) 96, [`hep-th/0306143`]{}.
N. Beisert, S. Frolov, M. Staudacher, and A. A. Tseytlin, “Precision spectroscopy of [AdS/CFT]{}”, *JHEP* **10** (2003) 037, [`hep-th/0308117`]{}.
A. Agarwal and S. G. Rajeev, “ The Dilatation Operator of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM and Classical Limits of Spin Chains and Matrix Models”, *Mod. Phys. Lett.* **A19** (2004) 2549, `hep-th/0405116` $\bullet$ A. Agarwal and S. G. Rajeev, “ Yangian Symmetries of Matrix Models and Spin Chains : The Dilatation Operator of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM”, *Int. J. Mod. Phys.* **A20** (2005) 5453-5490, `hep-th/0409180`.
S. Bellucci and C. Sochichiu, “On matrix models for anomalous dimensions of super Yang-Mills theory”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B726** (2005) 233-251, [`hep-th/0410010`]{}.
S. Bellucci and C. Sochichiu, “On the dynamics of BMN operators of finite size and the model of string bits”, Contribution to the BW2003 Workshop, 29 August - 02 September, 2003 Vrnjacka Banja, Serbia, [`hep-th/0404143`]{} $\bullet$ S. Bellucci and C. Sochichiu, “Can string bits be supersymmetric?”, *Phys. Lett.* **B571** (2003) 92, [`hep-th/0307253`]{} $\bullet$ S. Bellucci and C. Sochichiu, “Fermion Doubling and Berenstein–Maldacena–Nastase Correspondence”, *Phys. Lett.* **B564** (2003) 115, [`hep-th/0302104`]{}.
M. Blau, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. Hull, and G. Papadopoulos, “A new maximally supersymmetric background of [IIB]{} superstring theory”, *JHEP* [**01**]{} (2002) 047, [ hep-th/0110242]{}.
M. Blau, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, C. Hull, and G. Papadopoulos, “Penrose limits and maximal supersymmetry”, *Class. Quant. Grav.* [**19**]{} (2002) L87, [hep-th/0201081]{}.
M. Blau, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, and G. Papadopoulos, “Penrose limits, supergravity and brane dynamics”, *Class. Quant. Grav.* [**19**]{} (2002) 4753, [hep-th/0202111]{}.
R. R. Metsaev, “Type [IIB]{} [Green]{}-[Schwarz]{} superstring in plane wave [Ramond]{}–[Ramond]{} background”, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B625**]{} (2002) 70, [hep-th/0112044]{}.
R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, “Exactly solvable model of superstring in plane wave [Ramond]{}–[Ramond]{} background”, *Phys. Rev.* [**D65**]{} (2002) 126004, [hep-th/0202109]{}.
C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka, G. W. Semenoff, and M. Staudacher, “A new double-scaling limit of $N = 4$ super Yang–Mills theory and pp-wave strings”, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B643**]{} (2002) 3, [hep-th/0205033]{} $\bullet$ D. J. Gross, A. Mikhailov, and R. Roiban, “Operators with large $R$ charge in $N = 4$ Yang–Mills theory”, *Annals Phys.* [**301**]{} (2002) 31, [hep-th/0205066]{} $\bullet$ N. R. Constable *et. al.*, “pp-wave string interactions from perturbative Yang–Mills theory”, *JHEP* [**07**]{} (2002) 017, [hep-th/0205089]{} $\bullet$ N. Beisert, C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka, G. W. Semenoff, and M. Staudacher, “[BMN]{} correlators and operator mixing in [$N=4$]{} super Yang–Mills theory”, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B650**]{} (2003) 125, [hep-th/0208178]{} $\bullet$ N. R. Constable, D. Z. Freedman, M. Headrick, and S. Minwalla, “Operator mixing and the BMN correspondence”, *JHEP* [**10**]{} (2002) 068, [hep-th/0209002]{} $\bullet$ M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, “Note on plane wave quantum mechanics”, *Phys. Lett.* [**B565**]{} (2003) 253, [hep-th/0303220]{}.
M. Spradlin and A. Volovich, “Light-cone string field theory in a plane wave”, Lectures at the ICTP Spring School on Superstring Theory and Related Topics, Trieste, 31 March–8 April 2003, [hep-th/0310033]{} $\bullet$ R. Russo and A. Tanzini, “The duality between IIB string theory on pp-wave and $N = 4$ SYM: A status report”, *Class. Quant. Grav.* **21** (2004) S1265, [hep-th/0401155]{}.
N. Beisert, “The complete one-loop dilatation operator of $\mathcal{N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B676** (2004) 3, [`hep-th/0307015`]{}.
J. A. Minahan and K. Zarembo, “The [Bethe–Ansatz for]{} $\mathcal{N}=4$ super [Yang–Mills]{}”, *JHEP* **03** (2003) 013, [`hep-th/0212208`]{}.
N. Beisert, “The dilatation operator of $\mathcal{N}{=4}$ super [Yang–Mills]{} theory and integrability”, *Phys. Rept.* **405** (2005) 1, [`hep-th/0407277`]{}.
D. Serban and M. Staudacher, “Planar $\mathcal{N}=4 $ gauge theory and the Inozemtsev long range spin chain”, *JHEP* **0406** (2004) 001, [`hep-th/0401057`]{}.
N. Beisert, “Higher loops, integrability and the near BMN limit”, *JHEP* **0309** (2003) 062, [`hep-th/0308074`]{}.
H. Verlinde, “Bits, matrices and [1/N]{}”, *JHEP* **0312** (2003) 052, [hep-th/0206059]{} $\bullet$ J.-G. Zhou, “pp-wave string interactions from string bit model”, *Phys. Rev.* **D67** (2003) 026010, [[hep-th/0208232]{}]{} $\bullet$ D. Vaman and H. Verlinde, “Bit strings from [N]{} = 4 gauge theory”, *JHEP* **0311** (2003) 041, [[hep-th/0209215]{}]{}.
U. Danielsson, F. Kristiansson, M. Lubcke, and K. Zarembo, “String bits without doubling”, *JHEP* **0310** (2003) 026, [[hep-th/0306147]{}]{}.
N. Beisert, C. Kristjansen, and M. Staudacher, “The dilatation operator of $\mathcal{N}{=4}$ super [Yang–Mills]{} theory”, *Nucl. Phys.* ** B664** (2003) 131, [`hep-th/0303060`]{}.
N. Beisert, C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka, and M. Staudacher, “[BMN]{} gauge theory as a quantum mechanical system”, *Phys. Lett.* **B558** (2003) 229, [`hep-th/0212269`]{}.
S. Bellucci, P. Y. Casteill, J. F. Morales, and C. Sochichiu, “Spin bit models from non-planar $\mathcal{N}=4$ [SYM]{}”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B699** (2004) 151, [`hep-th/0404066`]{}.
S. Bellucci, P. Y. Casteill, J. F. Morales, and C. Sochichiu, “Chaining spins from (super)[Yang–Mills]{}”, contribution to the XI International Conference on Symmetry Methods in Physics (SYMPHYS-11) (2004), [`hep-th/0408102`]{}.
S. Bellucci, P. Y. Casteill, A. Marrani and C. Sochichiu, “Spin bits at two loops”, *Phys. Lett.* ** B607** (2005) 180, [`hep-th/0411261`]{}.
V. E. R. Lemes, M. S. Sarandy, S. P. Sorella, O. S. Ventura and L. C. Q. Vilar, “An algebraic criterion for the ultraviolet finiteness of quantum field theories”, *J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.* ** 34** (2001) 9485, [`hep-th/0103110`]{}.
S. Bellucci and A. Marrani, “Non-Planar Spin Bits beyond two loops”, [`hep-th/0505106`]{}.
A. Kundu, “New nonultralocal quantum integrable models through gauge transformation”, [`hep-th/0207036`]{} $\bullet$ A. Kundu, “Ultralocal solutions for quantum integrable nonultralocal models”, *Phys. Lett.* ** B550** (2002) 128, [`hep-th/0208147`]{}.
L. D. Faddeev, “How algebraic Bethe Ansatz works for integrable models”, in *”Les Houches 1995, Relativistic gravitation and gravitational radiation”*, 149 (1971) [`hep-th/9605187`]{}.
N. Beisert, V. Dippel and M. Staudacher, “A Novel Long-Range Spin Chain and Planar $\mathcal{N}{=4}$ [super Yang-Mills]{}”, *JHEP* **0407** (2004) 075, [`hep-th/0405001`]{}.
S. Bellucci and A. Marrani, “Deplanarization methods for Hamiltonian and higher-order charges in spin-bit models”, in preparation.
E. D’Hoker, P. Heslop, P. Howe and A. V. Ryzhov, “Systematics of quarter BPS operators in $\mathcal{N}{=4}$[ SYM”, ]{}*JHEP* **0304** (2003) 038, [`hep-th/0301104`]{} $\bullet$ A. V. Ryzhov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Towards the exact dilatation operator of $\mathcal{N}{=4}$ super [Yang–Mills]{} theory”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B698** (2004) 132, [`hep-th/0404215`]{} $\bullet$ M. Kruczenski, A. V. Ryzhov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Large spin limit of $AdS_{5}\times S^{5}$ string theory and low energy expansion of ferromagnetic spin-chains”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B692** (2004) 3, [`hep-th/0403120`]{}.
N. Beisert, “Higher-Loop Integrability in $\mathcal{N}{=4}$ Gauge Theory”, *Comptes Rendus Physique* **5** (2004) 1039, [`hep-th/0409147`]{}.
N. Beisert and M. Staudacher, “Long Range $psu(2,2|4)$ Bethe Ansätze for Gauge Theory and Strings”, [`hep-th/0504190`]{}.
G. Arutyunov, S. Frolov, J. Russo and A. A. Tseytlin, “Spinning strings in $AdS_{5}\times
S^{5}$ and integrable systems,” *Nucl. Phys.* **B671** (2003) 3, `hep-th/0307191` $\bullet$ G. Arutyunov and M. Staudacher, “Matching higher conserved charges for strings and spins,” *JHEP* [**0403**]{} (2004) 004, `hep-th/0310182` $\bullet$ G. Arutyunov, S. Frolov and M. Staudacher, “Bethe ansatz for quantum strings,” *JHEP* 0410 (2004) 016, `hep-th/0406256`.
G. Falqui, C.-M. Viallet, “Singularity, complexity, and quasi-integrability of rational mappings”, *Commun. Math. Phys.* **154** (1993), 111, [`hep-th/9212105`]{} $\bullet$ S. Klishevich, “Quasi-exact solvability and intertwining relations”, [`hep-th/0410064`]{} $\bullet$ D. Gomez-Ullate, N. Kamran and R. Milson, “Quasi-exact solvability and the direct approach to invariant subspaces”, *J. Phys.* **A38** (2005), 2005, `nlin.SI`[`/0401030`]{}.
V. A. Kazakov and K. Zarembo, “Classical/quantum integrability in non-compact sector of AdS/CFT”, *JHEP* **0410** (2004) 060, [`hep-th/0410105`]{} $\bullet$ V. A. Kazakov, A. Marshakov, J. A. Minahan and K. Zarembo, “Classical/quantum integrability in AdS/CFT”, *JHEP* **0405** (2004) 024, [`hep-th/0402207`]{} $\bullet$ O. Babelon and M. Talon, “Riemann surfaces, separation of variables and classical and quantum integrability”, *Phys. Lett.* **A312** (2003), 71, [`hep-th/0209071`]{}.
S. Bellucci, P. Y. Casteill, J. F. Morales, and C. Sochichiu, “$SL(2)$ spin chain and spinning strings on $AdS_{5}\times
S^{5}$”, *Nucl. Phys.* ** B707** (2005) 303, [`hep-th/0409086`]{} $\bullet$ S. Bellucci, P. Y. Casteill, and J. F. Morales, “Superstring sigma models from spin chains: the $SU(1,1|1)$ case”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B** (in press), [`hep-th/0503159`]{}.
G. Ferretti, R. Heise and K. Zarembo, “New integrable structures in Large-N QCD”, *Phys. Rev.* **D70** (2004) 074024, `hep-th/0404187` $\bullet$ N. Beisert, G. Ferretti, R. Heise and K. Zarembo, “One Loop QCD Spin Chain and its Spectrum”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B717** (2005) 137, `hep-th/0412029`.
B. Chen, X.-J. Wang and Y.-S. Wu, “Integrable Open Spin Chain in Super Yang-Mills and the Plane-wave/SYM duality”, *JHEP* **0402** (2004) 029, `hep-th/0401016` $\bullet$ B. Chen, X.-J. Wang and Y.-S. Wu, “Open Spin Chain and Open Spinning String”, *Phys. Lett.* **B591** (2004), 170, [`hep-th/0403004`]{}.
A. Ashtekar, “Polymer geometry at Planck scale and quantum Einstein equations”, *Int. J. Mod. Phys.* **D5**, 629 (1996), `hep-th/9601054` $\bullet$ S. Kalyana Rama, “Size of balck holes through polymer scaling”, *Phys. Lett.* **B424** (1998), 39, [`hep-th/9710035`]{} $\bullet$ R. R. Khuri, “Black holes and strings: the polymer link”, *Mod. Phys. Lett.* **A13** : 1407 (1998), `gr-qc/9803095`.
O. Bergman and C. B. Thorn, “The size of a polymer of string bits: a numerical investigation”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B502** (1997) 309, [`hep-th/9702068`]{} $\bullet$ A. Ashtekar, J. Lewandowski and H. Sahlmann, “Polymer and Fock representations for a scalar field”, *Class. Quant. Grav.* **20**: L11-1 (2003), `gr-qc/0211012` $\bullet$ F. Ferrari and I. Lazzizzera, “Polymer topology and Chern-Simons field theory”, *Nucl. Phys.* **B559** (1999) 673.
R. Penrose, “Angular momentum: an approach to combinatorial space-time”, in *”Quantum Theory and Beyond”*, Cambridge University Press, 1971 $\bullet$ C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, “Spin networks and quantum gravity”, *Phys. Rev.* **D52** (1995), 5743, `gr-qc/9505006`.
C. Sochichiu, “Continuum limit(s) of Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase matrix theory: Where is the (nonabelian) gauge group?”, *Phys. Lett.* **B574** (2003) 105, `hep-th/0206239`.
P. Valtancoli, “Stability of the fuzzy sphere solution from matrix model”, *Int. J. Mod. Phys.* **A18** (2003) 967, `hep-th/0206075`.
[^1]: Here and below products in $S_{L}$ are understood as $$\nonumber
\gamma \cdot \sigma \equiv \gamma \sigma =\gamma \cdot \left( \sigma
_{1},...,\sigma _{L}\right) =\left( \sigma _{\gamma _{1}},...,\sigma
_{\gamma _{L}}\right) .$$
[^2]: It should be noticed that here we assume that (eventually rather structurally complicated) non-planar permutational terms, such that their planar limit is zero, do *not* exist; indeed, for the time being, their existence may not be guessed by an inferring approach starting from the planar level, such as the one adopted in this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The effect of the “chromo-electric” dipole moment on the electric dipole moment(EDM) of the neutron is studied in the two-Higgs-doublet model. The Weinberg’s operator $O_{3g}=GG\t G$ and the operator $O_{qg}=\bar q\sigma\t Gq$ are both investigated in the cases of $\tan\b\gg 1$, $\tan\b\ll 1$ and $\tan\b\simeq 1$. The neutron EDM is considerably reduced due to the destructive contribution with two light Higgs scalars exchanges.'
---
= -.55 in = -.3 in =0.4 cm =0.7 cm =15.5 cm =22 cm =4.5 pt
ø | | ł
UWThPh-1994-38\
AUE-07-94\
September 1994
[**Neutron Electric Dipole Moment in Two-Higgs-Doublet Model [^1]**]{} [**T. Hayashi**]{}$^\dagger$ , [**Y. Koide**]{}$^{\dagger\dagger}$\
, [**M. Matsuda**]{}$^\sharp$ [^2] and [**M. Tanimoto**]{}$^\flat$ [^3]
$^\dagger$Kogakkan University, Ise, Mie 516, JAPAN\
$^{\dagger\dagger}$Department of Physics, University of Shizuoka, 52-1 Yada, Shizuoka 422, JAPAN\
$^\sharp$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aichi University of Education, Kariya 448, JAPAN\
$^\flat$Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Wien, A-1090 Wien, AUSTRIA
Introduction
============
The electric dipole moment(EDM) of the neutron is of central importance to probe a new origin of $CP$ violation, because it is very small in SM [@KM]($d_n^{SM} \simeq 10^{-30}-10^{-31}e\cdot cm$). Begining with the papers of Weinberg [@WB], there has been considerably renewed interest in the neutron EDM induced by $CP$ violation of the neutral Higgs sector. Some studies [@GW; @DG; @BZ] revealed the importance of the “chromo-electric” dipole moment, which arises from the three-gluon operator $GG\t G$ found by Weinberg [@WB] and the light quark operator $\bar q \sigma\t Gq$ introduced by Gunion and Wyler [@GW], in the neutral Higgs sector. Thus, it is important to study the effect of these operators systematically in the model beyond SM. We study the contribution of above two operators to the neutron EDM in the two-Higgs-doublet model(THDM) [@GHKD]. The $3\times 3$ mass matrix of the neutral Higgs scalars is carefully investigated in the typical three cases of $\tan\b\gg 1$, $\tan\b\simeq 1$ and $\tan\b\ll 1$. In this model $CP$ symmetry is violated through the mixing among $CP=+$ and $CP=-$ Higgs scalar states.
In order to give reliable predictions [@MG], one needs the improvement on the accuracy of the description of the strong-interaction hadronic effects. Chemtob [@C] proposed a systematic approach which gives the hadronic matrix elements of the higher-dimension operators involving the gluon fields. We employ his model to estimate the hadronic matrix elements of the operators.
$CP$ violation parameter in THDM
================================
The simplest extension of SM is the one with the two Higgs doublets [@GHKD]. This model has the possibility of the soft $CP$ violation in the neutral Higgs sector, which does not contribute to the flavor changing neutral current in the $B$, $D$ and $K$ meson decays. Weinberg [@WB2] has given the unitarity bounds for the dimensionless parameters of the $CP$ nonconservation in THDM. However, the numerically estimated values of these parameters are not always close to the Weinberg’s bounds [@WB2]. Although it is difficult to estimate the magnitudes of the $CP$ violation parameters ${\rm Im} Z_i(i=1,2)$ generally, we found that the neutral Higgs mass matrix is simplified in the extreme cases of $\tan\b\ll 1$, $\tan\b\simeq 1$ and $\tan\b\gg 1$, in which the $CP$ violation parameters are easily calculated. The $CP$ violation parameters ${\rm Im} Z_i^{(n)}$ are deduced to $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Im} Z_1^{(k)}&=&-{\tan\b\o \cos\b}u_1^{(k)} u_3^{(k)} \ , \nonumber \\
{\rm Im} Z_2^{(k)}&=& {\cot\b\o \sin\b}u_2^{(k)} u_3^{(k)} \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $u_i^{(k)}$ denotes the $i-$th component of the $k-$th eigenvector of the $3 \times 3$ Higgs mass matrix and $\tan\b\equiv
v_2/v_1(v_{1(2)}$ is the vacuum expectation value of $\Phi_{1(2)}^0$ giving the masses of $d(u)$-quark sector).
In this model, Higgs potential is generally given as $$\begin{aligned}
V_H(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)
&=&{1 \o 2}g_1(\Phi_1^{\dag}\Phi_1-|v_1|^2)^2 \nonumber\\
&+&{1 \o 2}g_2(\Phi_2^{\dag}\Phi_2-|v_2|^2)^2 \nonumber\\
&+&g(\Phi_1^{\dag}\Phi_1-|v_1|^2)(\Phi_2^{\dag}\Phi_2-|v_2|^2) \nonumber\\
&+&g'|\Phi_1^{\dag}\Phi_2-v_1^*v_2|^2 \nonumber\\
&+&Re\{h(\Phi_1^{\dag}\Phi_2-v_1^*v_2)^2\} \nonumber\\
&+&\xi[{\Phi_1 \o v_1}-{\Phi_2 \o v_2}]^{\dag}[{\Phi_1 \o v_1}-
{\Phi_2 \o v_2}],\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters satisfy the conditions [@KAS] $$\begin{aligned}
&g_1&\geq 0, \nonumber\\
&g_2&\geq 0, \nonumber\\
&g&> -\sqrt{g_1g_2}, \nonumber\\
&g&+g'-|h|\geq -\sqrt{g_1g_2}, \nonumber\\
&\xi&\geq 0, \nonumber\\
&g'&-|h|+{\bar \xi}\geq 0, \nonumber\\
&{\bar \xi}&-g\geq -\sqrt{g_1g_2} \quad ({\rm where}
\ {\bar \xi}\equiv {\xi \o |v_1v_2|^2}).\end{aligned}$$ It is noted that, in the case of MSSM, SUSY imposes the conditions on the parameters $$\begin{aligned}
&g_1=g_2={1 \o 4}({g_W}^2+{g'_W}^2), \nonumber\\
&g={1 \o 4}({g_W}^2-{g'_W}^2), \nonumber\\
&g'=-{1 \o 2}{g_W}^2, \nonumber\\
&h=0.\end{aligned}$$ Here $h$=0 means that in MSSM $CP$ violation is not caused throygh Higgs sector. The simplest SUSY extention from MSSM that can have CP violation in the Higgs sector is also discussed [@EG].
Let us estimate $u_i^{(k)}$ by studying the Higgs mass matrix ${\bf M^2}$ whose components are $$\begin{aligned}
M_{11}^2&=&2g_1|v_1|^2+g'|v_2|^2+{\xi+\Re(hv_1^{*2}v_2^2)\o|v_1|^2}\ ,
\nonumber\\
M_{22}^2&=&2g_2|v_2|^2+g'|v_1|^2+{\xi+\Re(hv_1^{*2}v_2^2)\o|v_2|^2}\ ,
\nonumber\\
M_{33}^2&=&(|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2) \left [g'+
{\xi-\Re(hv_1^{*2}v_2^2)\o|v_1v_2|^2}\right ]\ ,\nonumber\\
M_{12}^2&=&|v_1v_2|(2g+g')+{\Re(hv_1^{*2}v_2^2)-\xi\o|v_1v_2|}\ , \nonumber \\
M_{13}^2&=&-{\sqrt{|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2}\o|v_1^2v_2|}\Im(hv_1^{*2}v_2^2)\ , \\
M_{23}^2&=&-{\sqrt{|v_1|^2+|v_2|^2}\o|v_1v_2^2|}\Im(hv_1^{*2}v_2^2)\nonumber
\ .\end{aligned}$$ As a phase convension, we take $h$ to be real and $$v_1^{*2} v_2^2=|v_1|^2|v_2|^2\exp(2i\phi) \ .$$ At first, we consider the case of $\tan\b\gg 1$ with retaining the order of $\cos\b$ and setting $\cos^2\b=0$ and $\sin\b=1$. Then, the mass matrix becomes simple, so the eigenvectors of ${\bf M^2}$ in Eq.(5) are easily obtained as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
u^{(1)}&=&\{\matrix{\cos\b-\e\sin\b, &
-\sin\b, & 0 }\} ,\\
u^{(2)}&=&\{\matrix{\sin\b c_\phi, & (\cos\b-\e\sin\b)c_\phi,
& -s_\phi }\} , \nonumber\\
u^{(3)}&=&\{\matrix{\sin\b s_\phi, &(\cos\b -\e\sin\b) s_\phi,
& c_\phi }\} , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $c(s)_\phi\equiv \cos(\sin)\phi$ and $$\e \simeq {2(\bar\xi-g-g_2)\o \bar\xi+g'-2g_2}\cos\b \ .$$ The diagonal masses are given as $$M_1^2=2g_2,\ M_2^2=g'+\bar\xi+h,
\ M_3^2=g'+\bar\xi-h$$ in the $v^2\equiv v_1^2+v_2^2$ unit. The lightest Higgs scalar to yield $CP$ violation is the second Higgs scalar with the mass $M_2$ since $\bar\xi$ is positive from Eq.(3) and we take $h$ to be negative as convention. The Higgs scalar with $M_1$ does not contribute to $CP$ violation because of $u_3^{(1)}=0$. The absolute values of $g'$ is expected to be $O(1)$, but $h$ seems to be small as estimated in some works [@C2; @L]. For example Froggatt et al. give the numerical values for the parameters in the case of $\tan\b \gg 1$ by using infrared fixed point analysis through the renormalization group equations as $$\begin{aligned}
g_1\simeq 0.96,\ g_2\simeq 0.88, \ g\simeq 0.82 \nonumber\\
g'\simeq -1.20,\ h\simeq -0.09 .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the masses $M_2$ and $M_3$ may be almost degenerated. Then, $CP$ violation is reduced by the cancellation between the two different Higgs exchange contributions $\Im Z_i^{(2)}$ and $\Im Z_i^{(3)}$ since $u^{(2)}_i u^{(2)}_3$ and $u^{(3)}_i u^{(3)}_3$(i=1,2) have same magnitudes with opposite signs. Thus, it is noted that the lightest single Higgs exchange approximation gives miss-leading of $CP$ violation in the case of $\tan\b\gg 1$.
For ${\Im}Z_1$, our result reaches the Weinberg bound, but for ${\Im}Z_2$ the our calculated value is suppressed compared with the Weinberg bound in the order of $1/\tan\b$.
$CP$ violation in the case of $\tan\b\ll 1$ is similar to the one of $\tan\b\gg
1$. For ${\Im}Z_2$, our numerical result reaches the Weinberg bound, while for ${\Im}Z_1$ the calculated value is suppressed from the Weinberg bound in the order of $\tan\b$. The relative sign between ${\Im}Z_1$ and ${\Im}Z_2$ is just the same as in the case of $\tan\b \gg 1$.
The last case to be considered is of $\tan\b\simeq 1$. In this mass matrix, the off diagonal components are very small compared to the diagonal ones because $g_1\simeq g_2$ is suggested by some analyses [@C2; @L] and $h$ is also small as in the case of $\tan\b \gg 1$. We can calculate ${\Im}Z_i$ by fixing both values of $h$ and $M_2/M_3$. For both ${\Im}Z_2$ and ${\Im}Z_1$, the calculating values are roughly 1/3 of the Weinberg bounds. The relative sign between ${\Im}Z_1$ and ${\Im}Z_2$ is opposite.
Formulation of the neutron EDM
==============================
The low energy $CP$-violating interaction is described by an effective Lagrangian, $$L_{CP}=\sum_i C_i(M,\mu)O_i(\mu) \ ,$$ where $O_i$ are the three gluon operator with the dimension six and the quark-gluon operator with the dimension five as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
O_{qg}(x)&=&-{g_s^3\o 2}\bar q\sigma_{\mu\nu}\tilde G^{\mu\nu} q \ ,
\nonumber \\
O_{3g}(x)&=&-{g_s^3\o 3}f^{abc}\tilde G^a_{\mu\nu}G^b_{\mu\a}G^c_{\nu\a} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ denotes $u,d$ or $s$ quark. The QCD corrected coefficients $C_i$ are given by the two-loop calculations in Refs. [@WB; @GW]. The coefficients $C_i$ are given as $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ug}&=&{\sqrt{2}G_Fm_u \o 64\pi^4}\{f({m_t^2 \o m_H^2})
+g({m_t^2 \o m_H^2})\}\Im Z_2({g_s(\mu) \o g_s(M)})^{-{74 \o 23}},\nonumber\\
C_{dg}&=&{\sqrt{2}G_Fm_d \o 64\pi^4}\{f({m_t^2 \o m_H^2})\tan^2\b \Im Z_2
\nonumber\\
&-&g({m_t^2 \o m_H^2})\cot^2\b \Im Z_1\}({g_s(\mu) \o g_s(M)})^{-{74 \o 23}},
\nonumber\\
C_{3g}&=&{\sqrt{2}G_F \o (4\pi)^4}\Im Z_2h({m_t^2 \o m_H^2})
({g_s(\mu) \o g_s(M)})^{-{108 \o 23}},\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $f(x),g(x),h(x)$ are deduced from loop integral as given in Refs. [@WB; @GW].
For the strong interaction hadronic effect, the systematic technique has been developed by Chemtob [@C] in the operator with the higher-dimension involving the gluon fields. The hadronic matrix elements of the two operators are approximated by the intermediate states with the single nucleon pole and the nucleon plus one pion. Then, the nucleon matrix elements are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle N(P)|O_i(0)|N(P)\rangle = A_i\bar U(P)i\r_5 U(P), \nonumber \\
\langle N(P')|O_i|N(P)\p(k)\rangle= B_i\bar U(P')\tau^a U(P) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $U(P)$ is the normalized nucleon Dirac spinors with the four momuntum $P$. Using $A_i$ and $B_i(i=ug,dg,sg,3g)$, the neutron EDM, $d_n^\r$, are written as $$d_n^\r={e\mu_n\o 2 m_n^2}\sum_i C_i A_i +
F(g_{\p NN})\sum_i C_i B_i \ ,$$ where $\mu_n$ is the neutron anomalous magnetic moment. The $F(g_{\p NN})$ was given by calculating the pion and nucleon loop corrections using the chiral Lagrangian for $N\p\r$ [@C]. The coefficients $A_i$ and $B_i$ were given by the large $N_c$ current algebra and the $\eta_0$ meson dominance [@C].
Numerical results of the neutron EDM
====================================
Let us begin with discussing the numerical results in the case of $\tan\b\gg 1$. The contributions of $O_{ug}$ and $O_{3g}$ are are negligibly small because the $CP$ violation parameters are roughly estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\Im Z_2^{(2)}\simeq-\Im Z_2^{(3)}\simeq{1 \o \tan^2\b} \ll \Im Z_1^{(2,3)},
\nonumber\\
\Im Z_1^{(3)}\simeq -\Im Z_1^{(3)}\simeq {1 \o 2}\tan^2\b.\end{aligned}$$ The main contribution follows from the one of $O_{dg}+O_{sg}$, in which the operator $O_{sg}$ is dominant due to the $s$-quark mass. The coefficient $C_{sg}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
C_{sg}&=(const.)\times m_s\{f({m_t^2 \o m_{H_2}^2})
-f({m_t^2 \o m_{H_3}^2}) \nonumber\\
&-{1 \o 2}g({m_t^2 \o m_{H_2}^2})+{1 \o 2}g({m_t^2 \o m_{H_3}^2})\}.\end{aligned}$$ As the mass difference of these two Higgs scalar masses becomes smaller, the neutron EDM is considerably reduced since the second Higgs scalar exchange contributes in the opposite sign to the lightest Higgs scalar one as shown in the above equation. Thus, it is found that the second lightest Higgs scalar also significantly contributes to $CP$ violation.
In the case of $\tan\b\ll 1$, the contributions of $O_{ug}$ and $O_{3g}$ become very large due to the large $\Im Z_2$. However, these contribute to the neutron EDM in opposite signs, so they almost cancel each other. The remaining contribution is the one of $O_{dg}+O_{sg}$.
In the case of $\tan\b\simeq 1$, the dominant contribution is the one of $O_{dg}+O_{sg}$. In both regions of the large and small $m_{H2}/m_{H3}$, the predicted neutron EDM is reduced. At $m_{H2}/m_{H3}\simeq 1$, the cancellation mechanism by the second lightest Higgs scalar operates well, while around $m_{H2}/m_{H3}\simeq 0$, the large mass difference of the two Higgs scalars leads to the small mixing between the scalar and pseudscalar Higgs bosons.
Summary
=======
We have studied the effects of the four operators $O_{ug}$, $O_{dg}+O_{sg}$ and $O_{3g}$ on the neutron EDM. The contribution of $O_{sg}$ dominates over that of other operators. Moreover, the contributions of $O_{ug}$ and $O_{3g}$ cancel out each other due to their opposite signs. This qualitative situation does not depend on the detail of the strong interaction hadronic model. Thus, the Weinberg’s three gluon operator is not a main source of the neutron EDM in THDM. The CP violation mainly follows from the two light neutral Higgs scalar exchanges. Since these two exchange contributions are of opposite signs, the $CP$ violation is considerably reduced if the mass difference of the two Higgs scalars is small. Since our predicted neutron EDM lies around the present experimental bound, its experimental improvement reveal the new physics beyond SM. The present upper limit for $d_n^\gamma$ is $8 \times 10^{-26}e\cdot cm$ which was given at the 26th ICHEP. Historically to reduce one order of magnitude for upper limit experimentally, it has taken almost 10 years. We hope that the rapid experimental reduction of upper limit will be performed and that the finite value will be reported at the close ICHEP.
[20]{} M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**49**]{}(1973) 652. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}(1989) 2333. J.F. Gunion and D. Wyler, Phys.Letts.[**248B**]{} (1990)170. A. De Rújula, M.B. Gavela, O. Pène and F.J. Vegas, Phys.Lett.[**245B**]{} (1990) 640; N-P. Chang and D-X. Li, Phys. Rev. [**D42**]{}(1990)871; D. Chang, T.W. Kephart, W-Y. Keung and T.C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}(1992)439. S.M.Barr and A.Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}(1990)21; S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}(1992)1822, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}(1993) 2025. J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane and S. Dawson, [*“Higgs Hunter’s Guide”*]{}, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA(1989). A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl.Phys.[**B234**]{} (1984)189. M. Chemtob, Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}(1992)1649. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**D42**]{}(1990)860. B. Kastening, Private communications and also see the preprint( hep-ph@9307225). J. Ellis, J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, L. Roszkowski and F. Zwirner, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}(1989)844; See also Refs.[@BZ]. M. Chemtob, Z.Phys. [**C60**]{}(1993)443. M.A. Luty, Phys. Rev. [**D41**]{}(1990)2893; C.D. Froggatt, I.G. Knowles and R.G. Moorhouse, Phys. Lett. [**249B**]{} (1990)273.
[^1]: Talk given by M. Tanimoto at QCD94 in Montpellier, France on 7-13 July 1994 and also predented by M. Matsuda at the 27th International Conference on High Energy Physics in Glasgow, Scotland on 20-27 July 1994.
[^2]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^3]: Permanent address:Science Education Laboratory, Ehime University , Matsuyama, 790 JAPAN
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
M.G.Albrow$^a$, Heejong Kim$^b$, S.Los$^a$, M.Mazzillo$^c$,E.Ramberg$^a$, A.Ronzhin$^a$, V.Samoylenko$^d$, H.Wenzel$^a$, and A.Zatserklyaniy$^e$\
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Wilson Road, Batavia, IL 60510, U.S.A.\
Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA\
STMicroelectronics, Catania 95121, Italy\
Institute for High Energy Physics, Moscow region, RU-142284 Protvino, Russia\
Institute for Particle Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA\
E-mail:
title: 'Quartz Cherenkov Counters for Fast Timing: QUARTIC'
---
**Introduction**
================
We describe the development of particle detectors with time resolution $\sigma_t ~\sim$ 15 ps that have the following characteristics: (a) they are edgeless, with active area within about 200 $\mu$m of the outside (b) they are radiation hard enough to be close to primary beams (c) they have segmentation, allowing independent timing of several particles in a single 1 ns pulse. The main limitation is that they have small active areas, $\sim$ 4 cm$^2$, which is however adequate for our applications. They are compact, and the best time resolution is achieved by having multiple measurements, e.g. four or more modules in-line, giving what we call a time-track. This approach allows monitoring of the resolution and efficiency of each module, and relaxes the requirements on the electronics compared with having a single measurement. The detectors use Cherenkov light in quartz (fused silica) radiators, read out by either microchannel plate photomultipliers (MCP-PMTs) or silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs).
Detectors measuring the time of particles have been used in high energy physics experiments for decades, usually to measure the speed of particles and hence, in conjunction with momentum or (rarely) energy, to determine their mass and hence their identity. Colliding beam experiments typically require large area detectors ($\sim 10$ m$^2$) at a few m distance, have time resolutions $\sim$ 100 ps and can separate $\pi$, K and p in the momentum region $\sim$ 1 GeV/c. Detectors with similarly large areas and better time resolution, by an order of magnitude, are being actively developed [@frisch].
A different use of high resolution timing is to determine the particle path length, especially for ultrarelativistic particles ($\beta \approx 1.0$). This can be used to determine the position of origin of a pair of particles, as in positron emission tomography, PET, where the particles are $\gamma$-rays from $e^+e^-$ annihilation. We report here on the development of detectors with resolution $\sigma_t \sim$ 15 ps to determine the position of origin of a pair of high energy protons, if indeed they came from the same collision. That corresponds to only 4.5 mm of light travel time, and scintillation counters of large dimensions with conventional photomultipliers (PMTs) are excluded. Cherenkov counters have prompt light emission, and MCP-PMTs are inherently faster than conventional PMTs, with transit time spreads (sigma), TTS, (for a single photoelectron) or Single Photon Time Resolution, SPTR, of order 30-50 ps. Available SiPMs have SPTR of order 120 ps, similar to conventional photomultipliers, but there is progress in reducing this. The intrinsic time resolution due to photoelectron statistics with $N_{pe}$ photoelectrons is then $\sigma_t \sim SPTR/\sqrt{N_{pe}}$, but for a real detector it is also subject to geometry, dimensions and electronics.
In this paper we first give a motivation for our studies, followed by some general background information about Cherenkov radiators and photodetectors. We then discuss three geometries for small quartz Cherenkov counters optimized for fast timimg, followed by some simulations and beam tests. Finally we present a design for a multi-channel bar array suitable for measuring protons very close to the outgoing LHC beams.
Motivation
----------
This work was largely motivated by proposals [@fp420] to add proton detectors to both ATLAS (called AFP for ATLAS Forward Protons) and CMS (called HPS, for High Precision Spectrometers) at the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, to measure “central exclusive reactions".For a recent review see Ref.[@acf]. Examples of such exclusive reactions are $p+p \rightarrow p + H + p$ and $p+p \rightarrow
p + W^+W^- + p$, with no other particles produced. Detecting both protons, and measuring their momenta (after they have traversed LHC magnetic fields), enables many properties of the central state, which is detected in the main central detectors, to be determined [@fp420]. However the cross sections are expected to be very small ($\sim$ 10 fb), requiring high luminosity $L$, e.g. $L = 10^{34}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, with $\sim$ 25 interactions per bunch crossing, which has a time spread of $\sigma \sim$ 150 ps, every 25 ns. Then the desired 3-fold coincidence events \[pXp\] have a large background from two-fold pile up \[pX\]\[p\] or \[pp\]\[X\], and 3-fold pile up \[p\]\[X\]\[p\], with obvious notation. The time difference $\Delta t$ of the two oppositely directed protons’ arrival at far detectors, hundreds of meters down the beam pipes, gives a measure of the collision point, $z_{pp} = \frac{1}{2}.c \Delta t$. A resolution on the time difference, $\sigma(\Delta $t$) = \sqrt{2} \times \sigma_t$ of 15 ps would give $\sigma(z_{pp}) = \frac{1}{2} \times 4.5$ mm = 2.25 mm. The vertex position $z_X$ of the central state \[X\] can usually be reconstructed with $\sim 10\;\mathrm{\mu}$m precision, and by matching it to $z_{pp}$ a factor $\sim$25 reduction in this pile-up background can be achieved, since the interaction region is much broader ($\sigma_z \sim$ 50 mm). In combination with other constraints (e.g. no additional tracks on the central vertex, longitudinal momentum conservation, and small transverse momentum, $p_T$, for the central state) this can make exclusive Higgs, $W^+W^-$, etc. measurements feasible. Timing resolutions of order $\sigma(\Delta $t$) =$ 10 ps are needed for $L = 10^{34}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (assuming 2808 bunches, i.e. 25 ns bunch spacing). The time difference measurement between scattered protons was first proposed as a means of reducing pile-up in exclusive interactions at the Tevatron [@mmcdf; @cdfh].
The required detector area is small ($\sim$ 4 cm$^2$). Key requirements, in addition to the time resolution, are *edgelessness* at the level of $\sim$ 100 $\mathrm{\mu}$m on the edge adjacent to the beam, as well as radiation hardness to $ \gsim 10^{15}$ protons/cm$^2$ [@onel]. In case there is more than one proton in the acceptance from the same bunch crossing, segmentation is also required. The protons have been deflected out of the beam by the LHC magnets, but at the $z$ position (distance along the beam pipe) of the detectors they are displaced by only a few mm, so any inactive area (on one edge) causes a loss in acceptance. We expect a proton flux of about $10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$ per year close to the beam. For both these reasons the photon detector must be placed farther from the beam than the radiator; in addition it can then also be shielded from background radiation. Replacing the photodetectors on a one-year time scale, if necessary, is feasible; they are accessible and relatively inexpensive.
We have tested detectors with various geometries, and here we report on two that can satisfy these stringent requirements. Both are called <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> for QUARtz Timing Cherenkov. The first (“angled-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>") has quartz bars inclined at the Cherenkov angle $\theta_{ch} \sim 48^\circ$ with light detected by MCP-PMTs. The second has the quartz bars in the form of an L (L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>), one bar being the radiator, R, and the other being the light guide, LG. At the end of the LG bar the light is detected by a SiPM. (It could also be detected by an MCP-PMT, although available devices do not have an ideal multi-channel geometry.) This novel geometry works because (a) the protons are very nearly parallel to the radiator bar, and (b) the refractive index of quartz is $n(\lambda) >
\sqrt{2}$. With condition (a) all the Cherenkov light is totally internally reflected (TIR) until it reaches the end of the radiator bar, apart from absorption (which is small) and imperfections (on the surface or in the bulk) causing light to be scattered out. With condition (b) the light reflected up the LG bar continues to be totally internally reflected, and is not close to the critical angle. (The angle with respect to the LG bar axis is 90$^\circ - \theta_{ch} \sim
42^\circ$.) It is important that the bars are not aluminized or wrapped, so that close to 100% TIR is maintained, and that they are minimally supported (at a few corner points). We describe this more later, together with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">geant4</span> simulations.
Note that the quantity which must be precisely measured is the time difference $\Delta t$ between the protons at the detectors approximately 480 m, and later 840 m, apart. This requires a reference time signal (“clock") at each detector with minimal jitter between the left (L) and right (R) detectors, $t_L-t_R$. Reference timing systems developed for the International Linear Collider (ILC) have been designed to yield an r.m.s. jitter $\sigma_{LR} <$ 1 ps over similar distances, using RF transmission and a phase-locked loop.
A calibration of the absolute time difference (or $z_{pp} = z_X$) can be derived from real events of the type $p+p \rightarrow p+X+p$, where $X$ is a set of particles measured in the central detector.
While the time difference $t_L-t_R$ gives $z_{pp}$, the absolute time, or $(t_L+t_R)/2$ (minus a constant), would provide another, orthogonal, variable for pile-up rejection if the actual event time were known much better than $\sigma_z/c \sim$ 150 ps. The existing ATLAS and CMS detectors do not have such capability. It could be made available with large area (and thin) fast timing detectors [@frisch] in a future upgrade, but we do not discuss that here.
A precision track detector, using silicon (or possibly diamond) strips or pixels precedes the timing detectors, giving the position and direction of the protons. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> detectors are relatively thick; the nuclear interaction length of quartz is 44 cm and the radiation length is 12.3 cm. They should therefore be positioned after the tracking. Interactions in the quartz should not degrade the time measurement significantly (and may even improve it!)
Another possible application of these small, edgeless, fast and radiation hard detectors is to measure the fluxes of particles very close to a circulating, or external, beam. The detectors we have developed should be suitable for such beam condition monitoring; they are also directional, distinguishing “incoming" and “outgoing" particles.
Refs [@ronzhinsipm; @ronzhin2; @ronzhinwfd; @ronzhintof; @ftdalbrow] report earlier studies by our group on fast timing detectors at Fermilab.
Cherenkov detectors for timing
------------------------------
Cherenkov light is prompt and therefore ideal for fast timing, although the amount of light is small compared with scintillator. Radiators should be transparent, i.e. with a long absorption length $L_{abs}(\lambda)$, where $\lambda$ is the optical wavelength, preferably into the ultraviolet, $\lambda \approx$ 200 nm, where most photons are generated. While gases, liquids and solids are all possible radiators, the number of Cherenkov photons radiated is proportional to $1-1/n^2(\lambda)$; more completely (for charge Q = 1, and $\beta$ = 1): $$\frac{d^2N}{dxd\lambda}=\frac{2\pi\alpha}{\lambda^2}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2(\lambda)}\right),$$ where $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant.
The light is emitted along the particle’s path in a cone with half angle (Cherenkov radiation angle) $\theta_{ch}$ given by cos$(\theta_{ch}) = 1/n(\lambda)$. Solid radiators are much shorter than gases for the same light output, an important consideration when space is limited. Among solid radiators, fused silica, SiO$_2$, or quartz, (ultraviolet grade, UVT) is commonly used, and was our choice for these tests. Its refractive index as a function of wavelength is given in Table 1, together with the light absorption length, and the photon detection efficiency, PDE, of the detectors we used. The quartz bars we used were supplied by Specialty Glass [@spglass].
------------ ------------ --------------- ------------- --------- --------- --
Wavelength Refractive $\theta_{ch}$ Absorption PDE (%) PDE (%)
(nm) Index (degrees) length (cm) MCP-PMT SiPM
250 1.510 48.5 95 20.6 0
300 1.488 47.8 104 19.1 5
350 1.475 47.3 111 18.6 38
400 1.470 47.1 120 13.8 48
450 1.465 47.0 122 14.3 50
500 1.462 46.8 125 9.4 47
550 1.460 46.8 128 8.2 40
600 1.458 46.7 130 7.8 30
650 1.456 46.6 130 7.3 24
700 1.455 46.6 130 2.0 18
750 1.450 46.4 130 0.8 13
------------ ------------ --------------- ------------- --------- --------- --
: Properties of quartz and typical photodetectors in these studies.The MCP-PMT is the Photek PMT210 or PMT240 with fused silica windows, The SiPM is the Hamamatsu type S-10362-33 MPPC.[]{data-label="props"}
The Cherenkov angle in quartz at 250 nm (750 nm) is 48.5$^\circ$ (46.4$^\circ$) respectively, see Table. 1. This spans the wavelength range where typical photocathodes are sensitive. We will address chromaticity later, but for simplicity we use $\theta_{ch}$ = 48$^\circ$ when it is not important.
The Nagoya group [@akatsu] measured the timing properties of a Cherenkov counter with a quartz radiator in-line with a MCP-PMT at the back. If the particles are parallel to the sides of the radiator bar, all the Cherenkov light that hits the sides is totally internally reflected, as the Cherenkov angle, $\theta_{ch}$, exactly matches the total internal reflection angle (defined with respect to the surface, not the normal) [^1].
The approximate rule for the number of photoelectrons in a typical detector is: $$N_{pe} \sim 90 \: \mathrm{cm}^{-1} \cdot \mathrm{L(cm)\: sin}^2 \theta_{ch} \sim 50\; \mathrm{cm}^{-1}\times \mathrm{L},$$ for quartz radiator, which gives 200 photoelectrons for 40 mm. The Nagoya group obtained a time resolution of $\sigma_t$ = 6.2 ps with 3 GeV/c pions ($\beta \sim$ 1).
Photodetectors: Microchannel Plate PMTs
---------------------------------------
Microchannel plate PMTs have a photocathode on a quartz (or similar) window, and photoelectrons generate avalanches in thin ceramic plates traversed by holes (pores) with high electric fields (e.g. 2.5 kV per plate, with two plates giving a gain of 10$^6$). The single photon time resolution, SPTR, of the MCP-PMT we used is about 30 ps, and with $N_{pe}$ photoelectrons one can expect a contribution to the time resolution from photoelectron statistics to be $\sigma_t(p.e.) \sim 30/\sqrt{N_{pe}}$ ps. We used a PHOTEK PMT240 directly in the test beam as a fast reference time detector in most of our tests; there is enough Cherenkov light generated in the 9 mm quartz window that no additional radiator is needed. The PMT240 itself cannot be used to detect particles close to a beam as it is not edgeless. (Also the MCP-PMT will not survive the high particle fluxes, for reasons of radiation damage and photocathode lifetime.) A potential weakness of MCP-PMTs is that the photocathode can get damaged by positive ion feedback, which limits their life to typically $10^{14}$ photoelectrons, which may be only weeks in the LHC environment. Developments are underway [@jinno] to extend MCP-PMT lifetimes.
{width="80mm"}
Photodetectors: Silicon photomultipliers
----------------------------------------
Silicon photomultipliers, SiPMs, are solid state photon counters comprised of a large number of avalanche photodiodes (APDs) or “pixels" of order 20 $\mu$m dimensions, with a high gain (up to $10^6$) in Geiger mode, with an applied voltage just above the breakdown voltage (about 30V to 70V depending on the type). Each discharged pixel has a recovery time of order 100 ns, but with e.g. 100 photoelectrons per event and thousands of pixels per mm$^2$ this can be acceptable. For the SiPMs the PDE is the product of the quantum efficiency and the fractional area coverage of the APDs. SiPMs are rugged, simple to use and relatively cheap *per unit*, but at present are only available commercially with effective active areas from 1$\times$1 mm$^2$ to 3.5$\times$3.5 mm$^2$. Smaller SiPMs have less capacitance and so are intrinsically faster. The SPTR of typical SiPMs is worse than that of an MCP-PMT, but devices with SPTR $\sim$ 65 ps are becoming available.
Quartz bar geometries
=====================
Straight bars, in-line or angled
--------------------------------
We studied three quartz bar geometries: (a) short bars (from 6 mm to 30 mm) in line with the beam (“Nagoya" configuration) (b) long bars (up to 150 mm) inclined at the Cherenkov angle $\theta_{ch} \sim 48^\circ$ (“angled-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>") (c) L-shaped bars with a radiator bar (30 mm - 40 mm long) and a light-guide bar at 90$^\circ$ (“L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>"). Geometry (a) has very efficient light collection, but can only be used when the photodetector can be in the beam. We used it in our tests as a reference counter (in the beam) and to study some general properties, e.g. longer radiator bars give more light, but the time spread is also longer; how do these interplay? In this “in-line" case, if the radiator bar length is $L_{bar}$ the light emitted at the front of the bar arrives at the PMT $\Delta t = L_{bar}(n^2 - 1)/c$ later than that emitted at the back (one power of $n$ is from the path length and one is from the light speed). For a 40 mm bar this time spread is about 160 ps, so that longer bars, while producing more light, may not improve the time resolution. In addition chromatic dispersion should be considered. While most of the Cherenkov light is blue/UV, that light is also slowest and reaches the photodetector later where it is less useful for timing. Over 10 cm a 200 nm photon lags behind an 800 nm photon by $L\times c \times \Delta n$ = 100 mm $\times (10ps/3mm) \times [n(\lambda_{200})
-n(\lambda_{800})]$ = 32.7 ps, in addition to any path length differences.
Geometries (b) and (c) have the photodetector remote from the beam, which may be essential for mechanical reasons as well as to be in a low radiation environment. For geometry (b) the radiator bar is long and rotated by an angle so that the photodetector is remote from the beam. A special configuration is $\theta_{bar} = \theta_{ch} \sim 48^{\circ}$ for quartz. Then light emitted in a small azimuth (around the proton direction) $\phi_{ch}$ range arrives directly at the end of the bar; otherwise it takes a longer path with multiple reflections or, if at larger azimuth angles, is refracted out. About 30% arrives at the photodetector. If several bars are to be read out by a single photodetector, it is important that the light from each bar arrives at the photomultiplier at approximately the same time (isochronous design), which occurs with $\theta_{bar} = \theta_{ch}$ and with the photodetector face normal to the bars, as shown in Fig.1. If the bars are to be read out independently, e.g. with SiPMs which have much smaller area than the MCP-PMTs, this is less important. One could then reduce $\theta_{bar}$, but while this increases the thickness of bar traversed and the fraction of light collected, it brings the photodetector closer to the beam, which may not be allowed by mechanical conflicts, radiation damage and background issues.
The L-bar design
----------------
A novel geometry, the L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>, combines the virtues of having the Cherenkov radiator bar parallel to the beam (with 100% of the radiated light from protons moving parallel to the bar axis being trapped along the bar) and having the photodetector far from the beam. The bar is L-shaped with a 90$^\circ$ corner. If the surfaces are perfect, no light is refracted out and it all reaches the end of the light guide, except for the light emitted exactly in the plane perpendicular to the LG bar. Since $n(\lambda) > \sqrt{2}$ so that $\theta_{ch} > 45^\circ$ as it is for quartz, the light that passes up the LG bar has an angle with respect to the surface that is $< 45^\circ$, less than the critical angle, and total reflection is maintained. This means that the path length of the light and number of reflections per unit length are all less than in the radiator bar, which help to allow the photodetector to be far from the beam. In addition the blue light path length is less than that of the red light, unlike in the radiator bar. No mirrors are involved, and the surfaces should not be aluminized as then reflection is not total. All the Cherenkov light, except any that is absorbed or scattered out by imperfections in the bulk or surface, reaches the photodetector. Another feature of the L-bar geometry is that it allows segmentation in both $x$ and $y$ directions, which is not the case for the angled-bar solution.
{width="70mm"}
Consider the section of the L-bar shown in Fig.2, with the radiator bar parallel to the z-axis (beam direction) and the light guide bar along the y-axis. For the light rays shown, radiated at angle $\theta_{ch} = cos^{-1}(1/n)$, the speed of propagation along the z-axis is: $$\frac{dz}{dt} = \frac{dz}{dr}.\frac{dr}{dt},$$ where $r$ is the coordinate along the light path. We have $dz/dr$ = cos $\theta_{ch} = 1/n$, and $dr/dt = c/n$, so $dz/dt = c/n^2$. The speed of light is, in convenient units, 3 mm/10 ps. So for a L = 20 mm radiator bar the time difference between the light emitted at the entrance and at the exit is $\frac{L.(n^2 - 1)}{c}$ = 79.4 ps.
After the light has been trapped in the light guide its angle with respect to the bar axis is the complement, i.e. 90$^\circ
-\theta_{ch}$, and as the angle in the radiator is $48^\circ$, in the light guide it is $42^\circ$, and it continues to be totally reflected. Now $$\frac{dy}{dt} = \frac{dy}{dr}.\frac{dr}{dt},$$ and $dy/dr =$ sin$\theta_{ch} = \sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{n^2}}$. Hence the net light speed along the light guide bar is: $$\frac{dy}{dt} = \frac{c}{n}\sqrt{1 - \frac{1}{n^2}} = \frac{c}{n^2} \sqrt{n^2 - 1}.$$ The blue light (larger $n$) now has a shorter path length, partially compensating for its slower speed. Thus the dispersion is reduced. The ratio of speeds of propagation along the bars $\frac{dz}{dt}/\frac{dy}{dt}$ is tan $\theta_{ch}$, so the effect is modest, about 10%. The fewer reflections per unit length of the radiator bar is another small advantage if TIR is not perfect.
Monte Carlo (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">geant4</span>) simulations
==============================================================================
We used <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">geant4</span> [@geant] to simulate some of the properties if the in-line-, angled- and L-Bar configurations, to compare with the test beam results, and to aid in the design of a real HPS detector. Cherenkov photons were generated along the proton path with wavelength-dependent refractive index $n(\lambda)$ and transmission $T(\lambda)$ of fused silica. The emission polar angle $\theta_{ch}$ is determined by the refractive index $n(\lambda)$, with $cos(\theta_{ch}) = 1/n(\lambda)$, and $\phi_{ch}$ is the azimuthal angle around the beam. The propagation of the optical photons takes into account the surface and bulk properties of the bar (wavelength-dependent photon speed and absorption). In the interval $250 < \lambda < 600$ nm about 450 Cherenkov photons are emitted per cm of radiator. We calculated the distribution of the time of arrival of the photons, as a function of $\lambda$, at the MCP-PMT or SiPM. This spectrum was then convoluted with the photon detection efficiency, PDE$(\lambda)$ to simulate the photoelectron time distribution. For each photoelectron a Gaussian time spread with width given by the SPTR was generated and summed, to simulate an output signal. We measured the time when the signal passes 50% of the signal amplitude (from the proton arrival time) to emulate a constant fraction discriminator.
The coupling between the bar and and the photodetector is a potential inefficiency. In the test beam studies grease was used, but it is difficult to simulate correctly. In the simulations we applied an overall efficiency factor to account for both reflectivity and coupling losses to match with test beam data. It is preferable to avoid grease, which can spread to the LG bar; a solid silicon “cookie" can be used.
The surface reflectivity of the bar is an important factor. In a 100 mm LG bar of 3$\times$3 mm$^2$ cross section one has typically 30 reflections, so if the average internal reflectivity is only 98% only 50% of the light reaches the photodetector. We aim for close to 100% internal reflectivity.
Simulation of straight bars, in-line or angled
----------------------------------------------
A bar with the dimensions $3 \times 3 \times 40$ mm$^{3}$ was used to estimate the timing properties for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>s with straight bars. We simulated the bar both at $\theta_{bar} = 48^\circ$ to the beam and at 90$^\circ$, perpendicular, with the beam central. In the L-bar case the perpendicular configuration corresponds to particles through the light guides. The time spectrum of photons arriving on the side with the photodetector is shown in Fig.3. For the perpendicular bar (left plot) the second peak is caused by photons emitted in the opposite direction and reflected from the far side. This does not occur in the angled bar (right plot), as the oppositely directed photons are refracted out of the bar.
We simulated the performance of straight bars inclined at angles $\theta_{bar}$ to the protons. In the case $\theta_{bar} = \theta_{ch}$ the light emitted at azimuth $\phi$ in the direction of bar reaches the photodetector with no reflections; light emitted at azimuth up to $\Delta \phi = 30^\circ$ from the direction of the bar reaches the detector but with longer path lengths. With 15 cm long bars, we set the proton path at different bar angles $\theta_{bar}$; as it decreases the amount of light trapped increases, by a factor $\approx$ 2.5 from 48$^\circ$ to 20$^\circ$. Ultimately when $\theta = 0$ all the radiated light is trapped. However the time of arrival of the photons has an increasing spread, as the path length of the proton along the bar increases. Furthermore for straight bars the photodetector gets closer to the beam as $\theta_{bar}$ decreases. The L-bar design overcomes this difficulty.
{width="160mm"}
{width="80mm"}
L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> simulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The simulated photons were propagated by total internal reflection, as well as less-than-total, e.g. 99% on average per reflection, to the SiPM. Figure 4 shows the arrival time distribution for photons that produce photoelectrons, from a $3 \times 3 \times 20$ mm$^3$ radiator bar, with a 40 mm long light guide in the L-bar geometry. The fast leading edge corresponds to photons emitted with azimuth angle $\phi_{ch} \sim 90^\circ$ close to the LG bar direction (up), and the tail of that pulse corresponds to other $\phi_{ch}$ angles that have more reflections in the LG. The small later pulse is caused by photons that are not immediately trapped by the LG bar, are reflected back to the entrance of R and return, where they have another chance of being transmitted up the LG. Simulation of radiator bars with both R = 20 mm and R = 40 mm showed the expected shift of the second peak. Photons with arrival times $t_{PD}$ are detected with the probability given by the photon detection efficiency PDE($\lambda)$, giving the number of photoelectrons as a function of time. As previously described we simulated the output pulse, taking $\sigma_{SPTR}$ = 38 ps for the MCP-PMT and 120 ps for the SiPM. Then the anode signal distribution for each photoelectron is simulated by a unit area Gaussian with $\sigma_{anode} =$ 0.5 ns, and these signals added to simulate the output pulse for one proton. We then took the time $t_{meas}$ to be that time when the signal passes 10% (50%) of its peak value. Fig. 5(a) shows the simulated mean pulse height as a function of radiator bar length, assuming 99% reflectivity at all surfaces, and Fig.5(b) shows the estimated time resolution. The LG bar lengths are 80 mm. While the actual resolution depends on some factors that are not well known (e.g. reflectivity and coupling to the photodetector), the qualitative behaviour of a rapid improvement from R = 10 mm to 25 mm, followed by a slower improvement, is as expected.
{width="140mm"}
The surface reflectivity $R_s$ of the bars is an important factor. A long light guide bar places the SiPM in a lower radiation field and where it can be better shielded. E.g. with R = 40 mm and LG = 120 mm 100% TIR gives 1500 photons, while an average reflection coefficient of $R_s$ = 0.98 gives only 670 (after about 40 reflections; $0.98^{40} = 0.45$). We found by simulation that with $R_s$ = 0.98 the resolution is $\sigma_t$ = 39 ps (30 ps) for R = 20 mm (40 mm). This is very similar to what was found in the beam tests. TIR is even more critical with smaller cross section bars. We will do reflectivity measurements with lasers under different surface conditions to investigate imperfect TIR.
As we expected, the detector simulation shows it to be uniform over the $3 \times 3$ mm$^2$ aperture.
The full transmission of the Cherenkov light along the radiator bar depends on the perfect matching between the Cherenkov angle and the (complement of the) total internal reflection angle. A small angle between the proton direction and the radiator bar axis will allow some light to leak out. We simulated this; e.g. with a radiator bar length of 40 mm and an angle of 1/40 = 25 mrad = 1.4$^\circ$ in the plane containing the LG, 20% of the light is lost. In the HPS application the accepted protons have an angular spread of $<$ 0.5 mrad, but precise alignment is clearly very important. The directional nature of the L-bar helps, in this application, to have low sensitivity to backgrounds from other directions.
Beam tests
==========
We tested prototype <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>s in the Fermilab test beam (MTest) with 120 GeV/c protons. The trigger counters and detectors under test were enclosed in a light-tight and RF shielded (with copper sheet) box [@ronzhin2]. The box had light-tight feed-throughs for high voltage and signal cables. A 2$\times$2 mm$^2$ scintillation counter at the front, viewed by two PMTs in coincidence, provided a trigger and defined the beam. At the back of the box a 5$\times$5 cm$^2$ counter with a 7 mm diameter central hole, viewed by two PMTs in “OR", was used as a veto to reject events with upstream interactions. For some of the tests a reference time counter was placed at the back (just upstream of the veto counter); this was a PHOTEK PMT240 MCP-PMT directly in the beam. Cherenkov light in the 9 mm thick quartz window gave a signal of about 35 p.e. with time resolution $\sigma_t \sim $ 8 ps.
We used two types of data acquisition, DAQ. In Phase 1 (DAQ-1), see Ref. [@ronzhintof], with three MCP-PMT detectors under test, the signals were sent through a constant fraction discriminator (ORTEC 9327) and to an ADC to monitor the pulse heights and allow time-slewing corrections to be made. The discriminated pulse was sent to time-to-amplitude converters (TAC, ORTEC 566) with a pair of detectors as input, followed by analog-to-digital converters (ADC, ORTEC 114) read by the on-line computer. The time resolution of the DAQ was measured [@ronzhintof] with a split PiLas laser signal to be $\sigma_t$(DAQ) $\sim 3$ ps. The three time differences between the detectors enabled the resolution of each counter to be unfolded. We removed a few percent of the events in the tails of the pulse height distribution due to interactions or pile-up (more than one proton in the same RF bucket), and applied data-driven time slewing corrections (a small linear correction, determined by plotting the time vs pulse height of a signal).
In Phase 2 (DAQ-2), with more channels of SiPM, we used waveform digitizing electronics, DRS4 [@ritt; @ronzhinwfd]. This is a 5 giga samples per second (5 GSPS) waveform digitizer, thus giving the pulse shape sampled every 200 ps and allowing off-line fits with a parametrization optimized for timing. We had two DRS-4 modules (boxes) each with four channels. One channel in each box was used for a reference signal from the PMT240 (the output was split with a passive splitter), and the other three for SiPM signals. These SiPM signals were passed through ORTEC VT120 $\times$20 amplifiers. We previously published [@ronzhinwfd] a study of SiPM signals, with a 30 mm long in-line quartz Cherenkov radiator with DRS4 electronics. With Hamamatsu 3 $\times$ 3 mm$^2$ MPPC type S10362-330050C, with 3600 pixels of 50 $\mu$m, we measured a resolution of $\sigma_t$ = 30 ps. Various algorithms were tried on the waveform to optimize the time resolution. The rise time from 10% to 90% was about 1 ns, i.e. 5 samplings. Good results were obtained by a linear fit to the two points before and after the 50% of pulse-height maximum level, finding the time at which that line crossed the 50% level, and then applying a time-slewing correction. More complete waveform fits were found to be not significantly better. We did not attempt to correct for small differences in the time between successive samples. We measured the intrinsic resolution of the DRS4 channels *in situ* by splitting the PMT240 signal and sending it to two channels of one box. We found [@ronzhinwfd] $\sigma_t$(DRS4) = 6 ps when the time difference between the two signals is very small, but if a delay of 2 ns is put in one channel it rises to $\sigma_t$(DRS4) = 20 ps.
Beam tests of straight bars, in-line or angled
----------------------------------------------
We made preliminary studies with single bars, which we describe first.
We demonstrated [@ronzhin2], using quartz bars in-line with a SiPM directly at the back (a), that the time resolution improves with increasing bar length from 6 mm to 30 mm. With a Hamamatsu MPPC (3$\times$3 mm$^2$) and a 30 mm in-line bar we measured, from the width of the pulse height distribution, about 60 photoelectrons and $\sigma_t$ = 14.5 ps, and $\sigma_t$ = 35 ps with a 6 mm radiator bar. At least over this range the increased light is more important in improving the resolution than the longer pulse is in worsening it.
We made a pair of detectors each with a single 6$\times$6 mm$^2 \times$ 80 mm quartz bar coupled to a PMT210 (10 mm diameter photocathode) MCP-PMT with UV transparent optical grease (Dow Corning). We mounted them [@ronzhin2] inclined at $\theta_{bar}$ = 48$^\circ$ on opposite sides of the beam. The beam size (2 mm) would contribute about 10 ps spread in the time difference, but cancels out in the time sum. A PMT240 directly in the beam provided a reference time signal with a resolution $\sigma(t)$ = 7.7 ps. We used the DAQ-1 (see above) electronics. After rejecting $<$10% of events with high pulse height (due to pile-up) and applying a time walk correction (which improved the resolution by $\sim$10%), we obtained (after unfolding) $\sigma(t)$ = 18 ps for the combined pair.
With a longer, 150 mm bar inclined at 48$^\circ$ with the PHOTEK PMT210 we found that, within our measurement uncertainties, the signal was constant with the beam traversing the bar at different distances from 20 mm to 80 mm from the photodetector. The time resolution degraded slightly when the proton distance from the photodetector increased, by about $\Delta\sigma_t \sim$ 1 ps/10 mm.
With several bars in-line, all inclined at $\theta_{ch}$, and a photodetector normal to the bars as in Fig.1, the Cherenkov light emitted at azimuth $\phi_{ch}$ in the direction of the photodetector arrives at the same time from all the bars. With a segmented anode MCP-PMT [^2] each bar can be individually read, imposing less stringent requirements on the electronics and potentially gaining a factor $\sqrt{N_{bar}}$ in resolution over a single bar. With multiple bars on a single anode MCP-PMT one gains the same factor in photoelectron statistics, but the electronics must be more highly performant.
We made a pair of multi-bar detectors with single anode <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">photek</span> [@photek] PMT240 (2-stage, 40 mm diameter) MCP-PMTs, see Figs 6 and 7. Despite its large photocathode area, the PMT240 has an isochronous anode design; with a pulsed laser scan over the photocathode we verified that the output time is independent of illuminated position to within 2 ps. Each detector had three rows of five 5 mm$\times$ 5 mm bars in a housing made by electro-erosion of an aluminum block. Each bar was in a square hole with rounded corners such that it touched the housing only at the corners to maintain TIR, and was optically isolated from the other bars.The bars were pushed against the MCP window with springs, and coupled with optical grease. Figs.6 and 7 show the internal arrangement of bars and one layout in the beam (“opposite side" configuration). The beam is ($\Delta x$) 2 mm wide (determined by the trigger counter) which contributes up to 35 ps to the time spread in a detector. In this configuration the sum of the times (relative to a reference time) in the two detectors is independent of $x$; on the other hand the time difference is a measure of $x$. We did not have precision tracking to study this correlation. Even with the constant fraction discriminators (CFD) we found [@ftdalbrow] a residual correlation between the time difference $\Delta t$ and the pulse heights, and we applied a linear “time slewing" correction. The corrected $\Delta t$ distribution was a good fit to a Gaussian distribution with $\sigma(\Delta t)$ = 23.2 ps. (The TDC was calibrated with a delay cable.) Comparison with a third reference counter showed that the two detectors had the same resolution, 16.0$\pm$0.3 ps each. Combining the pair (“double <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>") as one would in an experiment then has $\sigma(t)$ = 23.2 ps/2 = 11.6 ps. We verified that the time resolution $\sigma_t$ improves with the number of bars $N$ as $1/\sqrt{N}$, as shown in Fig.8, showing that the bars contribute about equally; with five bars the number of photoelectrons is $\sim$ 20-25.
{width="80mm"}
{width="70mm"}
{width="80mm"}
Beam tests of the L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We tested prototypes of the L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> with 120 GeV/c protons in February 2012 (with DAQ-2). We measured the signals from four bars in-line in 5 GSPS waveform digitisers (DRS4), together with the signal from a faster ($\sim$ 8 ps resolution) PHOTEK PMT240 behind the test modules.
We made a pair of identical boxes, each containing two R = 40 mm and two R = 30 mm radiator bars, adjacent to each other, and only separated by two 100 $\mu$m wires, to maintain total internal reflection; there was no wrapping. Bar holders were made that touched the bars only at their corners and only at a few positions. Fig.9 shows the design of an assembled box, with two 30 mm and two 40 mm bars in line.
{width="80mm"}
{width="90mm"}
Fig.10 shows a photograph. The interior of the boxes was covered with black felt to absorb any stray light that emerges from the bars. The upstream end of the radiator bars could be blackened to absorb light which is reflected back. We did not do this for these tests, in order to be able to look through both bars in the box (we had small apertures in the front and back plates) to verify alignment and be able to inspect the bars *in situ*. We made two identical boxes, both for convenience and so that they could be separated in $z$ (the beam direction) as an independent check on the time calibration.
The pair of light guide bars, separated by 10 mm in $z$, were coupled with optical grease to Hamamatsu [@hama] 3$\times$3 mm$^2$ SiPMs, MPPC S10943-0035. These are mounted on a specially designed circuit board, supplied with -72.5 volts, and the signals were output on SMA connectors. We took data in two configurations, with and without 9.1 pF shaping capacitors in series. In the former case the clipped signal was put through an ORTEC VT120 $\times$20 preamplifier. The signals were sent to 8 channels of DRS4 waveform digitisers [@ronzhinwfd].
{width="70mm"}
We sent the 2$\times$2 mm$^2$ beam through four 30 mm (short) radiator bars (with 40 mm light guide bars) and then through four 40 mm (long) bars (43 mm LG bar). Fig.11 shows a typical event; the green (lowest) trace is the PMT240 signal (50 mV/division), and the other traces are the signals from three 30 mm bars, with 2 ns/div and 20 mV per division. The pulses are about 80 mV with a rise time (10% to 90%) of $\sim$ 800 ps. From the spread in pulse heights we estimated the number of photoelectrons to be $N_{pe} \sim$ 80 - 100. We found the signal time from fitting the leading edge (or the full waveform; the difference was small) and correcting for pulse-height slewing. After these corrections, the time differences between the four short bars and the reference PMT240 signal had widths, from Gaussian fits, $\sigma_t$ = 34.9, 39.6, 40.1, and 35.3 ps, so $\langle \sigma_t \rangle$ = 37.5 ps. Fig.12 shows one example, with $\sigma(\Delta $t) = 34.9 ps, and no background or inefficiency. The small spread is an indication of only small differences in the bars, the SiPMs, or their coupling. We found that the DRS4 resolution depends on the time difference between the input signals [@ronzhinwfd]. After unfolding the PMT and electronics resolution (8 ps and $\sim$ 15 ps respectively) we find $\sigma_t$(30 mm bar) $\sim$ 33 ps. The time differences between pairs of three different bars in the same DRS4 box were 43.4, 43.9, and 45.2 ps, implying a single bar resolution $\sigma_t$(30 mm bar) $\sim$ 31 ps, in agreement.
{width="80mm"}
In the proposed application at the LHC [@fp420] we plan four detectors in line. Hence the resolution of the four bars combined would be $\sigma_t \approx$ 16 ps. The SPTR of the SiPM is quoted by Hamamatsu to be $\sim$ 300 ps; giving an expected time resolution for 100 p.e. of 300 ps$/\sqrt{100}$ = 30 ps, in reasonable agrement with the observations. SiPMs with reduced SPTR are becoming available [@stm]. We checked the time calibration by separating the two detector boxes by 3 cm in the beam direction and observing the 100 ps shift between the L-bar signals. The L-bar geometry has protons that traverse the short bar and cross the light guide of the long bar, and so they also have a signal that is about 10% of the short bar signal, approximately proportional to the proton path length (3 mm). We verified this with the proton beam only through the light guide bars. Protons through the long bar did not pass through the short bar light guides, and we do not see signals there as expected [^3].
We rotated the boxes so that the proton beam passed through the LG bar at 48$^{\circ}$ as in the angled bar studies, but now with the SiPMs, to compare with earlier results using MCP-PMTs. Such angled bars, with SiPMs on the ends, are an alternative geometry to the L-bar. In this test the lengths of the two bars between the proton and the SiPM was only 28 mm and 39 mm. We measured $\sigma_t \sim$ 60 ps in each bar, with about 1/4 the number of photoelectrons. This is much worse that our earlier studies of the angled-bar with an MCP-PMT, the reason being that MCP-PMTs have a much better SPTR than the SiPMs, and extend further in the UV. (We measured SPTR = 45 ps for the PHOTEK240 MCP-PMT, and 120-150 ps for the Hamamatsu MCCP.)
Advantages of the L-bar over the angled bar are a longer radiator path, for a given distance of the SiPM from the beam the light guide bar length is minimized, and in addition $y$-segmentation is possible. It would be possible to combine the L-bar geometry with MCP-PMT readoout, if the pattern of anode pads can match that of the bars. If the photocathode lifetime issue is solved, and cross talk between anode pads[^4] is not large, this could be a good option.
A multichannel L-bar array for the LHC: Design considerations
=============================================================
{width="100mm"}
We now present a design for a timing detector using L-bars for the HPS proposal to add very forward tracking and timing detectors to the CMS experiment at the LHC [@fp420]. Fig.13 shows the arrangement of bars in a module. (A similar design would also be suitable for the APF project at ATLAS.) A “module" is a light tight box with a very thin ($\sim$ 100 $\mu$m) side wall on the beam side, and blackened interior. The active area is 12 mm (vertically, $y$) $\times$ 16 mm (horizontally, $x$), see Fig.13. (This is an example only; other choices of coverage are equally possible.) One module consists of (4$\times$6 = 24) independent 3$\times$3 mm$^2$ bar elements.This allows a time measurement of two or more protons from the same bunch crossing (which has a time spread $\sigma_t \sim$ 150 ps) if they are in different elements. The ends of the light guide bars arrive at an array of SiPMs mounted on a board, together with preamplifiers (and possibly also discriminators). A feature of the L-bar design is that the layout of the SiPMs on the board (in the ($x,z$) plane) reflects the layout of the bars (in the ($x,y)$ plane) but more spread out in $z$. This is shown in the basic board design in Fig.14.
{width="100mm"}
The bars can be held in place, but separated to allow TIR, with grids of fine wires, diameter about 100 $\mu$m, such that they do not touch and TIR is maintained, in $x$ and $y$. The upsteam end of the bars can be made non-reflecting (e.g. with black felt) to reduce the late bounce-back light. They can also be glued in place at the front without significantly affecting the Cherenkov light. The bars have spring contacts on the SiPM faces, with a thin silicon “cookie" for good optical coupling.
The LG can be long enough that the SiPMs can be in shielded enclosures and far enough from the beam that radiation doses are tolerable. Simulations with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fluka</span> [@esposito] show that the hadron flux, with kinetic energy above 50 MeV (from collisions) at $y$ = 8 cm above the beam plane is only $\sim 5\times 10^{11}/$cm$^2/100 $ fb$^{-1}$ (one LHC year at high luminosity). A similar flux is expected from beam-gas interactions. Shielding around the SiPMs can reduce the flux of photons and electrons, as well as low energy neutrons [^5], and only the quartz bars and metal housings are very close to the beam. The main cause of the time spread of the photoelectrons is caused by the length of the radiator bar. The component of the speed of the light along the radiator bar is $dz/dt = c/n^2 \sim$ 0.136 ($\lambda$ = 300nm) - 0.141 ($\lambda$ = 600 nm) mm/ps.
Independent module positioning gives the option of staggering in $x,y$ for better proton position measurement (to combine with the precision silicon tracking). For example if two of the four modules are displaced in $x$ by 1.5 mm (half a cell), the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> measures a track with $\sigma(x) \lsim$ 450 $\mu$m, which can help matching to precision silicon pixel or strip track detectors. One maintains four measurements per track except for the 1.5 mm closest to the beam (but that loss can be recovered with two additional cells). Alignment of the radiator bars parallel to the protons is critical (at the level of $\lesssim$ 10 mrad).
An issue with this design is that particles passing through the shorter bars traverse the light guides of the longer bars at the same $x$, and they will generate light there. This is trapped and reaches the SiPMs. It is only about 10% of the light from the traversed bar and should be readily distinguishable (and one knows the track coordinates). This light can also be used, in the absence of “spoiling tracks", to help with the timing. Thus for a proton through the shortest bar in Fig.13 we can add the signals from the 3$\times$3 mm$^2$ light guides behind to the radiator bar signal, reducing the spread in performance between the long and short radiator bars. Another option, if space allows, is to alternate modules with LG bars above and below the beam pipe (this requires a mirror image construction), so protons traverse both long bars and short bars.
These timing detectors will be behind precision silicon tracking, so the hit elements are predetermined, and alignment can be verified. This design has flexibity to adapt to needs. For example the highest track density is close to the LHC beam, and one could have smaller bars, e.g. 1 mm$\times$1 mm, in that area, as well as larger bars in the periphery.
Further developments
====================
The L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> gives time measurements when two or more protons from the same bunch crossing are in its acceptance. The design of the test beam modules can be extended to 24 channels with only minor developments. Nevertheless we will continue R&D to improve the time resolution. There are several possibilities. Faster SiPMs with higher photon detection efficiency, and possibly more sensitivity in the UV are becoming available [@stm]. The SiPMs used in the test were samples from the CMS Hadron Outer (HO) upgrade, and were not optimised for timing. SiPMs from STMicroelectronics (STM) with new P-on-N structure (rather than N-on-P SiPMs, also from STM) show significantly better timing properties [@mazzillo] [^6]. Tests with a PiLas (Picosecond Injection Laser) showed the photon detection efficiency at $\lambda$ = 405 nm, 5 V above breakdown voltage (28 V), to be 43% higher (31.1% cf 21.7%). Also the Single Photoelectron Time Resolution, SPTR, is 174 ps cf 231 ps, i.e. smaller by 25% than for STM N-on-P detectors. Together these improvements lead one to expect that the single bar resolution can be improved from the measured 32 ps to $\sim$20 ps, and hence $\sigma_t$ = 10 ps for four modules can be achieved.
Other radiator materials
------------------------
Sapphire (Al$_2$O$_3$) is another potential radiator material, with a higher refractive index, ($n$ = 1.70 cf 1.47 at 400 nm) resulting in more Cherenkov photons. The transmission extends down to 250 nm, and sapphire is as radiation hard as quartz. However the time spread over a bar of given radiator length goes like $n^2/c$, and the dispersion is higher. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">geant4</span> simulations (Section 4) are encouraging, and show a factor $\sim$1.9 in the number of detected photons with a 30% improvement in the time resolution. It is therefore a promising alternative to quartz; but laboratory measurements need to be done. There may be even better materials.
L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> with MCP-PMT readout
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be possible to replace the SiPM board, with its 24 independent SiPMs, with a custom designed MCP-PMT, 40 mm $\times$ 40 mm, with a single photocathode and MCP plates, but with a segmented anode with 24 independent pads. The smaller SPTR and better PDE in the blue/UV should improve the time resolution by a large factor. The Argonne-Chicago-Fermilab team [@frisch] have recently made 20 cm $\times$ 20 cm MCP plates with the anode divided into strips. Smaller devices with anode pads to match the bars could be developed. If the lifetime, in the harsh LHC conditions, is acceptable, this would be a very interesting development.
Other comments
--------------
If there is longitudinal space one could have more than four modules, gaining as 1/$\sqrt{N}$, as they are independent, apart from a common reference time signal which has a negligible jitter. The radiator length was not optimised. The <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">geant4</span> studies show that the resolution improves almost as $\sigma_t \propto 1/R$ over 10 mm $< R < $ 40 mm, simply because of the increase in total light (almost, but not exactly). So in the same total detector length one could choose (say) four bars of 40 mm or eight of 20 mm, and get similar resolutions. The 8-bar option would double the cost for little gain, and is not our baseline. The length of the LG bar has to be determined based on more radiation studies (including dosimeter measurements in the tunnel), and on perfecting TIR on the bar sides. The timing algorithm may be improved, and adapted to the read-out, likely to be an HPTDC (High Precision TDC) [@hptdc] with 25 ps resolution.
Smaller area SiPMs, with smaller capacitance, are faster; the L-bar design allows smaller bars in the high density region close to the beam pipe, with larger bars further away.
A set of L-bar modules can provide a prompt signal for triggering events, at level 1 in CMS for detectors at $z = \pm$ 240 m. The simplest is to make an “OR" of the signals from all the bars in a module, then require, for example, at least three out of four modules to have a signal with fast majority logic, and send a single bit per side to the level 1 trigger. One could also make a more sophisticated fast track trigger, utilizing the spatial information provided by the individual bars. The individual bar bits, after discriminators, are available $\sim$ 10 ns after the passage of the proton. The $x$-coordinate information from each module can be input to a look-up table that can output an approximate proton momentum. This would not be competitive with the silicon tracking, but any reduction of level 1 trigger rates can be important. Time information from the two far detectors can also in principle be used in a fast trigger.
Beam monitoring
===============
The L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> design lends itself naturally to the problem of measuring fluxes of particles near (e.g. a few mm away from) high intensity beams, either in a colliding beam situation (LHC or CLIC) or at an external beam. It can be directional (the end of the bar far from the LG should be made non-reflecting), fast, and can have the SiPM (or another photodetector) remote from the beam and in a shielded enclosure. For a thesis on some relevant studies see Ref. [@orfanelli]. The detector is designed for single proton detection, but for an intense beam it may be more appropriate to have a gas radiator with a thin mirror at the back to a remote SiPM.
Summary
=======
We have developed Cherenkov counters using quartz bar radiators and both MCP-PMT and SiPM readout, designed to measure the time of protons at the LHC very close to the beam, with resolution $\sigma_t \sim$ 10 ps. The area required is only $\sim 4$ cm$^2$. Our latest design, with a novel L-bar geometry, has $\sigma_t$ = 16 ps, with a path for improvement, and satisfies the other requirements of edgelessness (within about 100 $\mu$m), sufficient radiation hardness, ability to measure several protons within a bunch (time spread $\sigma$ = 150 ps) and to be active every 25 ns (the bunch separation). In this design each proton is measured four times for cross-checks and to improve the resolution. The L-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span> detectors can also be used to measure, with good time resolution and directionality, the halo of circulating beams (either inside the vacuum pipe of outside).
Acknowledgements
================
Some of the earlier studies were carried out in collaboration with J.Va’vra (LBNL), A.Brandt (University of Texas at Arlington), J.Pinfold and Shengli Liu (Univ. Alberta). S.Hentschel (Fermilab) designed the L-bar detectors. We thank Jon Howarth (PHOTEK) for loans of MCP-PMTs, and STMicroelectronics for SiPMs. M. Tobin, C. Nicholson and E.A.Wilson (Fermilab summer students) developed <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">geant</span> simulations. We thank Aria Soha for test beam support. We thank Chien-Min Kao for support. We thank the U.S. Department of Energy for support through Fermilab.
[99]{}
H.Frisch et al.,Univ. Chicago, Argonne National Laboratory, Fermilab; Large area picosecond photodetectors project, http://psec.uchichicago.edu/library/index.php. M.G.Albrow *et al.*, The FP420 R&D project: Higgs and new physics with forward protons at the LHC, J. Inst. [**4**]{} p10001 (2009). M.G.Albrow, T.D.Coughlin and J.R.Forshaw, Central Exclusive Particle Production at High Energy Hadron Colliders, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**65**]{} (2010) 149. M.G.Albrow and A.Rostovtsev, Searching for the Higgs boson at hadron colliders using the missing mass method, arXiv:hep-ph/0009336 (Sep. 2000). M.G.Albrow *et al.*, A Search for the Higgs Boson using very forward tracking detectors with CDF, Letter of Intent to Fermilab PAC, hep-ex/0511057 (Mar. 2001). U.Akgun *et al.*, Quartz plate calorimeter as SLHC upgrade to CMS hadronic endcap calorimeters, XIII Int. Conf. Calorimetry in High Energy Physics (CALOR 2008), J.Phys. Conf. Series [**160**]{} (2009) 012015. A.Ronzhin *et al.*, Tests of timing properties of silicon photomultipliers, Nucl. Instr. Methods [**A 616**]{} (2010) 38. A.Ronzhin *et al.*, Development of a 10 ps level time of flight system in the Fermilab test beam facility, Nucl. Instr. Methods [**A 623**]{} (2010) 931, and A.Ronzhin *et al.*, FERMILAB-CONF-10-402-E. A.Ronzhin *et al.*, Waveform digitization for high resolution timing detectors with silicon photomultipliers, Nucl. Instr. Methods [**A 668**]{} (2012) 94.
J. Va’vra *et al.*, Beam test of a time-of-flight detector prototype, Nucl. Instr. Methods [**A 606**]{} (2009) 404. M.Albrow, Acta Phys. Polonica B Proceedings, [**4**]{} (2011) 65; arXiv:1104.1438 Specialty Glass Products, 2885 Terwood Rd., Willow Grove, PA 19090, USA; htp://www.sgpinc.com/ M.Akatsu *et al.*, MCP-PMT timing property for single photons, Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**A 528**]{} (2004) 763-775; K.Inami *et al.*, Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**A 560**]{} (2006) 303.
T.Jinno *et al.*, Lifetime-extended MCP-PMT, arXiv:1010.1057. Photek, http://www.photek.com/ S.Agostinelli *et al.*, GEANT4: A simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**506**]{} 250 (2003); J.Allison *et al.*, GEANT4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. [**53**]{} 270 (2006); http://geant4.cern.ch/
S.Ritt, Domino Ring Sampler, DRS4 evaluation board manual, drs.web.psi.ch/docs/manual\_rev11.pdf http://www.hamamatsu.com
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">fluka</span> calculations from Luigi Esposito, EN-STI-EET at CERN. Yi Qiang *et al.*, Radiation hardness of SiPMs for the JLab Hall D barrel calorimeter, submitted to Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**A**]{}; arXiv:1207.3743 STMicroelectronics, Catania, 95121, Italy; http://www.st.com/internet/com/home/home.jsp
M.Mazzillo *et al.*, Enhanced blue-light sensitivity p-on-n silicon photomultipliers fabricated at STMicroelectronics, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference 2011. J.Christiansen, HPTDC: High Performance Time to Digital Converter, CERN/EP-MIC. Orfanelli S. Styliani, Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the damage potential of electron beam and tests of beam loss detector based on quartz radiator read out by a silicon photomultiplier on CLIC Test Facility 3(CTF3), Diploma Thesis, National Technical University of Athens (Nov. 2011).
[^1]: If the radiator bar is clad or immersed in a medium with $n > 1$ the light will not be totally reflected.
[^2]: The Burle-Photonis 85011 MCP-PMT has an 8$\times$8 array of 6 mm$\times$6mm pads. We used this in earlier studies, and it is an option for the AFP project. This design with a multichannel MCP-PMT has segmentation in $x$ (horizontal) but not in $y$ (vertical), which is a disadvantage compared with our new baseline design, the L-bar.
[^3]: Optical coupling between adjacent bars would show up, but is not seen.
[^4]: Unlike in the angled-bar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">quartic</span>, the signals from the different bars do not arrive at the same time.
[^5]: Neutrons with energies $\sim$ 1 MeV are the main concern, and we are making measurements *in situ* during LHC runs. A recent study [@nrad] shows only a few percent loss of signal up to 4$\times 10^9 n_{eq}$/cm$^2$, with a rise of dark current which is partially recoverable. Lithiated polyethylene shielding can be installed, if necessary, around the SiPM boards and even around the LG bars without touching them.
[^6]: We thank STMicroelectronics for providing samples.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a real time version of the functional renormalization group which allows to study correlation effects on nonequilibrium transport through quantum dots. Our method is equally capable to address (i) the relaxation out of a nonequilibrium initial state into a (potentially) steady state driven by a bias voltage and (ii) the dynamics governed by an explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonian. All time regimes from transient to asymptotic can be tackled; the only approximation is the consistent truncation of the flow equations at a given order. As an application we investigate the relaxation dynamics of the interacting resonant level model which describes a fermionic quantum dot dominated by charge fluctuations. Moreover, we study decoherence and relaxation phenomena within the ohmic spin-boson model by mapping the latter to the interacting resonant level model.'
author:
- 'D. M. Kennes$^1$'
- 'S. G. Jakobs$^1$'
- 'C. Karrasch$^2$'
- 'V. Meden$^1$'
title: |
A renormalization group approach to time dependent transport\
through correlated quantum dots
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Obtaining a deeper understanding of nonequilibrium phenomena in the presence of many-body correlations is a major challenge in condensed matter physics. One particularly well-defined and controllable setup – both from an experimental and a theoretical perspective – are so-called quantum dots which feature a few correlated electronic degrees of freedom coupled to noninteracting leads. Their low-energy equilibrium physics is typically governed by the appearance of an energy scale which compared to the bare scales is strongly renormalized through the Coulomb interaction. A prominent example is the Kondo effect:[@Hewson] If a (nearly) odd number of electrons reside on the dot, *spin fluctuations* are strong below the Kondo temperature $T_K$. The latter depends exponentially on the bare system parameters given by the local charging energy $U$, the level-lead hybridization $\Gamma$ (‘kinetic energy’), and the level position $\epsilon$. Another example are quantum dots dominated by correlated *charge fluctuations*, in which the decay rate $\Gamma$ is renormalized. A prototypical model to describe such a scenario is the interacting resonant level model (IRLM).[@Schlottmann]
In equilibrium, methods based on the renormalization group (RG) idea proved to be powerful tools to treat many-body quantum dot problems with a hierarchy of energy scales.[@poormansrg; @rtrg; @flowequations; @nrg; @Metzner11] Several RG(-like) approaches were therefore recently extended in order to address three different nonequilibrium scenarios. In the most simple case one is interested in the *nonequilibrium steady state* induced by coupling to two (or more) leads that are held at chemical potentials differing by a bias voltage $ V $. The Hamiltonian itself is taken as time-independent. Prominent observables are the current $J$ through and the occupancy $\bar n$ of the dot levels. Problems of this class were studied using analytical RG(-like) methods such as the poor man’s RG,[@Rosch] the real-time RG (RTRG),[@Herbert] and the flow-equation approach.[@flowequations] Numerical methods include Wilson’s numerical RG (NRG) framework[@Anders1; @Anders2] (note that it was recently questioned[@Roschneu] if NRG’s inherent logarithmic discretization is reasonable in nonequilibrium), the time-dependent density-matrix renormalization group,[@PeterS; @Fabian] an iterated path integral approach,[@Reinhold] and time-dependent quantum Monte Carlo[@Werner] (the last three are not RG-based).
A more intriguing (but certainly more complex) task is to study the *relaxation dynamics* towards a steady state configuration, i.e. to ask: How does a specific nonequilibrium state time-evolve under a still time-independent Hamiltonian? RG(-like) methods employed to address this question are the flow-equation approach,[@Kehrein] RTRG,[@Dirk; @Herbert] and NRG.[@Anders1; @Anders2] The last – and for a theoretical description yet more challenging – class of problems are those in which the Hamiltonian carries an *explicit time dependence*; in the context of quantum dots, charge pumping is a typical example.[@pumpingwithoutcorrelations] The RTRG was recently extended to investigate this scenario.[@rtrgHt]
The functional renormalization group (FRG)[@Metzner11] implements Wilson’s RG idea in terms of an *a priori* exact infinite hierarchy of differential flow equations for the many-body vertex functions. It has distinct general advantages over other Wilson-like RG procedures: Functional RG (i) can be applied directly to microscopic models and not only to effective field theories, (ii) provides information on all energy scales and not solely on the low-energy limit, and (iii) allows for a flexible introduction of the flow parameter (cutoff). The *key approximation* is to truncate the infinite hierarchy at a given order. This is controlled for weak to intermediate interactions – a parameter regime which for certain problems might still be dominated by electronic correlations. Indeed, the FRG was shown to provide a reliable tool to study the linear-response physics of single- and multi-level quantum dot setups.[@Karrasch06; @Karrasch08; @SeverinII; @Karrasch10] It was recently extended[@SeverinI; @Gezzi] in order to investigate the steady-state limit in nonequilibrium (i.e., to treat the first class of problems discussed above) where it captures certain aspects of nonequilibrium Kondo physics[@SeverinII] and yields a comprehensive picture of the finite-bias transport through a quantum dot dominated by correlated charge fluctuations.[@Karrasch10] The single impurity Anderson model as well as the IRLM were employed as prototypical examples.
This paper aims at a natural but nontrivial generalization of the functional RG framework which allows to tackle *real time relaxation dynamics* as well as *time-dependent Hamiltonians* of interacting quantum dot problems. In complete analogy with the prior extension of the FRG from linear response to steady-state nonequilibrium, this requires (i) to derive the exact hierarchy of flow equations from a functional that generates *real-time* vertex functions, (ii) to introduce a cutoff which preserves symmetries (such as causality) in nonequilibrium, (iii) to consistently truncate the infinite hierarchy at a given order and to formulate a closed set of flow equation, and finally (iv) to implement an algorithm which solves them ‘numerically exact’ in reasonable time. In contrast to all prior applications, devising such an algorithm is involved for the problem at hand. To this end, we organize our paper as follows:
In Sec. \[sec:Keldysh\_formalism\] we introduce a general Hamiltonian that describes an at this point unspecified quantum dot tunnel-coupled to noninteracting leads. We allow for time-dependent dot and tunnel parameters. In order to eventually set up the FRG flow equations, we discuss some basics of nonequilibrium single-particle Keldysh Green functions that depend on two time arguments. We shortly illustrate how to express the current $J$ and dot occupancy $\bar n$ in terms of those quantities.
In a next step (Sec. \[sec:FRG\]) we derive the exact hierarchy of flow equations and discuss their form after truncating at the lowest nontrivial level. Even though this approximation – which is the *only* approximation within our approach – can be strictly motivated for small Coulomb interactions only, it was successfully used to describe aspects of correlation physics for a variety of quantum dot setups in equilibrium[@Karrasch06] as well as in steady-state nonequilibrium.[@Karrasch10; @SeverinII] We stress that the details of our FRG implementation for [*fermions*]{} are different from earlier extensions[@Gasenzer; @PeterK] of the method to study the time evolution of interacting [*bosons*]{}. Importantly, we do not rely on the generalized Kadanoff-Baym ansatz to approximately solve the Dyson equation (which was used in Ref. ) since we are sceptical about its general validity.
In Sec. \[sec:irlm\] we specify our (so far general) FRG approach for the interacting resonant level model. The latter describes a single spinless fermionic level with energy $\epsilon(t)$ that is locally coupled to two Fermi liquid leads via a tunnel matrix element $\tau(t)$ and a Coulomb interaction $U(t)$. In the steady-state limit, the corresponding flow equations could partially be solved analytically (in frequency space).[@Karrasch10a] This is no longer possible in our real-time representation, and we need to resort to a numerical treatment. Implementing a ‘numerically exact’ solution efficiently on a standard computer is not straightforward. We present aspects of our algorithm in Sec. \[sec:num\].
Section \[sec:results\] is devoted to elaborating the current $J(t)$ and the dot occupancy $\bar n(t)$ of the IRLM obtained from our FRG scheme. We focus on time-independent (but otherwise general) system parameters for reasons of simplicity but emphasize that the framework directly allows to study an explicit time dependence (results will be published elsewhere[@Dante]). In a nutshell, we find two different renormalized relaxation rates, characteristic oscillations with frequencies given by the level position relative to the left and right lead chemical potentials, and power-law corrections to the exponential time dependences. We do not observe the appearance of secular terms frequently encountered within perturbation theory.[@secularterms] A comparison of our results to real-time RG data[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen] strongly supports that the lowest-order FRG flow equations in real time capture hallmarks of correlation physics within the interacting resonant level model.
In absence of a bias voltage, the IRLM can be mapped onto the ohmic spin-boson model[@spinbosonrmp] whose relaxation dynamics we investigate as a second application (Sec. \[sec:spinboson\]). We relate our results to predictions from field theory[@Saleur] and the so-called improved noninteracting blip approximation.[@Egger]
A summary and a perspective for future applications of our time-dependent functional RG scheme are given in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\]. In the Appendix we outline some technical details of the calculation of the Keldysh Green functions.
Open Fermi systems in the Keldysh formalism {#sec:Keldysh_formalism}
===========================================
*Hamiltonian* — We aim at discussing time-dependent nonequilibrium transport through a quantum dot coupled to two or more leads (i.e., transport through an open Fermi system). To this end, we introduce the Hamiltonian $$H(t) = H^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}(t) + \sum_\alpha [H^{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}_\alpha + H^{\ensuremath{\text{coup}}}_\alpha(t)] ~.
\label{fullH}$$ The dot part constitutes of a single-particle term and a two-particle interaction, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H_dot}
H^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}(t) &= H^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}_0(t) + H^{\ensuremath{\text{int}}}(t),
\\
H^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}_0(t) &= \sum_{ij} \epsilon_{ij}(t) d_i^\dagger d_j, \label{eq:H0}
\\
H^{\ensuremath{\text{int}}}(t) &= \frac{1}{4} \sum_{ijkl} \bar u_{ijkl}(t) d^\dagger_i
d^\dagger_j d_l d_k,\end{aligned}$$ where we employ standard second quantized notation. The reservoirs $\alpha$ are modelled as noninteracting, $$H^{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}_\alpha = \sum_{k_\alpha} \epsilon_{k_\alpha}
c^\dagger_{k_\alpha} c_{k_\alpha} ,$$ and they are tunnel-coupled to the dot through $$H^{\ensuremath{\text{coup}}}_\alpha(t) = \sum_{k_\alpha,i}
\gamma_{k_\alpha i}(t) c^\dagger_{k_\alpha}d_i + {\ensuremath{\text{H.c.}}}.$$ We explicitly allow for a time dependence of the parameters of $H^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}$ and $H^{\ensuremath{\text{coup}}}_\alpha$.
*Initial statistics* — We assume that the system is prepared using a product density matrix $\rho$ at time $t=0$ – a situation which arises naturally when the dot and the reservoirs are decoupled for $t<0$. Furthermore, the reservoirs are supposed to initially be in grand canonical equilibrium with temperature $T_\alpha$ and chemical potential $\mu_\alpha$, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t=0) &= \rho_0 = \rho^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}_0 \otimes
\rho^{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}_{\alpha_1,0} \otimes \dots \otimes \rho^{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}_{\alpha_m,0},
\\
\rho^{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}_{\alpha,0} &= e^{-(H^{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}_\alpha - \mu_\alpha
N_\alpha)/T_\alpha} / \operatorname{Tr}e^{-(H^{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}_\alpha - \mu_\alpha N_\alpha)/T_\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ where $N_\alpha = \sum_{k_\alpha} c^\dagger_{k_\alpha} c_{k_\alpha}$. We choose units with $k_{\ensuremath{\text{B}}} = 1$, $\hbar = 1$, and electron charge $e=1$. Finally, we assume that the statistical operator $\rho^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}_0$ at $t=0$ allows for the application of Wick’s theorem[@danielewicz] and that its matrix representation commutes with the initial single-particle dot Hamiltonian: ${\ensuremath{\left[ \rho^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}_0 , \epsilon(t=0) \right]}} = 0$, where $\epsilon$ is the matrix with entries $ \epsilon_{ij} $. For an initially empty quantum dot these requirements are trivially fulfilled; it is then irrelevant whether or not the two-particle interaction is present at $t=0$. However, when dealing with an initially nonempty quantum dot we have to assume that the interaction is turned on at time $t=0$ to avoid initial correlations.
*Green functions in Keldysh formalism* — In order to describe the time evolution of the system for $t>0$, we employ the Keldysh formalism.[@HaugJauho; @Rammer] All single-particle properties of interest – such as $J$ and $\bar n$ – can be expressed in terms of the retarded and Keldysh component of the single-particle dot Green function, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GRet_def}
G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{ii'}(t,t') &= - i \Theta(t-t') \operatorname{Tr}\rho_0
\left\{ d_i(t) , d_{i'}^\dagger(t') \right\} ,
\\
\label{eq:GK_def}
G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{ii'}(t,t') &= - i \operatorname{Tr}\rho_0
\left[d_i(t) , d_{i'}^\dagger(t') \right].\end{aligned}$$ The operators are in the Heisenberg picture with reference time $t_0=0$; $\{ \ldots , \ldots \}$ refers to the anticommutator; $[ \ldots , \ldots ]$ denotes the commutator. Finally, the advanced Green function $$G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}_{ii'}(t,t') = i \Theta(t'-t) \operatorname{Tr}\rho_0
\left\{ d_i(t) , d_{i'}^\dagger(t') \right\} = G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{i'i}(t',t)^\ast
\label{adjoint}$$ is adjoint to the retarded one. All time arguments are positive throughout this paper, $t, t' > 0$.
It will prove useful to introduce Green functions that are computed w.r.t. three different Hamiltonians: (i) the noninteracting, decoupled dot propagator $g$ associated with $H^\textnormal{dot}_0$ only, (ii) the noninteracting but reservoir dressed dot propagator $G^{\ensuremath{\text{0}}}$ referring to $H$ with $ H^{\ensuremath{\text{int}}}(t)=0 $, and (iii) the interacting and reservoir dressed dot propagator $G$ calculated w.r.t. the full $H$.
*The noninteracting, decoupled dot propagator* can be obtained by computing $\partial_t g(t,t')$ and $\partial_{t'} g(t,t')$ and then re-integrating with the correct boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gRet}
g^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,t') &= - i \Theta(t-t') {\mathcal T} e^{-i \int_{t'}^t \, dt_1 \,
\epsilon(t_1) },
\\
\label{eq:gK}
g^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t') &= -i g^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,0) (1-2 \bar n) g^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}(0,t').\end{aligned}$$ ${\mathcal T}$ denotes time ordering, and $$\bar n_{ii'} = \operatorname{Tr}\rho_0^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}} d^\dagger_{i'} d_i$$ is the matrix of ‘occupancy’ of dot states at time $t=0$.
*The reservoir dressed but still noninteracting dot propagator* incorporates the presence of reservoirs via appropriate self-energy contributions: $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}&= \sum_\alpha \Sigma_\alpha ,
\\
\left[\Sigma^{\ensuremath{\text{ret/K}}}_\alpha\right]_{i'i}(t',t) &= \sum_{k_\alpha}
\gamma_{k_\alpha i'}^\ast(t') g^{\ensuremath{\text{ret/K}}}_{k_\alpha}(t',t) \gamma_{k_\alpha
i}(t),\end{aligned}$$ where the noninteracting reservoir propagator $g_{k_\alpha}$ is given in analogy to Eqs. and . Since we are not interested in details of the reservoir band structure, we implement a continuous band of infinite width with a constant density of states (wide band limit), $$D_\alpha(\epsilon) = D_\alpha e^{-\delta {\ensuremath{\left| \epsilon \right|}}},$$ with $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$ assuring convergence of the energy integrals. This approach is widely used in the literature. Furthermore, we take the couplings between dot and reservoirs to be independent of $k_\alpha$, that is $\gamma_{k_\alpha i}
= \gamma_{\alpha i}$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SigmaRet_wbl}
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_\alpha(t',t) &= - i \delta(t'-t) \Gamma_\alpha(t),
\\
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_\alpha(t',t) &= - T_\alpha e^{- i \mu_\alpha(t'-t)}
\Gamma_\alpha
\sum_\pm \frac{1}{\sinh[\pi T_\alpha(t'-t\pm i
\delta)]},
\label{eq:SigmaK_wbl}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\Gamma_\alpha}_{i'i}(t) = \pi D_\alpha \gamma_{\alpha i'}^\ast(t)
\gamma_{\alpha i}(t).$$ For the derivation of Eq. we exploited the expansion $$1 - 2 \bar n_{k_\alpha} = - 2 T_\alpha \sum_{\omega_m} \frac{1}{i
\omega_m - \epsilon_{k_\alpha} + \mu_\alpha},$$ where the fermionic Matsubara frequencies $\omega_m$ are the odd multiples of $\pi T_\alpha$, and the series is to be evaluated as a principal value for ${\ensuremath{\left| \omega_m \right|}} \rightarrow \infty$. Note that the wide band limit assumption of a continuous density of states implies the limit of infinite reservoir size. Thus, this limit is to be performed before further evaluating the dot propagator in order to properly define an open system configuration in which no recurrence phenomena occur.
Dyson’s equation for $G^0$ reads $$G^0 = g + G^0 \Sigma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}g.$$ The Green functions and the self-energy in this equation are matrices (retarded, advanced, and Keldysh components are ordered in the convention of Ref. ), $$G^0 =
\begin{pmatrix}
G^{0, {{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}} & G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}}
\\
0 & G^{0, {{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}
\end{pmatrix}
,
\quad
\Sigma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\Sigma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}& \Sigma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}\\
0 & \Sigma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}\end{pmatrix}~,$$ with each block being itself a matrix w.r.t. the dot’s single-particle quantum numbers. For the retarded component we find $$\label{eq:Dyson_Ret}
G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}} = g^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}+ G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}g^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}},$$ where the multiplication abbreviates a summation over the dot quantum numbers as well as integration over internal times, $$(AB)_{ii'}(t,t') = \sum_j \int_0^\infty d s A_{ij}(t,s) B_{ji'}(s,t').$$ As $\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}\sim \delta(t'-t)$, the solution is simply $$\label{eq:G0Ret}
G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t,t') = - i \Theta(t-t') {\mathcal T} e^{- i \int_{t'}^t \, dt_1
\left[\epsilon(t_1) - i \Gamma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(t_1) \right]},$$ with $\Gamma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}= \sum_\alpha \Gamma_\alpha$. For the Keldysh component, Dyson’s equation takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}} = g^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}+ G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}} \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}g^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}+ G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}} \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}g^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}\\
+ G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}} \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}g^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}},\end{gathered}$$ which is solved by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:G0K_contrib}
G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}}(t,t') = - i G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t,0) (1 - 2 \bar n)
G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}(0,t')
\\
+ (G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}} \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}})(t,t'). \end{gathered}$$
*The full Green function* $G$ finally includes the interaction. Its components satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,t') &= G^{0, {{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t,t') + \left[G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}} \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}G^{0,
{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}\right](t,t') \label{eins}
\\
G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t') &= - i G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,0) (1 - 2 \bar n)
G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}(0,t')
\nonumber \\
& \quad \qquad + [G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}+
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}) G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}](t,t'),
\label{eq:GK_contrib}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Sigma$ is the self-energy associated with $H^{\rm int}$ (we will use the FRG to compute it approximately). The first term in Eq. governs the decay of the initial dot occupancy while the second one describes how a new occupancy emerges under the influence of the reservoirs and the two-particle interaction.
*Physical observables* — Single-particle properties of the system can be expressed in terms of the full Green function $G$. For instance, the (time-dependent) expectation value of the occupancy of a dot state easily follows from Eq. : $$\bar n_i(t) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{i}{2} G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{ii}(t,t).
\label{occu}$$ Another example is the current of particles leaving reservoir $\alpha$, $$J_\alpha(t) = - i \operatorname{Tr}\rho_0 {\ensuremath{\left[ H(t) , N_\alpha(t) \right]}},$$ where the operators are in the Heisenberg picture. A derivation similar to Ref. but in real time space yields $$\begin{gathered}
J_\alpha(t) = - \operatorname{Re}\int_0^t d t' \operatorname{Tr}\big[\Sigma_\alpha^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,t') G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t',t)
\\
- G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,t') \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_\alpha(t',t)\big] .
\label{curr}\end{gathered}$$ Here, trace and multiplication abbreviate a summation over dot quantum numbers only.
Functional renormalization group {#sec:FRG}
================================
The functional renormalization group is a quantum many-body method which allows to gain insights into the physics of interacting fermion and boson systems that exhibit a hierarchy of energy scales and/or competing instabilities.[@Metzner11] In a first step one supplements the noninteracting propagation by a flow parameter $\Lambda$, which for infrared divergent problems might reasonably be chosen as an infrared cutoff. Consequently, one-particle irreducible vertex functions (effective interactions) acquire a cutoff-dependence, and taking the derivative w.r.t. the latter yields an exact infinite hierarchy of flow equations – in practice, this can be achieved using a generating functional. After truncating the hierarchy – which can be done in a strictly controlled way – one obtains a finite closed set of coupled differential equations for the self-energy (single-particle vertex), the effective two-particle interaction (two-particle vertex), and possibly higher order vertex functions (depending on the truncation order). The cutoff-free problem is recovered by integrating from $\Lambda=\infty$ where the vertices are known analytically down to $\Lambda=0$. Note that truncation is the only approximation; the full dependence on the single-particle quantum numbers and times (or frequencies) can be kept.
Prior applications of the functional RG mainly focussed on the regime of linear response where one can conveniently resort to the Matsubara formalism (i.e., use imaginary times or frequencies). For quantum dot problems, two truncation schemes were employed. In the simplest approximation only the flow of the self-energy $\Sigma$ is taken into account; $\Sigma$ is then frequency independent.[@Karrasch06] Within this truncation all terms to [*first order*]{} in the two-particle interaction are kept, while higher-order terms are only partially included. We emphasize that the RG procedure enhances the quality of the approximation beyond perturbation theory (by including contributions from an infinite set of Feynman diagrams in a controlled way; see below). At the end of the RG flow the sum of the (frequency-independent) self-energy components merely correspond to an effective noninteracting problem,[@Karrasch06] which allows to gain intuitive insights into the observed correlation effects. This static approximation can be improved by incorporating the flow of the static part of the effective two-particle interaction; see Ref. . In a second truncation scheme – which eventually includes all [*second order*]{} terms – the full frequency and quantum number dependence of the two-particle vertex and the self-energy are kept, while the flow of the generated three-particle vertex is neglected.[@Karrasch08; @SeverinII] In this improved approximation a significantly larger number of coupled differential flow equations needs to be solved; this is only possible numerically and requires substantial computational effort. The second-order scheme was so far applied only to the single-impurity Anderson model.[@Karrasch08; @SeverinII]
The functional RG was recently extended to Keldysh frequency space in order to study the steady state of bias voltage driven quantum dots; both approximations mentioned above were employed.[@Gezzi; @SeverinI; @SeverinII; @Karrasch10] The static lowest-order truncation is of limited usefulness if one aims at tackling dots that exhibit Kondo correlations.[@Gezzi] One needs to employ a higher-order scheme where the self-energy can acquire a frequency dependence.[@SeverinII] On the other hand, the static truncation allows to obtain a comprehensive picture of the nonequilibrium steady-state physics of the IRLM for small to intermediate interactions: Logarithmically divergent terms that show up in lowest-order perturbation theory are resummed consistently, and the RG-renormalized tunnel couplings features generic power laws with interaction-dependent exponents.[@Karrasch10] This in turn gives rise to highly nontrivial effects such as current-voltage characteristics dominated by power laws with interaction-dependent exponents. The latter can be computed to leading order in the interaction.[@Karrasch10a] The simplest truncation thus captures hallmarks of correlated charge fluctuations within the IRLM.
*Generating functional* — In the following we sketch how to derive the FRG flow equations for time-dependent problems. The procedure is completely analogous to the one in equilibrium or steady-state nonequilibrium, and more technical details can be found in Refs. , , and . As a first step, we express the two-time Keldysh Green functions via their Keldysh contour functional integral representation:[@Kamenev]
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat G^{pp'}_{ii'}(t,t')&=-i\int \mathcal{D}\bar\psi\psi \;\psi^{p}_{i}(t)\bar\psi^{p'}_{i'}(t')\, \exp\left\{i\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d s \sum \limits_{i_1i_2}\sum \limits_{p_1p_2}\bar\psi^{p_1}_{i_1}(s+\eta)\left[\hat G^0 (s,s)^{-1}\right]_{i_1i_2}^{p_1p_2}
\psi^{p_2}_{i_2}(s)-iS^{\text{int}} \right\},
\label{funint}\end{aligned}$$
where $ \psi $ denote Grassmann fields, and $ p,p'=\pm $ are the usual Keldysh indices referring to the upper and lower branch of the Keldysh contour (they can be handled as additional quantum numbers for all practical purposes). The hat indicates the Green functions before rotation to the Keldysh basis (see Sec. \[sec:Keldysh\_formalism\]). The interacting part of the action is given by $$S^{\text{int}}=\frac{1}{4}\sumint \limits_{\mathbbm{1},\mathbbm{2},\mathbbm{1'},\mathbbm{2'}}
\bar u_{\mathbbm{1}\mathbbm{2}\mathbbm{1'}\mathbbm{2'}}\bar\psi_{\mathbbm{1}}\bar\psi_{\mathbbm{2}}\psi_{\mathbbm{2}'}\psi_{\mathbbm{1}'},$$ using the multi-index $ \mathbbm{1}=(t,i,p) $ and the bare two-particle vertex $$\begin{split}
\bar u_{\mathbbm{1}\mathbbm{2}\mathbbm{1}'\mathbbm{2}'}=&\delta(t_1-t_{1}')\delta(t_1-t_{2})\delta(t_1-t_{2}')\\
&\times \delta_{p_1,p_1'}\delta_{p_2,p_2'}\left(\sigma_z\right)_{p_1p_2} \bar u_{i_1 i_2 i_1' i_2'}(t) ,
\end{split}$$ where $ \sigma_z $ denotes the $z$ Pauli matrix. The $m$-particle Green function $$\begin{split}
\hat G&_{\mathbbm{1}\dots \mathbbm{m}\mathbbm{1'}\dots \mathbbm{m'}}=(-i)^m\\\times&\left \langle T_\gamma d^{p_1}_{i_1}[t_1]\dots d^{p_m}_{i_m}[t_m]d^{ \dagger\;p_{m'}}_{i_{m'}}[t_{m'}]\dots d^{\dagger\;p_{1'}}_{i_{1'}}[t_{1'}]\right\rangle_{\rho_{0}} ~.
\end{split}$$ can be obtained from the following generating functional \[the noninteracting part $S^0$ of the action is given by the first term in the exponential of Eq. (\[funint\])\]: $$\mathcal{W}(\{\bar\eta\},\{\eta\})=\int \mathcal{D}\bar\psi\psi \; \exp\left\{S^0-iS^{\text{int}}-(\bar \psi ,\eta)-(\eta,\psi)\right\}$$ through the derivative $$\begin{split}
&\hat G_{\mathbbm{1}\dots \mathbbm{m}\mathbbm{1'}\dots \mathbbm{m'}}=\\&\left.(-i)^m\frac{\delta^m}{\delta \bar\eta_{\mathbbm{1}}\dots \delta \bar\eta_{\mathbbm{m}}}\frac{\delta^m}{\delta \eta_{\mathbbm{m'}}\dots \delta \eta_{\mathbbm{1'}}}\mathcal{W}(\{\bar\eta\},\{\eta\})\right|_{\eta=\bar\eta=0}.
\end{split}$$ The corresponding functional that generates the one-particle irreducible vertex functions is given by the Legendre transformation $$\Gamma (\{\bar\phi\},\{\phi\})=-\mathcal{W}^c (\{\bar\eta\},\{\eta\})-(\bar\phi,\eta)-(\bar \eta,\phi)+(\bar\phi,\left[ \hat G^0\right]^{-1} \phi)\label{GenVert1}$$ of the generating functional of the connected Green functions: $$\mathcal{W}^c(\{\bar\eta\}\{\eta\})=\ln\left[\mathcal{W}(\{\bar\eta\},\{\eta\})\right].$$
*Flow equations* — If we supplement the free propagator by a (for the time being unspecified) flow parameter $\Lambda$, i.e., replace $ \hat G^0\to \hat G^{0,\Lambda}$, all vertex and Green functions acquire a $\Lambda$ dependence via Eq. (\[GenVert1\]). Taking the derivative with respect to $ \Lambda $ yields the infinite hierarchy of FRG flow equations. Their general structure is to relate the $\Lambda$-derivative of the $m$-particle vertex to a certain set of diagrams involving the $m+1$-particle vertex and lower ones.[@Metzner11] This infinite hierarchy can generically only be solved by truncating it to a given order. Our approach uses the lowest-order scheme for reasons of simplicity; more elaborate approximations can in principle be devised straightforwardly. If the two-particle vertex is set to its bare value $$\gamma_2^{\Lambda}(\mathbbm 1, \mathbbm 2, \mathbbm 1', \mathbbm 2')
=-i \bar u_{\mathbbm 1 \mathbbm 2\mathbbm 1' \mathbbm 2'}~,$$ the only remaining flow equation is the one for the self-energy. It reads $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_\Lambda\gamma_1^\Lambda(\mathbbm 1, \mathbbm 1') & = &
\sum_{\mathbbm 2 , \mathbbm 2'}\left[\hat G^{\Lambda}\left(\partial_\Lambda
[\hat G^{0,\Lambda}]^{-1}\right)\hat G^{\Lambda}\right]_{\mathbbm 2' \mathbbm 2}
\gamma_2^\Lambda(\mathbbm 1, \mathbbm 2,\mathbbm 1',\mathbbm 2')
\nonumber \\ &= & - \sum_{\mathbbm 2 , \mathbbm 2'}\hat S_{\mathbbm 2' \mathbbm 2}^\Lambda
\gamma_2^\Lambda(\mathbbm 1 ,\mathbbm 2,\mathbbm 1', \mathbbm 2'),\label{eq:flow}
$$ with the so-called ‘single-scale propagator’ given by $$\begin{split}
\hat S^\Lambda_{\mathbbm 1 \mathbbm 1'} &= -\sum_{\mathbbm 2 , \mathbbm 2'}\hat G_{\mathbbm 1 \mathbbm 2'}^\Lambda\left[\partial_\Lambda [\hat G^{0,\Lambda}]^{-1}\right]_{\mathbbm 2' \mathbbm 2}\hat G_{\mathbbm 2 \mathbbm 1'}^\Lambda\\& = \partial^*_\Lambda \hat G_{\mathbbm 1 \mathbbm 1'}^\Lambda.
\end{split}$$ We introduced the star differential operator $\partial^*_\Lambda$ which acts only on the free Green function $ \hat G^{0,\Lambda} $, not on $ \Sigma^\Lambda $, in the series expansion $ \hat G^{\Lambda}= \hat G^{0,\Lambda}+\hat G^{0,\Lambda}\Sigma^\Lambda \hat G^{0,\Lambda}+\dots$ . The flow equation is depicted diagrammatically in Fig. \[fig:Flowdia\]. Even though its structure seems Hartree-Fock-like, it is important to stress that our approximation is in no way related to any mean-fieldish approach. The latter are known to suffer from severe artifacts in low-dimensional systems.
![Diagrammatic representation of the self-energy flow equation. The dot indicates the derivative w.r.t. $ \Lambda $; the slanted line symbolizes the single-scale propagator. Within our first-order truncation scheme, the right-hand side is proportional to a delta function in time, and it is thus sufficient to introduce a single time argument $ t $.[]{data-label="fig:Flowdia"}](figures/Flowdia.eps){width="0.65\linewidth"}
*Choice of a cutoff* — It is one strength of the functional RG that it is not bound to a particular cutoff as long as the latter fulfills $ \hat G^{0,\Lambda=\infty}=0$ and $ \hat G^{0,\Lambda=0}= \hat G^0 $. A crucial step in the extension to nonequilibrium problems is to devise a scheme which conserves causality even after truncation.[@SeverinIII] This is guaranteed by the so-called hybridization flow; it was successfully used to study the steady state of the interacting resonant level model (see Refs. as well as the discussion above).
The hybridization flow parameter $\Lambda$ can be physically interpreted as originating from coupling to additional auxiliary wide-band reservoirs (one for each dot state) with temperature $T_{\rm fp}$ and chemical potential $\mu_{\rm fp}$.[@SeverinII; @Karrasch10] After rotating to the retarded, advanced and Keldysh basis, the corresponding self-energy entering the noninteracting but reservoir dressed dot propagator $G^0$ is determined by Eqs. and : $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}(t',t) &= - i \delta(t'-t) \Lambda,
\\
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}(t',t) &= - T_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}} e^{- i \mu_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}(t'-t)}
\Lambda \sum_\pm \frac{1}{\sinh[\pi T_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}(t'-t\pm i \delta)]},\end{aligned}$$ with $\Lambda_{i'i} = \Lambda \delta_{i',i}$. We will frequently suppress the superscript $\Lambda$ (and only reinsert it when crucial to avoid misunderstanding). The flow starts at $\Lambda=\infty$ where the system instantaneously acquires its stationary state ($\Lambda$ has the physical meaning of a decay rate). The initial conditions for the vertex functions are therefore identical to those in the stationary state:[@SeverinII; @Karrasch10] $\gamma_n^{\Lambda=\infty}$ vanishes for $n \ge 3$, $\gamma_2^{\Lambda=\infty}$ is given by the bare interaction vertex, and $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}, \Lambda=\infty}_{i'i}(t',t) &= \frac{1}{2}
\delta(t-t') \sum_j \bar u_{i'jij},\label{eq:startvalueret}
\\
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}},\Lambda=\infty}_{i'i}(t',t) &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ In prior applications of the hybridization cutoff to the IRLM, the temperature of the auxiliary leads was chosen equal to the physical one. In this work, we employ $T_{\rm fp}=\infty$ since (i) it implies $\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}} = 0$ which simplifies the flow equations, and – more importantly – (ii) it avoids any imprint of an artificial energy structure from the auxiliary leads and might thus retrospectively be a more reasonable choice on general grounds. Note that at infinite temperature the chemical potential $\mu_{\rm fp}$ no longer enters the flow equations. We have checked that steady-state results for the IRLM[@Karrasch10] are quantitatively unaltered if $T_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}} = \infty$ instead of $T_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}} = T$ is used.
The Keldysh rotated single scale propagator \[whose Keldysh component appears on the right-hand side of the flow-equation Eq. (\[eq:FlowRet\])\] is given by $$S = \partial_\Lambda^\ast G = (1 + G \Sigma) (\partial_\Lambda G^0)
(1 + \Sigma G).
\label{Sdef}$$ Since $\partial_\Lambda G^0 = G^0 (\partial_\Lambda \Sigma_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}})
G^0$, we find $$S = G \frac{\partial \Sigma_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}{\partial \Lambda} G$$ with components $$\label{eq:SRet}
S^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}= G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}\frac{\partial
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}{\partial \Lambda} G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}= - i G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
S^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}&= G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}\frac{\partial
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}{\partial \Lambda} G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}+ G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}\frac{\partial
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}{\partial \Lambda} G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}+ G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}\frac{\partial
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}{\partial \Lambda} G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}\nonumber \\
& = - i G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}+ i G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}+ G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}\frac{\partial
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}{\partial \Lambda} G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}.
\label{eq:SK}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the flow equation translates to $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_\Lambda \Sigma^{\text{K,}\Lambda}=0 , \\
&\partial_\Lambda \Sigma^{\text{ret},\Lambda}_{i_1 i_{1'}}(t',t)=\partial_\Lambda \Sigma^{\text{adv},\Lambda}_{i_1 i_{1'}}(t',t)\notag\\&=-\sum\limits_{i_2,i_{2}'}S^{\text{K},\Lambda}_{i_2' i_2}(t,t)\left(-i \bar u_{i_1 i_2 i_1' i_2'}(t)\right)\delta(t'-t).\label{eq:FlowRet}\end{aligned}$$ Importantly, the self-energy component $ \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}$ does not flow.
*Explicit form of the flow equation* — In the lowest order truncation scheme, the expressions for $S$ can be simplified further: $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t',t) &= \delta(t'-t) \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t),
\\
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t',t) &= 0,\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\label{eq:GRtdependent}
G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t,t') = - i \Theta(t-t') {\mathcal T} e^{- i \int_{t'}^t \, d t_1
\left[\epsilon(t_1) - i \Gamma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(t_1) - i \Lambda +
\Sigma(t_1) \right] },$$ which in turn entails the multiplication formula $$\label{eq:multiformula}
G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t,t') G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t',t'') = - i \Theta(t-t')
\Theta(t'-t'') G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t,t'').$$ Applying these properties to Eqs. and eventually yields $$S^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,t') = (t'-t) G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,t')$$ as well as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:SK_trunc}
S^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t') = - (t+t') G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t')
\\
+ \int_0^\infty \, dt_1\,t_1 \Big\{G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(t,t_1) \big[(\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}+
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}) G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}\big](t_1,t')
\\
+ \big[G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}(\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}+
\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}})\big](t,t_1) G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}(t_1,t') \Big\}
\\
+ \left[ G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}\frac{\partial \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}{\partial \Lambda} G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}\right](t,t'),\end{gathered}$$ where the last term vanishes for our choice $ T_{{\ensuremath{\text{fp}}}}=\infty $.
We conclude with two comments: (i) The right-hand side of the flow equation (\[eq:FlowRet\]) depends on the Green function via Eq. (\[eq:SK\_trunc\]); thus, the retarded self-energy is fed back into the flow through the Dyson equation(s) (\[eins\]) and (\[eq:GK\_contrib\]). This illustrates that Eq. (\[eq:FlowRet\]) actually is a differential equation whose integration requires the solution of Eq. (\[eq:SK\_trunc\]) and Dyson’s equation for each $\Lambda$. (ii) The self-energy originating from the two-particle interaction appears in combination with the single-particle part of the dot Hamiltonian in all equations at hand. Thus, the former can be intuitively interpreted as a time-dependent renormalization of the effective single-particle parameters. Note that this immediately illustrates that the continutity equation, which for the most relevant case of two leads $\alpha=L,R$ reads $$J_L(t)+J_R(t)=\frac{d}{dt}\sum\limits_i \bar n_i(t),$$ holds within our approximation.
*Brief summary* — We have introduced a real-time FRG formalism that is capable to describe the time evolution of interacting quantum dots coupled to Fermi liquid reservoirs on all scales from transient to asymptotic. The dot parameters as well as the level-lead hybridizations can carry an explicit time dependence. This equally allows to study the transient dynamics of a bias voltage driven setup under a time-independent Hamiltonian as well as problems that exhibit time-dependent parameter variations (e.g., charge pumping). Our derivation of the FRG flow equations was kept general: We did not specify the number of correlated dot levels and leads or the actual geometry determined by the level-lead couplings. As an application we will now investigate the relaxation dynamics of the IRLM in the presence of a finite bias voltage. Results for explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonians will be presented elsewhere.[@Dante]
Interacting resonant level model {#sec:irlm}
================================
The dot Hamiltonian of the frequently-mentioned interacting resonant level model (see Fig. \[fig:irlm\] for a sketch) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\ensuremath{\text{dot}}}_0(t) &= \epsilon n_2 - U\left(\frac{n_1}{2} + n_2 +
\frac{n_3}{2}\right) , \nonumber
\\
& \hspace{6em} + \tau(d_1^\dagger d_2 + d_2^\dagger d_3 + {\ensuremath{\text{H.c.}}})\label{eq:singlepartinter}
\\
H^{\ensuremath{\text{int}}}(t) &= U (n_1 n_2 + n_2 n_3),\label{eq:twopartinter}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_i = d_i^\dagger d_i$ denote three spinless fermionic levels connected locally through a hopping matrix element $\tau >0$ and a Coulomb interaction $U$ (the latter will mainly be taken as repulsive; for an exception see Sec. \[sec:spinboson\]). Only the central site 2 can be moved in energy by changing the ‘gate voltage’ $\epsilon$. The second term in the single-particle part of the Hamiltonian is added for mere convenience so that $ \epsilon=0 $ corresponds to the point of particle-hole symmetry. This term is incorporated into the self-energy; it cancels the initial condition Eq. of the self-energy flow.
Dot sites 1 and 3 are coupled to left ($\alpha=L$) and right ($\alpha=R$) noninteracting wide-band leads. Their chemical potentials differ by an applied bias voltage $V = \mu_{\ensuremath{\text{L}}} - \mu_{\ensuremath{\text{R}}} \geq 0$ which we chose symmetrically as $ \mu_{\ensuremath{\text{L}}}=-\mu_{\ensuremath{\text{R}}} = V/2$ for reasons of simplicity. We focus exclusively on the zero-temperature limit. The leads give rise to a self-energy term $\Sigma_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}= \Sigma_{\ensuremath{\text{L}}} + \Sigma_{\ensuremath{\text{R}}}$ that reads \[see Eqs. and \] $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}\right]_{\, ii'}(t',t) &= - i \delta(t'-t)
\delta_{i,i'}(\delta_{i,1}+\delta_{i,3}) \Gamma,
\\
\left[ \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}\right]_{\, ii'}(t',t) &= - \frac{2}{\pi}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P} \left( \frac{1}{t'-t} \right)}} \delta_{i,i'} \nonumber
\\
& \quad \qquad \times \left(\delta_{i,1} e^{-i \mu_{\ensuremath{\text{L}}}(t'-t)} +
\delta_{i,3} e^{-i \mu_{\ensuremath{\text{R}}}(t'-t)} \right) \Gamma,
\label{eq:SigmaKinter}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{P} $ denotes the principal value, and $$\Gamma = {\Gamma_{\ensuremath{\text{L}}}}_{11} = {\Gamma_{\ensuremath{\text{R}}}}_{33}.$$ We have chosen (again for reasons of simplicity) spatially-symmetric hoppings and interactions but emphasize that these restrictions can be abandoned at the expense of minor additional effort.
![(Color online) Sketch of the three-site version of the interacting resonant level model.[]{data-label="fig:irlm"}](figures/hamiltonian_irlm.eps){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In the literature one frequently encounters a field-theoretical realization of the IRLM (see Refs. as well as references therein). The latter consists of a single spinless fermionic level which is coupled to two leads. A two-particle interaction acts between the fermion occupying the level and the ones located at the boundaries of the leads. Our microscopic three site dot model is equivalent to the field-theoretical IRLM in the so-called scaling limit $$\tau,|\epsilon|,|U|,V \ll \Gamma \label{eq:Scaling limit}$$ where the first and third site of the dot can effectively be incorporated into the reservoirs as $\Gamma$ is much larger than all other (bare) energy scales (see Sec. \[sec:resultsnoint\] for more details). Within our functional RG approach we cannot directly treat a single site model with density-density interaction to the leads.
*The equilibrium physics* of the IRLM is dominated by an interaction-dependent renormalization of the hopping $\tau$. First order perturbation theory leads to a logarithmic term in the Matsubara self-energy $\Sigma^{\rm M}$ which for $\epsilon=0$ (half filling) reads[@Karrasch10] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Sigma^{\rm M}_{1,2}}{\tau} =
\frac{\Sigma^{\rm M}_{2,3}}{\tau} = - \frac{U}{ \pi \Gamma}
\ln{\left( \frac{2 \tau^2}{\Gamma^2} \right)} \; .\end{aligned}$$ This logarithm is (automatically) resummed by equilibrium functional RG which analytically yields[@Karrasch10; @Doyon] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tau^{\rm ren}}{\tau} \sim \left\{\begin{array}{ccl}
\left(\frac{\tau}{\Gamma}\right)^{-2 U /(\pi \Gamma)+{\mathcal O}(U^2)}&& |\epsilon| \ll \tau \ll \Gamma\\
\left( \frac{|\epsilon|}{\Gamma} \right)^{-U /(\pi \Gamma)+{\mathcal O}(U^2)}&& \tau \ll |\epsilon| \ll \Gamma
\end{array}\right. ,
\label{tauren}\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\tau^{\rm ren} = \tau + \Sigma^{{\rm M}, \Lambda=0}_{12}=\tau + \Sigma^{{\rm M}, \Lambda=0}_{23}$. The renormalization of the onsite energy $\epsilon$ of site 2 is of order $U^2$; the self-energy matrix elements $\Sigma^{\rm M}_{11}$ and $\Sigma^{\rm M}_{33}$ appear in the Green function in combination with $\Gamma$ and can thus be neglected in the scaling limit.
The renormalization of the hopping amplitude manifests physically in the charge susceptibility $$\chi=\left.\frac{d\bar n_{2}}{d\epsilon}\right|_{\epsilon=0} = - \frac{2}{\pi T_K}~,$$ which in turn is governed by the (renormalized) energy scale $T_K$. The latter is the universal scale of the model in equilibrium.[@Schlottmann] We will thus use it as our characteristic energy scale. The first-order FRG approximation to $T_K$ can easily be computed numerically from $\chi$.[@Karrasch10]
*The nonequilibrium steady-state physics* can again be solely attributed to a renormalization of the $1,2$ and $2,3$ matrix elements of the self-energy (with $\tau^{\rm ren}_{12} \neq \tau^{\rm ren}_{23}$ in presence of a finite bias voltage $V$). For $|\epsilon|, \tau \ll V$ the RG flow is cut off by $V$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tau^{\rm ren}_{12}}{\tau}, \frac{\tau^{\rm ren}_{23}}{\tau} \sim
\left( \frac{V}{\Gamma} \right)^{-U /(\pi \Gamma)+{\mathcal O}(U^2)} .
\label{taurenV}\end{aligned}$$ This leads to a power-law suppression of the current at large $V$:[@Karrasch10; @Doyon; @Schmitteckert; @Andergassen] $$\frac{J_{L/R}}{\Gamma} \sim \left(\frac{V}{\Gamma} \right)^{-2 U /(\pi \Gamma)+{\mathcal O}(U^2)} .$$ Even richer physics can be observed (i) at $\epsilon=\pm V/2$ where the differential conductance exhibits a resonance peak, and (ii) for left-right asymmetric tunnel couplings to site 2.[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen] In both cases, the bias voltage no longer simply acts as an infrared cutoff. We do not consider these parameter regimes in the present paper and thus refrain from discussing further details.
After this brief summary of the IRLM’s scaling-limit physics, we now employ our newly-developed FRG scheme to study its real-time evolution. The flow equation takes the explicit form $$\begin{aligned}
&\partial_\Lambda \Sigma^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t',t)=-i\frac{U}{2}\delta(t'-t)\notag\\
&\times\begin{pmatrix}
S_{22}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)&-S_{12}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)&0\\-S_{12}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)^*&S_{11}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)+S_{33}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)&S_{23}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)\\
0&S_{23}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)^*&S_{22}^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(t,t)
\end{pmatrix} .
\label{flowcomplete}\end{aligned}$$ We again emphasize that computing the right-hand side of this set of differential equations requires the solution of both Eq. (\[eq:SK\_trunc\]) as well as the Dyson equation(s) (\[eins\]) and (\[eq:GK\_contrib\]). We did not succeed in doing this analytically (in contrast to the steady-state limit where even the flow equation itself was amenable to an analytic treatment[@Karrasch10a]) and thus resort to a numerical solution. *In principle*, the resulting set of coupled equations can be coded trivially. *In practice*, however, the computational effort of a straightforward implementation is vast, and no results can be obtained in reasonable time. We thus devise an efficient algorithm to speed up numerics but do not apply further approximations (as does Ref. ). The reader which is not interested in those computational details may skip the next section – only keep in mind that the algorithm we are about to introduce is numerically exact.
Numerical algorithm {#sec:num}
===================
To solve the set of equations (\[flowcomplete\]), (\[eq:SK\_trunc\]), (\[eins\]), and (\[eq:GK\_contrib\]) numerically we first discretize the continuous time variable $t$. The number of time steps $M$ determines the number of coupled differential equations that are eventually to be integrated. We are mainly interested in the universal scaling limit of the IRLM where the coupling to the reservoirs $\Gamma$ is much larger than the hopping amplitude $\tau$ of two adjacent dot sites. This naturally leads to two time regimes characterized by the scales $ 1/\Gamma \ll 1/\tau$. Both need to be resolved in order to access all times from transient to asymptotic. We thus need to employ small discretization steps ($\ll 1/\Gamma$) for small times. However, numerical resources limit $M$ to about $10^2$ (see below), so the step size necessarily increases for larger times such that eventually the scale $1/\tau$ on which the relaxation process towards the steady state takes place can be reached (this will be further specified below).
For discrete time variables $t_n$ (we set $ t_0=0 $) the full retarded Green function can be decomposed via Eq. : $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:Gretdecomposed}
G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t,t')=&\left[\prod\limits_{n=1}^{n_t-(m+1)} G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{n_t-n+1},t_{n_t-n})i\right]\\&\times G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{m+1},t')\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \forall t>t' ,
\end{split}$$ where the product extends over all (discrete) $ t_n $ from $ t_{n_t}=t $ to the first time where $ t_m<t' $. Thereafter, the time arguments of the retarded Green functions differ at most by one discretization step, and if the latter is chosen small enough, the self-energy can be approximated as piecewise constant (which is obviously numerically exact in the limit $M\to\infty$). This in turn allows evaluation of each retarded Green function in Eq. via Eq. : $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:GRetdisc}
&G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{n+1},t_{n}) = - i e^{- i
\left[h_0^{\rm dot} +\tilde \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}}-i\Lambda+\tilde \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\bar t}\right]\left[t_{n+1}-t_{n}\right] } ,
\end{split}$$ where we introduced $\Sigma=\tilde\Sigma\delta(t)$, and $h_0^{\rm dot}$ denotes the single particle matrix representation of Eq. . The index $\bar t$ of $\tilde \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}$ indicates the mean value of the retarded self-energy in the small interval $[t_{n},t_{n+1}]$. The advanced Green function $G^{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}$ is related to $G^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}$ through Eq. (\[adjoint\]).
A similar argument applied to the Keldysh component yields the recursion relation $$\label{eq:GKdis}
\begin{split}
&G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}}(t_{n+1} ,t_{n+1})\\
&=G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{n+1},t_n)G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}}(t_n ,t_n)G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}(t_n,t_{n+1})\\
&+\Bigg[-i\sum\limits_{m=0 }^{n-1}\;\;\int\limits_{t_{n}}^{t_{n+1}} ds_1\int\limits_{t_m}^{t_{m+1}} ds_2 G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{n+1},s_1)\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(s_1,s_2) \\
&\times G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}(s_2,t_{m+1}) G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}(t_{m+1},t_{n+1})-\text{H.c.}\Bigg]\\
&+\int\limits_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}} ds_1\int\limits_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}} ds_2 G^{\text{ret}}(t_{n+1},s_1)\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(s_1,s_2)
G^{\text{adv}}(s_2,t_{n+1}) ,
\end{split}$$ with the initial condition $G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}(0,0)=-i(1-2 \bar n)$. We have exploited that $G^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}$ and $ S^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}$ only enter the right-hand side of the flow equation (\[flowcomplete\]) with equal time arguments. The same holds if we want to compute observables: For the occupancy $\bar n_i(t)$ this is apparent from Eq. (\[occu\]); for the current $J_\alpha(t)$ of Eq. (\[curr\]) it follows from time locality of $\Sigma_\alpha^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}$ in the wide band limit. The integrals in Eq. can be further evaluated and ultimately expressed in terms of exponential integrals. This is discussed in the Appendix \[see Eqs. (\[eq:GK3sites1\]) and (\[eq:GK3sites1\_a\])\]. Finally, $ S^{{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}}(t_{n+1} ,t_{n+1}) $ can be obtained from an analogous procedure.
The remaining differential (flow) equation (\[flowcomplete\]) can be implemented straightforwardly using standard Runge-Kutta routines. Computing the right-hand side through the above recursive procedure scales as $M^2$, and thus calculating $\bar n_i(t)$ and $J_\alpha(t)$ for a given parameter set approximately scales as $M^3$. We carefully ensure to choose the numerical control parameter $M$ large enough for our results to be numerically exact (typically $M\sim10^2$ is sufficient;[@commentnumpara] numerics can be carried out in reasonable time on standard PCs). Thus, no additional approximation – such as the often applied[@PeterK] but in many applications uncontrolled generalized Kadanoff-Baym ansatz [@HaugJauho] – is used to integrate the Dyson equation.
Solving equation is particularly simple at $U=0$. Since the self-energy associated with the two-particle interaction vanishes, there is no need to discretize time. One solely has to determine the last term of Eq. with $ t_{n+1} $ and $ t_n $ replaced by $ t $ and $ 0 $, respectively (the recursion becomes trivial). The remaining integral can be expressed in terms of exponential integrals \[the result is given by Eq. with $ t_{n+1}\to t $, $ t_n\to0 $ as well as $ \Lambda $, $\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\bar t}$, and $U$ set to zero\]. From $G^{0,{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}}(t,t)$ one can calculate the noninteracting occupancy $\bar n_i(t)$ through Eq. (\[occu\]) and the current $J_\alpha(t)$ via Eq. (\[curr\]). We will discuss our results for $U=0$ in Sec. \[sec:resultsnoint\].
Time evolution in the IRLM {#sec:results}
==========================
The noninteracting case {#sec:resultsnoint}
-----------------------
As an instructive step towards an understanding of the nonequilibrium relaxation dynamics of the IRLM we study the case $U=0$. Throughout this section (and for the whole rest of the paper) we assume that the three dot sites are empty at $t=0$ but stress that other initial states can be considered without any additional effort (as long as they fulfill the criteria mentioned in Sec. \[sec:Keldysh\_formalism\]). We will first quantify the heuristic (yet reasonable) statement that in the scaling limit defined by Eq. our three-site model becomes equivalent to the field-theoretical-like version of the IRLM where a single site couples to two reservoirs. Parameters can obviously be fixed by choosing $$\frac{\tau^2}{\Gamma} = \tilde\Gamma$$ for a given hybridization strength $\tilde\Gamma$ of the single-site model. The latter can be solved analytically at $U=0$; exact expressions for the time-evolution of $\bar n$ and $J_\alpha$ for an initially empty and decoupled dot can be found in Ref. (see also Ref. ).[@fehler] In Fig. \[fig:1vs3dot\] the occupancy number is compared to $\bar n_2(t)$ in our three-site dot (the parameters are given by $\tau/\Gamma=\epsilon/\Gamma=V/\Gamma=0.025$). The two models show different behavior at times smaller than $1/\Gamma$ (see the inset of Fig. \[fig:1vs3dot\]), which is the time needed to fill the initially empty sites 1 and 3 of the three-site model to their steady state values. In the latter the displacement current fills the 1 and 3 site first, whereas in the single-site model it gives rise to a nonvanishing first derivative of $\bar n$ for $t\to 0$.[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen] The difference of the occupancy at small times leads to an offset at larger times (which however vanishes in the extreme scaling limit $\Gamma \to \infty$). Otherwise both models yield identical results.
For times $t \gg 1/\tilde \Gamma$ the occupancy and the current in the single-site model are given by (note that $T_K=4\tilde\Gamma$ at $U=0$)[@Andergassen] $$\begin{aligned}
\bar n (t)\approx &\bar n_{\text{stat}}(1+e^{-4\tilde \Gamma t})+\frac{2}{\pi} \tilde \Gamma e^{-2 \tilde \Gamma t}
\notag\\&\times\left(\frac{\sin[(\epsilon-V/2)t]}{(\epsilon-V/2)^2t}+\frac{\sin[(\epsilon+V/2)t]}{(\epsilon +V/2)^2t}\right) , \label{nlarget}\\
\frac{J_\alpha (t)}{\tilde \Gamma }\approx&1-2 \bar n (t)+\frac{2}{\pi} \bigg(-\arctan\left[
\frac{\epsilon-\mu_\alpha}{2 \tilde \Gamma }\right]\notag\\
&-e^{-2 \tilde \Gamma t}{\rm Im}\left[ \frac{e^{-i(\epsilon-\mu_\alpha) t}}{(i(\epsilon-\mu_\alpha)+2 \tilde \Gamma)t}
\right]\bigg) ,
\label{currentlarget}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the stationary occupancy $$\begin{aligned}
\bar n_{\text{stat}}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum\limits_{\alpha}\arctan\left(
\frac{\mu_\alpha-\epsilon}{2 \tilde \Gamma}\right) . \end{aligned}$$ The corresponding expressions of the three-site model at large $\Gamma$ are identical (if $\bar n$ and $\tilde\Gamma$ are replaced by $\bar n_2$ and $\tau^2/\Gamma$, respectively). Equation (\[nlarget\]) illustrates that the long-time behavior of the occupancy exhibits two [*oscillatory*]{} terms with frequencies $\epsilon\pm V/2$ as well as an [*exponential relaxation*]{} with rates $ 4 \tilde \Gamma $ [*and*]{} $ 2 \tilde \Gamma $; the latter is accompanied by a [*power-law correction*]{} $1/t$. The current characteristics are similar. For later reference we note that in the limit $ |\epsilon\pm V/2|\gg T_K $ the current $ J_\alpha $ only shows the single frequency $ \epsilon-\mu_\alpha $ since the second frequency (originating from the occupancy term only) is suppressed.
![(Color online) Comparison of the central-site occupancy between a three-site and a (field-theoretical-like) one-site version of the interacting resonant level model for scaling-limit parameters $\epsilon/\Gamma=V/\Gamma=0.025$, and ${\tau}/{\Gamma}=0.025$ (the hybridization in the single-site model reads $\tilde \Gamma=\tau^2/\Gamma$; see the main text for details). The inset illustrates that both models differ only for times $ \sim 1/ \Gamma $.[]{data-label="fig:1vs3dot"}](figures/1vs3dot.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The interacting case {#sec:resultsint}
--------------------
After these prerequisites we now turn to the interacting case. Our objective is twofold. We first discuss our results from a pure physical perspective, *assuming* that our FRG scheme yields accurate data as long as $U$ is not too large. This is certainly reasonable in light of the method’s success to capture correlation effects within the IRLM in equilibrium and steady-state nonequilibrium.[@Karrasch10] Thereafter, we relate our findings to real-time RG calculations (Sec. \[sec:resultsrtrg\]). The RTRG access to nonequilibrium dynamics differs strongly from the FRG approach, and so do the applied (controlled) approximations. Thus, comparing with RTRG data provides a highly nontrivial test for the newly-developed FRG framework.
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig:Timeevolutionocc\] but now showing the current leaving the left reservoir. The negative current found at small times was already observed in Refs. and .[]{data-label="fig:Timeevolutioncur"}](figures/n_U_Ohen_RTRG.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig:Timeevolutionocc\] but now showing the current leaving the left reservoir. The negative current found at small times was already observed in Refs. and .[]{data-label="fig:Timeevolutioncur"}](figures/J_U_Ohen_RTRG.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Our discussion of the interacting case focusses exclusively on the limit $ |\epsilon\pm V/2|\gg T_K $, which is *a posteriori* motivated by the fact that the physics can be interpreted in a simple way. Moreover, the far-from-equilibrium case $V\gg T_K$ is undoubtedly most intriguing on general grounds. We again point out that the FRG is not bound to any parameter regime – it can flexibly describe the whole crossover from $V\ll T_K$ to $V\gg T_K$ (to $V\gg\Gamma$).
The results for the time dependence of the occupancy $ \bar n_2(t) $ and the current $ J_L(t) $ at different $U$ but fixed $\tau/\Gamma=0.025$, $\epsilon/T_K=10=V/T_K$ are depicted in Figs. \[fig:Timeevolutionocc\] and \[fig:Timeevolutioncur\]. The axes are scaled using the universal equilibrium energy $T_K$. Note that $\epsilon$ and $V$ need to be varied with $U$ in order to keep $\epsilon/T_K$ and $V/T_K$ fixed. Whereas the steady-state values of $\bar n_2$ and $J_L$ are nonuniversal, the oscillation frequencies depend only very weakly on the interaction strength $U$ (the relative position of maxima and minima remain unaltered). In analogy to the noninteracting case, only a single frequency $|\epsilon+V/2|$ governs the current in the limit $ |\epsilon\pm V/2|\gg T_K $ while both $|\epsilon\pm V/2|$ are manifest in the occupancy.
It is a distinct advantage of the first-order FRG framework that it allows to gain intuitive physical insights from investigating the (time dependence of the) renormalized effective single particle parameters. Figure \[fig:renormeps\] shows the renormalized onsite energy $ \epsilon^{\rm ren}(t)-\epsilon = \tilde \Sigma^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}},\Lambda=0}_{22} \in {\mathbb R}$ (note the double logarithmic scale). For times larger than $1/\Gamma$, it does not flow to leading order in $U$. The renormalized hopping amplitudes $\tau_{12}^{\rm ren} - \tau = \tilde \Sigma^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}},\Lambda=0}_{12} \in {\mathbb C}$ and $ \tau_{23}^{\rm ren} - \tau = \tilde \Sigma^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}},\Lambda=0}_{23} \in {\mathbb C}$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig:renormth\] (recall that $\tau_{12}^{\rm ren}=\tau_{23}^{\rm ren}$ only in absence of a bias voltage). They begin to oscillate very quickly around their steady-state values. The renormalized hopping between sites 1 and 2 (between 2 and 3) only exhibits the smaller frequency $ \epsilon-V/2 $ (the larger $ \epsilon+V/2 $), which was checked via Fourier transformation. Thus, the oscillation frequencies $ \epsilon\pm V/2 $ which govern observables at $U=0$ are not altered through the Coulomb interaction; the latter merely leads to $U$-dependent phase shifts.
![(Color online) Time dependence of the renormalized onsite energy $ \epsilon^{\rm ren}(t)-\epsilon \in {\mathbb R}$ (of the central site 2). The parameters are the same as in Fig. \[fig:Timeevolutionocc\]: $\tau/\Gamma=0.025$, $\epsilon/T_K=V/T_K=10$, and $ U/\Gamma=0.1$. Note the double logarithmic scale. Kinks in the graph are due to the time discretization.[]{data-label="fig:renormeps"}](figures/master_eps_renorm.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig:renormeps\] but for the renormalized hoppings $ \tau_{12}^{\rm ren} - \tau = \tilde \Sigma^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}},\Lambda=0}_{12} \in {\mathbb C}$ between sites 1 and 2, and $ \tau_{23}^{\rm ren} - \tau = \tilde \Sigma^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}},\Lambda=0}_{23} \in {\mathbb C}$ between sites 2 and 3.[]{data-label="fig:renormth"}](figures/renormall.eps){width="0.83\linewidth"}
This observation indicates that the time evolution of $\bar n_2$ and $J_\alpha$ in the interacting case might be described by an analytic expression similar to the one at $U=0$ if the latter is supplemented by $U$-dependent prefactors, rates, and phase shifts. For a further investigation we make the ansatz (sticking to $t \gg 1/\tilde \Gamma$ for simplicity) $$\begin{split}
\bar n_2(t)=a_0+a_1e^{-2a_2t}&+a_3e^{-a_4t}
\frac{\sin\left[ \left( \epsilon^{\rm ren}-\frac{V}{2}+\phi \right) t \right]}
{\left(\epsilon^{\rm ren}-\frac{V}{2}\right)^2t}\\
&+a_5e^{-a_4t}\frac{\sin\left[\left(\epsilon^{\rm ren}+\frac{V}{2}+\phi \right)t \right]}
{\left(\epsilon^{\rm ren}+\frac{V}{2}\right)^2t} .
\label{fitform}
\end{split}$$ This is precisely the form of Eq. (\[nlarget\]) if it is generalized to account for left-right asymmetric bare hoppings ($\tau_{12} \neq \tau_{23}$ is required at $ V> 0 $); one can easily show that at $U=0$, the coefficients are then given by $a_0=a_1= \bar n_{2,\text{stat}}(U=0)$, $a_2=a_4=\tilde \Gamma_{12} + \tilde \Gamma_{23}$, $a_3=2 \tilde \Gamma_{12} /\pi $, and $a_5=2 \tilde \Gamma_{23} /\pi $, where $\tilde \Gamma_{ij} = \tau_{ij}^2/\Gamma$. At $U>0$, the $a_i$ serve as fit parameters. Our conjecture that a crucial part of the interaction effects can indeed be incorporated by taking the noninteracting functional form but renormalized parameters is then strongly supported by the fact that (i) the fitting error *does not increase with $U$* (see Fig. \[fig:ResdiffU\] for an illustration), and (ii) the interpretation of the coefficients is consistent with the noninteracting case: $a_0$ and $a_1$ are very close to the $U$-dependent steady-state occupancy as directly obtained by steady-state functional RG[@Karrasch10] or averaging the real-time data for large times; likewise, the rates $a_{2,4}$ and the asymmetry ratio $a_3/a_5$ agree with the asymptotes of the renormalized $\tilde \Gamma_{12}$, $\tilde \Gamma_{2,3}$, and $\tilde \Gamma_{12}/\tilde \Gamma_{2,3}$ (see Tab. \[Fitparasmore\]). In passing, we note that the phase $\phi$ increases from $\phi(U/\Gamma=0)=0$ to $\phi(U/\Gamma=0.2) \approx 0.26$ for the parameters of Fig. \[fig:Timeevolutionocc\] and thus shows a significant $U$-dependence.
![Relative difference of the data for the occupancy shown in Fig. \[fig:Timeevolutionocc\] and a fit to Eq. (\[fitform\]). Small deviations even in the noninteracting case originate from $ \Gamma $ being finite and t being only roughly an order of magnitude larger than $ T_K $.[]{data-label="fig:ResdiffU"}](figures/ResdiffU.eps){width="\linewidth"}
-------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------
$ U/\Gamma $ $\;(\tilde \Gamma_{12}+\tilde\Gamma_{23})/T_K\;$ $\;\tilde\Gamma_{12}/\tilde\Gamma_{23}\;$ $a_2/T_K$ $a_4/T_K$ $ a_3/a_5 $
$0 $ $ 0.500 $ $ 1.000 $ $ 0.504\substack{{0.505}\\{0.502}} $ $ 0.496_{0.493}^{0.498} $ $ 1.056 $
$0.1 $ $ 0.453 $ $ 1.073 $ $ 0.463_{0.458}^{0.467} $ $ 0.445_{0.440}^{0.451} $ $ 1.071 $
$0.2 $ $ 0.417 $ $ 1.149 $ $ 0.389^{0.398}_{0.381} $ $ 0.405_{0.398}^{0.413} $ $ 1.167 $
-------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------
: The fitting parameters $ a_{2/4} $ in comparison to the renormalized relaxation rates $ \tilde\Gamma_{ij}=\frac{|\tau^{\ensuremath{\text{ren}}}_{ij}|^2}{\Gamma} $ for figure \[fig:Timeevolutioncur\]. The error is with respect to a $ 68\% $ confidence level.[]{data-label="Fitparasmore"}
\
Comparison to real-time RG {#sec:resultsrtrg}
--------------------------
In this section we relate the data from our newly-developed real-time FRG scheme to independently obtained results. As a first consistency check we compare the long-time asymptotes of the current and the occupancy with a direct calculation using lowest-order nonequilibrium steady-state functional RG.[@Karrasch10] As illustrated in Figs. \[fig:Timeevolutionocc\] and \[fig:Timeevolutioncur\] – where arrows indicate values extracted from the independent steady-state framework – the agreement is quantitative.
The time evolution of the IRLM exposed to a bias voltage was recently studied using real-time RG.[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen] The RTRG is based on approximations that are controlled at small $U$ *and* $\tau$. In equilibrium and steady-state nonequilibrium FRG and RTRG data was shown to agree on a quantitative level at small $U$.[@Karrasch10a] For the discussion below one should bear in mind that it is not straightforward within the RTRG to obtain prefactors correctly to order $U$ due to technical (truncation) subtleties.[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen] Rates and exponents of possible power-law corrections, however, come out correctly to order $U$.[@Andergassen] This is different in the truncated FRG used here where it is guaranteed that the prefactors are correct to leading order in the interaction.
A comparison of the occupancy and the current obtained by FRG/RTRG is shown in Figs. \[fig:RTRGvsFRGocc\] and \[fig:RTRGvsFRGcur\]; the agreement is satisfying. Small differences may be attributed to the fact that our parameter set is not in the extreme scaling limit (for a quantitative analysis of this, see Sec. \[sec:resultsnoint\]), while the real-time RG is directly set up in this regime. Deviations of similar magnitude were observed in prior steady-state calculations.[@Karrasch10] Moreover, RTRG prefactors are not controlled to leading order, and this issue becomes more relevant at larger interactions.
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig:RTRGvsFRGocc\] but for the current.[]{data-label="fig:RTRGvsFRGcur"}](figures/n_master_mit_U.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![(Color online) The same as in Fig. \[fig:RTRGvsFRGocc\] but for the current.[]{data-label="fig:RTRGvsFRGcur"}](figures/J_master_mit_U.eps){width="\linewidth"}
It is a key advantage of the real-time RG that one can derive approximate analytical expressions for the long time behavior of the occupancy and the current in the regime $ |\epsilon\pm V/2|\gg T_K $ even in presence of (not too large) interactions.[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen] In the unbiased case, the current at sufficiently large $t$ reads (observe that $V=0$ implies $J(t\to\infty)\to0$) $$J_L(t)=a_1e^{-\bar \Gamma t}+\frac{T_K}{2\pi}(T_Kt)^{g}
e^{-\bar \Gamma_\epsilon t/2}\frac{\cos(\bar \epsilon t)}{\bar \epsilon t},\label{eq:Ifit}$$ where $ \bar\Gamma $, $ \bar\Gamma_\epsilon $, and $\bar \epsilon$ denote the RTRG-renormalized decay rates and level position. One particularly finds an interaction-dependent power-law correction $1/t^{1-g}$, with $g=2U/\pi + {\mathcal O} (U^2)$ \[compare to Eq. (\[currentlarget\]) for $U=0$\]. Real-time RG predicts power-law corrections also for $V>0$.[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen]
It is an important test for our approximate functional RG approach – which is based on a truncation scheme guided by perturbation theory in orders of $U$ – to investigate whether the RG resummation not only leads to an exponential decay in time with $U$-dependent decay rates (as was already proven above) but whether it [*simultaneously*]{} gives rise to power laws in $t$ with $U$-dependent exponents. The predicted power-law corrections to some of the exponential decay terms[@Karrasch10a; @Andergassen] are subleading corrections. Achieving a rather good fit of our functional RG data with the ansatz of Eq. (\[fitform\]) thus does not exclude the presence of such terms.
We now analyze our FRG data for potential power-law contributions. For reasons of simplicity, we focus on the unbiased case where the hopping amplitudes renormalize symmetrically. Note that due to the structure of Eq. a fitting procedure can easily shift the influence of a power law to a small variation of the relaxation rates. We thus do [*not*]{} fit the relaxation rates but rather take them as their steady-state renormalized values (see Sec. \[sec:resultsint\], in particular Fig. \[fig:renormth\] and Tab. \[Fitparasmore\]). Likewise, we replace $\bar \epsilon$ by our steady-state renormalized level position (see Fig. \[fig:renormeps\]). Thereafter, we fit the FRG data to the form predicted by real-time RG \[Eq. \] employing $a_1 $ and $g$ as fitting parameters. We emphasize that the prefactor $T_K$ of the oscillatory term in Eq. does not suffer from the above mentioned subtleties of the RTRG, but $a_1$ does and must thus be fitted. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:power-law\], the $U$-dependence of the extracted exponent $g$ agrees with the real-time RG prediction within the error bars. This indicates that our functional RG indeed achieves a resummation which simultaneously leads to an exponential time decay as well as [*power-law corrections*]{}, both featuring $U$[*-dependent exponents.*]{} Verifying this analytically (e.g., using the cutoff introduced in Ref. ) will be subject of a future investigation.
![Interaction dependence of the power-law exponent extracted from our FRG data by fitting to the RTRG prediction of Eq. (\[eq:Ifit\]) at $\epsilon/T_K=30$ (see the main text for details). The solid line shows the leading order term $2 U/\pi$. The error bars refer to a $68\%$ confidence level.[]{data-label="fig:power-law"}](figures/master_power.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Results for the ohmic spin-boson model {#sec:spinboson}
======================================
As a second application we focus on a special parameter regime for which the IRLM can be mapped onto the so-called ohmic spin-boson model.[@spinbosonrmp] The latter constitutes one of the basic models used to study decoherence and relaxation phenomena in quantum systems, and its relaxation dynamics was previously investigated by a variety of methods, in particular field theory[@Saleur] and an improved noninteracting blip approximation.[@Egger] Relating our data to those results provides an additional test for the newly-developed time-dependent functional RG approach.
The spin-boson model describes two fermionic states tunnel-coupled by $\Delta$ and separated by an energy $E$ which interact with a bath of bosons: $$H_{\text{SB}}=\frac{E}{2}\sigma_z -\frac{\Delta}{2}\sigma_x
+\sum\limits_q \omega_{q}a^\dagger_qa_q +\frac{\sigma_z}{2}\sum\limits_q g_q (a_q+a_q^\dagger),$$ where $a_q^{(\dag)}$ are bosonic lowering (raising) operators, $\sigma_{x/z}$ denote the Pauli matrices, $ g_q $ describes the momentum $q$ dependent coupling to the phonon bath, and $\omega_q$ the dispersion of the latter. For the so-called ohmic case where the spectral density reads $$J(\omega)=\pi\sum\limits_q g_q^2\delta(\omega-\omega_q)=2\pi \alpha \omega e^{-\omega/\omega_c},$$ with $\omega_c$ being a high-frequency cutoff, one can map the spin-boson model to the unbiased ($V=0$) IRLM.[@spinbosonrmp] The parameters are related through $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon &= E \\
U/(\pi \Gamma )&=(1-2\alpha)/2\\
\tilde \Gamma&= \frac{\tau^2}{\Gamma}=\frac{\Delta^2}{8\omega_c}.\end{aligned}$$ The occupancy of the IRLM determines the expectation value of $\sigma_z$ via $$\bar n(t) = \frac{\left< \sigma_z \right> +1}{2} ,$$ where we can identify $\bar n(t) = \bar n_2(t)$ of our three site dot model in the scaling limit. We again assume an initially empty dot, i.e. a spin pointing in $-z$-direction at $t=0$.
For $\epsilon=E=0$ the ohmic spin-boson model supposedly exhibits a coherent-incoherent transition at $\alpha=1/2$ (where the interaction $U$ of the IRLM changes from repulsive to attractive).[@spinbosonrmp] Field theory[@Saleur] and an improved noninteracting blib approximation[@Egger] both predict the relaxation rate and the frequency $\Omega$ (in the coherent phase) to be related through $$\frac{\Omega}{4 \tilde \Gamma}= 2U/\Gamma + {\mathcal O}(U^2)~.
\label{eq:freqpredSP}$$ We have dropped second-order terms which are not consistently included within our truncation scheme.
FRG results for the time evolution of $ |\left< \sigma_z(t) \right>|=|2 \bar n_2(t)-1|$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:SpinBoson\_t\]. As expected, the exponentially damped oscillations (indicated by the dips) present for $U>0$ disappear at $U<0$ as the dynamics turn incoherent. We scale the $y$-axis logarithmically (i) to emphasize the exponential damping, and (ii) to illustrate the coherent-incoherent transition at $U=0$ more clearly. Note that only a single oscillation period manifests even for the largest interaction. This is qualitatively consistent with Eq. (\[eq:freqpredSP\]) which postulates a frequency $4 U \tilde \Gamma/\Gamma $; in the scaling limit, this is a very small number if $U$ is not too large. For a quantitative analysis, we fit our FRG data to the predicted long-time behavior: $$\bar n_2(t)=0.5 + a e^{-\Gamma t} \cos(\Omega t)~.$$ The frequency $\Omega$ extracted from the FRG framework agrees with Eq. even for fairly large values of $U$ (see Fig. \[fig:SpinBoson\]). One should note that the coherent-decoherent transition is exclusively driven by the interaction (i.e., by the coupling of the spin to the bosons). Reproducing the transition as well as the relation between the relaxation rate and oscillation frequency (the latter being proportional to $U$!) in the coherent regime constitutes another stringent test of our approximate approach.
![(Color online) FRG calculation of the expectation value $ |\left< \sigma_z(t) \right> |=|2n_2(t)-1|$ for the ohmic spin-boson model. In absence of a bias voltage, the latter can be mapped to the IRLM, and our fermionic FRG scheme is directly applicable. In terms of the IRLM, the system parameters read $ \tau/\Gamma=0.025 $ and $ \epsilon=V=0$. Note that the $y$-axis is scaled logarithmically and that the times are given with respect to $ \Gamma $ instead of $ T_K $.[]{data-label="fig:SpinBoson_t"}](figures/SPinBosont.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![(Color online) Oscillation frequency governing the relaxation dynamics of the spin-boson model as a function of $U$ for $\tau/\Gamma=0.025$. The functional RG result is compared to the prediction of Eq. (\[eq:freqpredSP\]). The error bars result from a $68\%$ confidence level fitting of the frequency.[]{data-label="fig:SpinBoson"}](figures/master_spinbose.eps){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We developed a functional RG approach to study time-dependent electron transport through quantum dots with a few correlated degrees of freedom coupled to Fermi liquid reservoirs. It allows to investigate the relaxation dynamics out of an initial nonequilibrium state into the steady state driven by a bias voltage. Additionally, the dynamics of Hamiltonians with time-dependent parameters can be tackled. The hybridization flow parameter was used, and the hierarchy of functional RG flow-equations was truncated to lowest order.
We applied this approach to the interacting resonant level model with time independent parameters and computed the time dependence of the occupancy of the dot level and the current through it. We devised an efficient algorithm to solve the Dyson equation as a key step for a numerically exact implementation of the flow equations. The relaxation dynamics of the system exposed to a bias voltage is dominated by an exponential decay with two different rates and oscillations with two different frequencies. While the decay rates are significantly renormalized by the interaction, the frequencies are almost unaffected. In addition, we observed a power-law correction with an interaction-dependent exponent. Remarkably, our functional RG procedure thus (automatically and consistently) carries out two different types of resummations: one leads to the combined appearance of the time $t$ and interaction $U$ in the argument of exponential functions; the other gives rise to a power-law in $t$ with a $U$-dependent exponent. This is highly nontrivial. We compared our results to those obtained within a recently-developed approximate real-time RG approach and observed good agreement.
We then exploited a mapping of the unbiased IRLM to the ohmic spin-boson model. The latter features two localized states; if their energy is equal, one expects a coherent-decoherent transition, which is confirmed by our calculation. The FRG prediction for the relation between the relaxation rate and the oscillation frequency agrees with those obtained by a field theoretical approach and an improved noninteracting blib approximation. Note that this relation is a manifestation of strong-coupling physics: The explicit scale set by the energy difference of the two levels is zero, and the coherent-decoherent transition is purely driven by the interaction (the oscillation frequency is proportional to $U$). Reproducing these results hence provides another stringent test for our newly-developed method.
The time-dependent functional RG approach directly allows to tackle explicitly time-dependent Hamiltonians. This constitutes a highly-active field of current research, and one can readily envisage a vast number of applications. From a theoretical perspective, it is intriguing to investigate the time evolution of systems with [*correlated initial density matrices*]{} towards their steady-state through the following protocol: one starts with an uncorrelated initial density matrix; the system then relaxes towards a steady-state which contains correlations; thereafter, the system is quenched, and one studies the relaxation process out of the now correlated initial state. From a practical point of view, one can investigate correlation effects on quantum pumps (which require a periodic variation of the dot parameters).
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank S. Andergassen, M. Pletyukhov, H. Schoeller, and D. Schuricht for very useful discussions. We are grateful to D. Schuricht for providing the RTRG data of Figs. \[fig:RTRGvsFRGocc\] and \[fig:RTRGvsFRGcur\]. This work was supported by the DFG via FOR 723 and KA3360-1/1 (C.K.).
Appendix {#appen .unnumbered}
========
To solve the recursion Eq. we need to compute the integral $$\int \limits_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}ds_1\int\limits_{t_m}^{t_{m+1}}ds_2 G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{n+1},s_1)\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(s_1,s_2) G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}(s_2,t_{m+1})
\label{intappendix}$$ with $\Sigma^{{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(s_1,s_2)$ as in Eq. . The exponential of the matrix in Eq. can be evaluated: $$G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}_{ij}(t,t')=-i \sum\limits_{l=1}^3\text{Res}_{ij,l}e^{-i\omega_l(t-t')},$$ with $ \text{Res}_{ij,l} $ and $ \omega_l $ being the residues and the poles of $$\label{eq:forresiduesandpoles}
\frac{1}{\omega-\left(\tilde h_0^{\rm dot} +\tilde \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}}-i\Lambda+\tilde \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\bar t}\right)}$$ Introducing the effective parameters $$\begin{split}
\epsilon^{\prime\Lambda}& = \Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\bar t,11}-U/2 , \\
\epsilon^{\Lambda}& = \epsilon+\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\bar t,22}-U , \\
\tau_{12}^\Lambda& = \tau+\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\bar t,12} , \\
\tau_{23}^\Lambda& = \tau+\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}_{\bar t,23}
\end{split}$$ allows to express the poles as
$$\begin{aligned}
\omega_1 =\epsilon^{\prime\Lambda}-i(\Gamma+\Lambda) \; , \;\;\;
\omega_{2/3} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\epsilon^\Lambda+ \epsilon^{\prime\Lambda}-i\Gamma-2i\Lambda\mp
\sqrt{-(\Gamma-i\epsilon^\Lambda+i\epsilon^{\prime,\Lambda})^2+4|\tau_{12}^\Lambda|^2+4|\tau_{23}^\Lambda|^2}\right)~.\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding residues are given in Tab. \[tab:residues\].
--- --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[space]{} $ij$
[space]{} 33 [$\text{Res}_{11,n}(\tau_{12}^\Lambda\to \tau_{23}^\Lambda)$]{}
11 22 12 13 21 [$\text{Res}_{12,n}(\tau_{12}^\Lambda\to (\tau_{12}^\Lambda)^*)$]{}
1 $1+\frac{|\tau_{12}^\Lambda|^2}{(\omega_1-\omega_2)(\omega_1-\omega_3)}$ $0$ $0$ $\frac{\tau_{12}^\Lambda \tau_{23}^\Lambda}{(\omega_1-\omega_2)(\omega_1-\omega_3)}$ 31 [$\text{Res}_{13,n}(\tau_{12}^\Lambda,\tau_{23}^\Lambda\to (\tau_{12}^\Lambda)^*,(\tau_{23}^\Lambda)^*)$]{}
n 2 $\frac{|t_{12}^\Lambda|^2}{(\omega_2-\omega_1)(\omega_2-\omega_3)}$ $\frac{\omega_2-\omega_1}{\omega_2-\omega_3}$ $\frac{\tau_{12}^\Lambda}{\omega_2-\omega_3}$ $\frac{\tau_{12}^\Lambda \tau_{23}^\Lambda}{(\omega_2-\omega_1)(\omega_2-\omega_3)}$ 23 [$\text{Res}_{12,n}(\tau_{12}^\Lambda\to \tau_{23}^\Lambda)$]{}
3 $\frac{|\tau_{12}^\Lambda|^2}{(\omega_3-\omega_1)(\omega_3-\omega_2)}$ $\frac{\omega_3-\omega_1}{\omega_3-\omega_2}$ $\frac{\tau_{12}^\Lambda}{\omega_3-\omega_2}$ $\frac{\tau_{12}^\Lambda \tau_{23}^\Lambda}{(\omega_3-\omega_1)(\omega_3-\omega_2)}$ 32 [$\text{Res}_{23,n}(\tau_{23}^\Lambda\to (\tau_{23}^\Lambda)^*)$]{}
--- --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Residues of Eq. .[]{data-label="tab:residues"}
\
To compute the integral Eq. (\[intappendix\]) one substitutes $T =t_1+t_2$ and $\Delta t =t_2-t_1$: $$\int \limits_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}dt_1\int\limits_{m_j}^{t_{m+1}}dt_2\longrightarrow\frac{1}{2}\left[\;\int\limits_{t_m-t_{n+1}}^{t_{m+1}-t_{n+1}}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_m-\Delta t}^{2t_{n+1}+\Delta t}dT +\int\limits_{t_{m+1}-t_{n+1}}^{t_{m}-t_n}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_m-\Delta t}^{2t_{m+1}-\Delta t}dT +\int\limits_{t_m-t_{n}}^{t_{m+1}-t_n}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_n+\Delta t}^{2t_{m+1}-\Delta t}dT \right]$$ for $ t_{n+1}-t_{n}\geq t_{m+1}-t_m $ (the opposite case follows analogously). Because of the principal value involved it proves advantageous to separate the problem into the two cases $ n=m $ and $ n\neq m $. The case $n=m$ also includes the solution of the noninteracting system, where one can choose a single discretization step; we will illustrate it first. With the above substitution one can write the $i,j$ matrix element of Eq. (\[intappendix\]) in terms of exponential integrals:[@abramowitz] $$\begin{split}
&\left[ \int \limits_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}ds_1\int\limits_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}ds_2 G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{n+1},s_1)\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(s_1,s_2)
G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}(s_2,t_{n+1}) \right]_{ij}
=\lim\limits_{\delta\to 0}\frac{1}{\pi}\sum\limits_{\alpha=L,R\atop n,m=1,2,3}
\text{Res}_{i \alpha,n} \text{Res}_{j \alpha,m}^* e^{-i\Delta \omega_{nm}t_{n+1}}\\
&\times\left[\;\int\limits_{t_n-t_{n+1}}^{-\delta}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_n-\Delta t}^{2t_{n+1}+\Delta t}dT +\int\limits_{\delta}^{t_{n+1}-t_n}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_n+\Delta t}^{2t_{n+1}-\Delta t}dT \right] \frac{\Gamma}{\Delta t } e^{i\mu_\alpha\Delta t } e^{\frac{1}{2}i T \Delta \omega_{nm}} e^{-i\frac{1}{2}\Delta t (\omega_n+\omega_m^*)}\\
&=\sum\limits_{{\alpha=L,R} \atop{n,m}=1,2,3}\text{Res}_{i \alpha, n} \text{Res}^*_{ j \alpha,m}e^{-i(\omega_{n}t_{n+1}-\omega_m^*t_{n+1})}\frac{2\Gamma}{i\Delta \omega_{nm}\pi}\\
&\phantom{=}\times\bigg[e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n+1}}\left\{-\log(-[\mu_\alpha-\omega_n])+\log(\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*)\right\}+e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n+1}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*][t_n-t_{n+1}])\\
&\phantom{=}\phantom{\times\bigg[}-e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n}}\left\{-\log(-[\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*])+\log(\mu_\alpha-\omega_n)\right\}-e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_n][t_n-t_{n+1}])\\
&\phantom{=}\phantom{\times\bigg[}-e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n+1}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_n][t_{n+1}-t_n])
+e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*][t_{n+1}-t_n])\bigg],\label{eq:GK3sites1}
\end{split}$$ where one has exploited that $$\lim\limits_{\delta\to0^+}E_1(-x\delta)-E_1(y\delta)=-\log(-x)+\log(y)\label{eq:E1limit}~,$$ and defined $$\Delta\omega_{nm} = \omega_n-\omega_m^*\label{eq:Deltaw}.$$ In the indices of the residues in Eq. (\[eq:GK3sites1\]) one has to replace $\alpha=L$ by $1$ and $\alpha=R$ by $3$. For the case $m\neq n$ one analogously finds $$\begin{split}
&\left[ \int \limits_{t_n}^{t_{n+1}}ds_1\int\limits_{t_m}^{t_{m+1}}ds_2 G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{ret}}}}}(t_{n+1},s_1)\Sigma^{{\ensuremath{\text{K}}}}_{{\ensuremath{\text{res}}}}(s_1,s_2)
G^{{{\ensuremath{\text{adv}}}}}(s_2,t_{m+1}) \right]_{ij}
=\frac{1}{\pi}\sum\limits_{\alpha=L,R\atop n,m=1,2,3}\text{Res}_{i\alpha,n}\text{Res}_{j\alpha,m}^*
e^{-i(\omega_{n}t_{n+1}-\omega_m^*t_{m+1})}\\
&\times\left[\;\int\limits_{t_m-t_{n+1}}^{t_{m+1}-t_{n+1}}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_m-\Delta t}^{2t_{n+1}+\Delta t}dT +\int\limits_{t_{m+1}-t_{n+1}}^{t_{m}-t_n}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_m-\Delta t}^{2t_{m+1}-\Delta t}dT +\int\limits_{t_m-t_{n}}^{t_{m+1}-t_n}d\Delta t\int\limits_{2t_n+\Delta t}^{2t_{m+1}-\Delta t}dT \right]
\frac{\Gamma}{\Delta t } e^{i\mu_\alpha\Delta t } e^{\frac{1}{2}i T \Delta \omega_{nm}}
e^{-i\frac{1}{2}\Delta t (\omega_n+\omega_m^*)}\\
&=\sum\limits_{{\alpha=L,R}\atop{n,m}=1,2,3}\text{Res}_{i\alpha,n} \text{Res}^*_{ j\alpha,m}e^{-i(\omega_{n}t_{n+1}-\omega_m^*t_{m+1})}\frac{2\Gamma}{i\Delta \omega_{nm}\pi}\\
&\phantom{=}\times\bigg[-e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n+1}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*][t_{m+1}-t_{n+1}])+e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n+1}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*][t_m-t_{n+1}])\\
&\phantom{=}\phantom{\times\bigg[}+e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{m}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_n][t_m-t_n])-e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{m}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_n][t_m-t_{n+1}])\\
&\phantom{=}\phantom{\times\bigg[}-e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{m+1}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_n][t_{m+1}-t_n])+e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{m+1}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_n][t_{m+1}-t_{n+1}])\\
&\phantom{=}\phantom{\times\bigg[}+e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*][t_{m+1}-t_n])-e^{i\Delta\omega_{nm}t_{n}}E_1(-i[\mu_\alpha-\omega_m^*][t_m-t_{n}])\bigg].\label{eq:GK3sites1_a}
\end{split}$$
[99]{}
A.C. Hewson, [*The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1997). P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. B [**22**]{}, 613 (1980); [*ibid.*]{} [**25**]{}, 4815 (1982). P.W. Anderson, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. [**3**]{}, 2436 (1970). H. Schoeller and J. König, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3686 (2000). S. Kehrein, [*The Flow Equation Approach to Many-Particle Systems*]{} (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2010). R. Bulla, T. Costi, and Th. Pruschke, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 395 (2008). W. Metzner, M. Salmhofer, C. Honerkamp, V. Meden, and K. Schönhammer, arXiv:1105.5289, to be published in Rev. Mod. Phys.. A. Rosch, J. Kroha, and P. Wölfle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 156802 (2001) H. Schoeller, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. [**168**]{}, 179 (2009). F.B. Anders and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 196801 (2005). F.B. Anders and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 245113 (2006). A. Rosch, arXiv:1110.6514. P. Schmitteckert, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 121302(R) (2004). F. Heidrich-Meisner, A.E. Feiguin, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev.B [**79**]{} 235336 (2009). S. Weiss, J. Eckel, M. Thorwart, and R. Egger, Phys.Rev. B [**77**]{}, 195316 (2008). T.L. Schmidt, P. Werner, L. Mühlenbacher, and A. Komnik, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 235110 (2008). M. Moeckel and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 175702 (2008).
M. Pletyukhov, D. Schuricht, and H. Schoeller, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106801 (2010).
P.W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 10135(R) (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 246803 (2005).
O. Kashuba, H. Schoeller, and J. Splettstoesser, arXiv:1109.6148.
C. Karrasch, T. Enss, and V. Meden, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 235337 (2006). C. Karrasch, R. Hedden, R. Peters, Th. Pruschke, K. Schönhammer, and V. Meden, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 345205 (2008). S.G. Jakobs, M. Pletyukhov, and H. Schoeller, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 195109 (2010). C. Karrasch, M. Pletyukhov, L. Borda, and V. Meden, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 125122 (2010). R. Gezzi, Th. Pruschke, and V. Meden, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 045324 (2007). S.G. Jakobs, V. Meden, and H. Schoeller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 150603 (2007). T. Gasenzer and J.M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B [**670**]{}, 135 (2008); T. Gasenzer, S. Kessler and J.M. Pawlowski, Eur. Phys. J. C [**70**]{}, 423 (2010). T. Kloss and P. Kopietz, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 205118 (2011). C. Karrasch, S. Andergassen, M. Pletyukhov, D. Schuricht, L. Borda, V. Meden, and H. Schoeller, Europhys. Lett. [**90**]{}, 30003 (2010). D.M. Kennes and V. Meden, in preparation. A. Hackl and S. Kehrein, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 015601 (2009). S. Andergassen, M. Pletyukhov, D. Schuricht, H. Schoeller, and L. Borda, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 205103 (2011); ibid. S. Andergassen, M. Pletyukhov, D. Schuricht, H. Schoeller, and L. Borda, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 039905(E) (2011).
A.J. Legett, S. Chakravarty, A.T. Dorsey, M.P.A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, 1 (1987). F. Lesage and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4370 (1998). R. Egger, H. Grabert, and U. Weiss, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, R3809 (1997). P. Danielewicz, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **152**, 239 (1984). H. Haug and A.-P. Jauho, [*Quantum kinetics in transport and optics of semiconductors*]{} (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2008). J. Rammer, [*Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007). A.I. Larkin, Y.N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz [**68**]{}, 1915 (1975) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**41**]{}, 960 (1975)\]. Y. Meir and N.S. Wingreen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **68**, 2512 (1992). D.M. Kennes, Master thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2011). S.G. Jakobs, Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2010), http://d-nb.info/1009075535. C. Karrasch, Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen University (2010), http://d-nb.info/100962234X, arXiv:1009.3852. A. Kamenev, in [*Nanophysics: coherence and transport*]{}, ed. by H. Bouchiat, Y. Gefen, S. Guéron, G. Montambaux, and J. Dalibard (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2005). S.G. Jakobs, M. Pletyukhov, and H. Schoeller, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**43**]{}, 103001 (2010).
B. Doyon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 076806 (2007). E. Boulat, H. Saleur, and P. Schmitteckert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 140601 (2008). The results presented in in Sec. \[sec:resultsint\] were calculated using the following discretization parameters: The total number $M$ of discretization points is $501$, $ n=0\dots 500 $ (leading to a system of the order of $10^3$ coupled differential equations). Of those $11$ constitute the first part of the mesh $t_{n\leq 10}=2n/(10\Gamma)$ to account for the small time scale $ \sim 1/\Gamma $. The remaining $ 490 $ are used to incorporate the larger scale $ t_{11\leq n\leq 500}=8(n-10)/\Gamma+2/\Gamma$.
Note that Eq. (53) of Ref. contains a typo. The prefactor 2 in the first line of Eq. (53) must be erased.
M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions*]{} (Dover, New York, 1965).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We will establish uniqueness of solutions to boundary value problems involving the nabla Caputo fractional difference under two-point boundary conditions and give an explicit expression for the Green’s functions for these problems. Using the Green’s functions for specific cases of these boundary value problems, we will then develop Lyapunov inequalities for certain nabla Caputo BVPs.
: Lyapunov inequality; boundary value problem; Green’s function; nabla difference; Caputo fractional; difference equation\
: 39A10; 39A70.
author:
- |
Areeba Ikram\
Colorado School of Mines\
Department of Applied Mathematics & Statistics\
1500 Illinois St., Golden, CO
bibliography:
- 'dissertation.bib'
title: Lyapunov Inequalities for Nabla Caputo Boundary Value Problems
---
[^1]
This paper is dedicated to my PhD advisor, Allan C. Peterson.
Introduction
============
The original Lyapunov inequality from ordinary differential equations includes the following result.
[@l; @kp] \[lyap\] Let $q:[a,b] \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be continuous. If the boundary value problem $$\begin{cases}
x'' + q(t) x = 0, & t \in [a,b]\\
x(a) = x(b) = 0
\end{cases}$$ has a nontrivial solution, then $\int_a^b |q(t)| dt > \frac{4}{b-a}.$
In recent years, due to their many applications for studying solutions to boundary value problems, Lyapunov inqualities have been extended and generalized to BVPs involving fractional operators under various boundary conditions. Lyapunov inequalities can be used to give existence-uniqueness results for certain nonhomogeneous boundary value problems, study the zeros of solutions, and obtain bounds on eigenvalues in certain eigenvalue problems.
In the ordinary differential equations case, Lyapunov inequalities for third order linear differential equations with three-point boundary conditions are considered in [@fahri]. In fractional order differential equations, a number of recent developments similar to the original Lyapunov inequality have been made; for example, see [@dk1; @dk2; @f1; @jrs; @js; @ma]. Lyapunov inequalities involving the Caputo fractional derivative are studied in [@f1; @jrs; @js; @ma]. Fractional equations of order $\alpha$, where $1 < \alpha \leq 2$, are considered in [@f1], [@jrs], and [@js] under conjugate, Robin, and Sturm-Liouville boundary conditions, respectively. Additionally, [@ma] involves fractional equations of order $\alpha$, where $2 < \alpha \leq 3$, and applications of Lyapunov inequalities to a Mittag-Leffler function and an eigenvalue problem are discussed. Boundary value problems involving the continuous Riemann-Liouville fractional operator of order $\alpha$, where $2 < \alpha \leq 3$, as well as extensions including fractional BVPs with solutions defined on multivariate domains are considered in [@dk1] and [@dk2]. A reduction of order technique is used to obtain Lyapunov inequalities in [@dk2], which we will adapt and extend to nabla Caputo BVPs of higher order in this paper. For fractional difference equations, Lyapunov-type inequalities for two-point conjugate and right-focal boundary value problems involving a delta fractional difference equation of order $\alpha$, where $1 < \alpha \leq 2$, are considered in [@f2]. In [@deltaLyap], Lyapunov inequalities for delta fractional equations are used to study disconjugacy and oscillation of solutions. In the nabla Riemann-Liouville case, a Lyapunov inequality for a boundary value problem of order $\alpha$, where $2 < \alpha \leq 3$, is given in [@rightfi]. Much remains to be explored in Lyapunov inequalities for fractional difference operators, and we will develop some results for the nabla Caputo case in Section 4.
Green’s functions play an essential role in deriving Lyapunov inequalities for boundary value problems. A general method of obtaining Lyapunov inequalities involves converting a given boundary value problem to an equivalent integral equation involving an appropriate Green’s function and then using bounds on the Green’s function [@sequentialFerr].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we will give preliminary definitions and results involving the nabla Caputo fractional difference. In Section 3, we will develop Green’s functions for BVPs involving the nabla Caputo difference operator. The main results of Section 3 are given in Theorems \[GreensfunctionthmkNk\] and \[Gdeterminant\], which give an explicit form for the unique solutions to the given BVPs. In Section 4, we will develop Lyapunov inequality results using a particular case of the Green’s function results from Section 3. The main result of Section 4 is given in Theorem \[higherordersubsituting\], which gives Lyapunov inequalities obtained by using the earlier mentioned reduction of order technique. We will end with a corollary which gives sufficient conditions for certain nonhomogenous BVPs to have unique solutions.
Preliminaries
=============
In this paper, functions will be defined on either of the domains ${\mathbb{N}}_a:= \{a, a+1, a+2, \hdots \} \text{ or } {\mathbb{N}}_a^b := \{a, a+1, \hdots, b\},$ where $a, b \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $b-a$ is a positive integer. We will let ${\mathbb{N}}:={\mathbb{N}}_1$. For more details on the background presented in this section, see [@gp].
The **nabla difference** of a function $f: {\mathbb{N}}_{a} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is defined by $$\nabla f(t) := f(t) - f(t-1), \,\ \text{ for } t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}.$$ We define nabla differences of any higher order $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$ recursively; i.e., $\nabla^N f(t):= \nabla (\nabla^{N-1} f) (t), \,\ \text{ for } t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+N}.$ Additionally, we take by convention $\nabla^0 f(t):= f(t).$
The next proposition gives a binomial formula for the $N$-th order nabla difference.
\[binomialnablaexpansion\] Let $f: {\mathbb{N}}_a \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Then, $$\nabla^N f(t) = \Sum_{i=0}^N(-1)^i {N\choose{i}} f(t-i),$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+N}$.
We define the **backward jump operator**, $\rho: {\mathbb{N}}_a \to {\mathbb{N}}_a$, by $\rho(t) := \max\{a, t-1\}$.
[@pb p. 333] The **nabla definite integral** of a function $f: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$, for $c, d \in {\mathbb{N}}_a^b$, is defined by $\int_c^d f(t) \nabla t := \begin{cases} \sum\limits_{t=c+1}^d f(t), & d >c \\
0, & d = c \\
-\sum\limits_{t=d+1}^c f(t), & d < c.\end{cases}$
**(Fundamental Theorem of Nabla Calculus)** \[ftnc\] If $f: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $F$ is any nabla antidifference of $f$ on ${\mathbb{N}}_a^b$ (i.e., $\nabla F(t) = f(t)$, for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$), then $$\int_a^b f(t) \nabla t = F(b) - F(a).$$
Next, we will define nabla fractional sums and differences. Let ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}$ denote the set of nonpositive integers.
For $t, r \in {\mathbb{C}}$, the **generalized rising function** is defined by $$t \rp {r} := \begin{cases} \frac{\Gamma(t+r)}{\Gamma(t)}, & \text{ if } t+r, t \not \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0} \\
0, & \text{ if } t+r \not \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0} \text{, and } t \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}\\
(-1)^{r} \frac{(-t)!}{(-t-r)!} & \text{ if } t+r, t \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}\\
\text{undefined} & \text{ if } t+r \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}\text{, and } t \not \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\leq 0}, \end{cases}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function.
\[gammaprop\] For $z \in {\mathbb{C}}\setminus \{0, -1, -2, -3, \hdots \}$, we have $\Gamma(z+1) = z \Gamma(z).$
\[Taylor\] For $\nu \in {\mathbb{R}}$, the $\nu$-th order **nabla Taylor monomial**, based at $s \in {\mathbb{N}}_a$, is defined for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_a$ by $$H_{\nu}(t,s):= \frac{(t-s)\rp{\nu}}{\Gamma(\nu+1)}.$$
Next, we state several properties of the nabla Taylor monomials.
\[taylormonprops\] For $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_a$ and $\mu \in {\mathbb{R}}$,
1. for $\mu \not = 0$, $H_{\mu}(a,a) = 0$ and $H_0(t,a) \equiv 1$;
2. $\nabla H_{\mu}(t,a) = H_{\mu-1}(t,a);$
3. for $\mu \not = -1$, $\int_a^t H_{\mu}(s,a) \nabla s = H_{\mu+1}(t,a);$
4. for $\mu \not = -1$, $\int_a^t H_{\mu}(t,\rho(s)) \nabla s = H_{\mu+1}(t,a);$
5. for $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1$, $s \in \{ a + n \mid n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\},$ and $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{s+k+1}$, $H_{-k}(t,s) = 0;$
provided the expressions above are defined.
\[fracsum\] Let $f: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $\nu > 0$. Then, the **nabla fractional sum** of $f$ of order $\nu$, based at $a$, is defined by $$\label{fracsumform}
\nabla_a^{-\nu} f(t) := \int_a^t H_{\nu-1}(t, \rho(s)) f(s) \nabla s,$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$. Also, we define $\nabla_a^{-0} f(t):= f(t)$.
\[fracdif\] Let $f: {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1} \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $\nu > 0$, and $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$. Then, the $\nu$-th order **nabla Caputo fractional difference** of $f$ is defined by $$\label{fracdifform}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} f(t) := \nabla_a^{-(N-\nu)}\nabla^N f(t),$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$. By convention, $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} f(t) = 0$ for $t \in \{a-k \mid k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0\}.$
A variation of constants formula for a nabla Caputo initial value problem is given in the next theorem.
\[caputoIVPthm\] Consider the IVP $$\label{caputoIVP}
\begin{cases}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) = h(t), &t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1} \\
\nabla^k x(a) = c_k, &k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1},
\end{cases}$$ where $\nu > 0$, $N:= \Ceil{\nu},$ $h:{\mathbb{N}}_{a+1} \to {\mathbb{R}}$, and $c_k \in {\mathbb{R}}$ for $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$. Then, the unique solution to the IVP is given by $$x(t) = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{N-1} H_k(t,a) c_k + \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t), \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}.$$
We will also state the following Leibniz formula, which is useful when showing that integral expressions satisfy nabla difference equations.
\[Leibniz\]**(Nabla Leibniz Formula).** Assume $f: {\mathbb{N}}_a \times {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1} \to {\mathbb{R}}$. Then, for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$, $$\label{leibnizformula}
\nabla \left( \int_a^t f(t,\tau)\nabla \tau\right) = \int_a^t \nabla_t f(t,\tau) \nabla \tau + f(\rho(t), t).$$
Green’s Functions
=================
In this section we will develop Green’s functions for $(k, N-k)$ BVPs involving the nabla Caputo difference operator. The next remark motivates the theorem that follows, which will establish a form for a general solution to $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) = h(t)$ in terms of nabla Taylor monomials based at modified points. This form will be useful when considering $(k, N-k)$ boundary value problems.
In the continuous case, for each $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{n-1}$, $x_p(t):=\frac{(t-a)^p}{p!}$ is a solution to the equation $x^{(n)}=0$ satisfying the initial conditions $x^{(i)}(a) = 0$ for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{p-1}$. In particular, we say $x_p(t)$ has a zero of multiplicity $p$ at $t=a$. In an analogous way, for each $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$, $H_p(t,a-N+p)$ satisfies $\nabla^ix(a-N+p)=0$ for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{p-1}$ and has $p$ consecutive zeros on the domain ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}$ at $t=a-N+1, \hdots, a-N+p$.
\[caputogensolntaylor\] Let $\nu > 0$ and $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$. A general solution to $$\label{caputogensolntayloreqn}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) = h(t), \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$$ is given by $$\label{caputogensolntaylorsoln}
x(t) = \Sum_{p=0}^{N-1} c_p H_p(t,a - N +p) + \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t),$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}$, where $c_p$ for $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$ are arbitrary constants.
Note that, for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$ and $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{applycaputototaylormon}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}H_p(t,a-N+p) &\overset{\eqref{fracdifform}}{=} \nabla_a^{-(N-\nu)} \nabla^N H_p(t,a-N+p) \nonumber \\
&= 0,\end{aligned}$$ by repeated applications of Theorem \[taylormonprops\], part (2) and by Theorem \[taylormonprops\], part (5). Also, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hparticularsoln}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t) &{=} h(t),\end{aligned}$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$ since by Theorem \[caputoIVPthm\], $\nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t)$ is the unique solution to $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) = h(t)$ satisfying the initial conditions $\nabla^k x(a) = 0$, $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$. Hence, by , , and linearity of the operator $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}$, we have that $x(t)$, given by , is a solution to and is defined on ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}$.
Now suppose $y(t)$ is any solution to $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} y(t) = 0$. Then, $y(t)$ is determined by its initial values, $\nabla^k y(a)$ for $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$, by Theorem \[caputoIVPthm\]. Let the initial values of $H_p(t,a-N+k)$ for $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$ be given by the vector $\mathbf{v}_p:=$ $$\label{ICsvector}
\langle H_p(t,a-N+k)|_{t=a}, \nabla H_p(t,a-N+k)|_{t=a}, \hdots, \nabla^{N-1}H_p(t,a-N+k)|_{t=a}\rangle.$$Then, for $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^k H_p(t,a-N+p)\Big|_{t=a}
&=\begin{cases} \frac{(N-p)\rp{p-k}}{(p-k)!} = \frac{(N-k-1)!}{(N-p-1)!(p-k)!}, & k \leq p \\
0, & k > p, \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ by Theorem \[taylormonprops\], parts (2) and (5). Therefore, the vectors $\mathbf{v}_0, \mathbf{v}_1, \hdots, \mathbf{v}_{N-1} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N}$ are linearly independent. It follows that $y(t) = \Sum_{p=0}^{N-1} c_p H_p(t,a-N+p)$ for some $c_p \in {\mathbb{R}}$, for $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$.
Next, suppose $w(t)$ is a solution to . It follows that $w(t) - \nabla_a^{-\nu}h(t)$ is a solution to $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} y(t) = 0.$ Then, by the above argument, $w(t) - \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t) = \Sum_{p=0}^{N-1}c_p H_p(t,a-N+p)$ for some $c_p \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Thus, $w(t) = \Sum_{p=0}^{N-1}c_p H_p(t,a-N+p) + \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t)$, so gives a general solution to .
Next, we get a form of any solution $x(t)$ to the homogeneous equation $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}x(t) = 0$ which satisfies $k$ homogeneous initial conditions, for any fixed $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$, where $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$.
\[LeftBCssimplifysoln\] Let $\nu > 1$, $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$, $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$, and suppose $x: {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a solution to the equation $$\label{homeqnsolnhomics}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) = 0, \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}.$$ Moreover, assume that $x$ satisfies the conditions $\nabla^i x(a-N+k) = 0, \,\ i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}.$ Then, $x(t) = \Sum_{p=k}^{N-1} c_p H_p(t,a-N+p), $ where $c_k, c_{k+1}, \hdots, c_{N-1} \in {\mathbb{R}}$.
Let $x(t)$ be a solution to . Then, by Theorem \[caputogensolntaylor\], we have $x(t) = \Sum_{p=0}^{N-1} c_p H_p(t,a-N+p), \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}, $ where $c_p$ for $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$ are constants. Let $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$ and consider $$\begin{aligned}
\label{plugginginics}
\nabla^i x(a-N+k) &= \Sum_{p=0}^{N-1} c_p \nabla^iH_p(t,a-N+p)\mid_{t=a-N+k} \nonumber\\
&= \Sum_{p=i}^{N-1} c_p H_{p-i}(a-N+k,a-N+p).\end{aligned}$$ Note that for $p \geq i$, $
H_{p-i}(a-N+k, a-N+p)
=\begin{cases} 0, & k-p \leq 0 \\
\frac{(k-i-1)!}{(p-i)!(k-p-1)!}, & k-p > 0.
\end{cases}$ From and $\nabla^i x(a-N+k) = 0$, for each $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$, we have $$\label{pluginsimplify}
\Sum_{p=i}^{k-1} c_p \frac{(k-i-1)!}{(p-i)!(k-p-1)!} = 0.$$ Letting $i=k-1, \,\ k-2, \,\ \hdots, \,\ 0$ in with the given order implies $c_{k-1}= c_{k-2} = \cdots = c_0 = 0$, respectively. Hence, $x(t) = \Sum_{p=k}^{N-1} c_p H_p(t,a-N+p)$.
Next, we give an existence-uniqueness result, often referred to as Fredholms Alternative Theorem [@greens], for two-point boundary value problems involving the operator $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}$.
(Existence-Uniqueness Theorem) \[existenceuniquenessbvpkNk\] Let $\nu > 1$, $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$, $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$, and $h:{\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$. Furthermore, let $j_m \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$ for $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k},$ with $j_1 < j_2 < j_3 < \cdots < j_{N-k}$, and assume $b-a \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\max\{1,j_{N-k}-N+k+1\}}$. Then, the homogeneous $(k, N-k)$ BVP $$\label{homogeneouskNk}
\begin{cases}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}y(t) = 0, &t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \\
\nabla^i y(a-N+k) = 0, &i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1} \\
\nabla^{j_m} y(b) = 0, &m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}
\end{cases}$$ has only the trivial solution if and only if the nonhomogeneous $(k, N-k)$ BVP $$\label{nonhomogeneouskNk}
\begin{cases}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}w(t) = h(t), &t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \\
\nabla^i w(a-N+k) = A_i, &i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1} \\
\nabla^{j_m} w(b) = B_{j_m}, &m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k},
\end{cases}$$ has a unique solution for each $A_i, B_{j_m} \in {\mathbb{R}}$, for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$.
By Theorem \[caputogensolntaylor\], a general solution to $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} y(t) = 0$ is given by $y(t) = c_0 H_0(t,a-N) + c_1H_1(t,a-N+1) + \cdots + c_{N-1} H_{N-1}(t,a-1). $ Fix $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$, let $\alpha:=a-N+k$, and let $x_p(t):= H_p(t,a-N+p)$. Then, $y$ satisfies the boundary conditions in if and only if the vector equation $$\underbrace{ \left(\begin{matrix}x_0(\alpha) & x_1(\alpha) & \cdots & x_{N-1}(\alpha) \\
\nabla x_0(\alpha) & \nabla x_1(\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla x_{N-1}(\alpha) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{k-1} x_0(\alpha) & \nabla^{k-1} x_1(\alpha) &\cdots & \nabla^{k-1} x_{N-1}(\alpha) \\
\nabla^{j_1} x_0(b) & \nabla^{j_1} x_1(b) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_1} x_{N-1}(b) \\
\nabla^{j_2} x_0(b) & \nabla^{j_2} x_1(b) &\cdots &\nabla^{j_2} x_{N-1}(b) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{j_{N-k}} x_0(b) & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} x_1(b) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} x_{N-1}(b) \end{matrix}\right)}_{=:M} \underbrace{\left(\begin{matrix} c_0 \\
c_1 \\
\vdots \\
c_{k-1} \\
c_k \\
c_{k+1} \\
\vdots \\
c_{N-1} \end{matrix} \right)}_{=:\textbf{c}} = \left(\begin{matrix} 0 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
0 \end{matrix}\right)$$ holds. Since, by hypothesis, the homogeneous BVP has only the trivial solution, the above vector equation has only the trivial solution $\textbf{c}=\textbf{0}$. Hence, $\det M \not = 0$.
Now suppose $w$ is a solution to the nonhomogeneous equation $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} w(t) = h(t)$. Then, by Theorem \[caputogensolntaylor\], we have $w(t) = d_0 H_0(t,a-N) + d_1 H_1(t,a-N+1) + \cdots + d_{N-1} H_{N-1}(t,a-1) + \nabla_{a}^{-\nu} h(t),$ for some constants $d_0, d_1, \hdots, d_{N-1}$. Then, the boundary value problem has a solution if and only if the vector equation $$M \underbrace{\left(\begin{matrix} d_0 \\ d_1 \\ \vdots \\ d_{N-1} \end{matrix} \right)}_{:=\textbf{d}} = \left( \begin{matrix} A_0 - \nabla_a^{-\nu}h(a-N+k) \\ \vdots \\ A_{k-1} - \nabla^{k-1} \nabla_a^{-\nu}h(a-N+k) \\ B_{j_1} - \nabla^{j_1}\nabla_a^{-\nu}h(b) \\ \vdots \\ B_{j_{N-k}} - \nabla^{j_{N-k}}\nabla_a^{-\nu}h(b) \end{matrix} \right)$$ has a solution. Since $\det M \not = 0$, this vector equation has a unique solution $\textbf{d}$, so the BVP has a unique solution.
The proof of the converse is straightforward and hence omitted.
Let $\alpha:= a-N+k$. In the remainder of this section, we let $D:=$ $$\label{nonzeroN-kdet}
\left( \begin{matrix} \nabla^{j_1}H_k(b,\alpha) & \nabla^{j_1} H_{k+1}(b,\alpha+1) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_1} H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\nabla^{j_2}H_k(b,\alpha) & \nabla^{j_2} H_{k+1}(b,\alpha+1) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_2} H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{j_{N-k}}H_k(b,\alpha) & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_{k+1}(b,\alpha+1) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \end{matrix} \right).$$
\[necsuffN-kdetthm\] A necessary and sufficient condition for uniqueness of solutions to the nonhomogeneous BVP is $\det D \not = 0$, where $D$ is given by .
By Lemma \[LeftBCssimplifysoln\], a solution to $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}x(t) = 0,$ for $ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$, which satisfies the conditions $\nabla^ix(a-N+k)=0,$ for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$, where $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$ is fixed, is given by $x(t) = c_k H_k(t,a-N+k) + c_{k+1}H_{k+1}(t,a-N+k+1) + \cdots + c_{N-1} H_{N-1}(t,a-1).$ Using the boundary conditions at $t = b$ in in the last equation, we get the vector equation $$D \left( \begin{matrix} c_k \\ c_{k+1} \\ \vdots \\ c_{N-1} \end{matrix} \right) = \left(\begin{matrix} 0\\
0\\ \vdots \\ 0\end{matrix} \right),$$ where $D$ is given by . This vector equation has only the trivial solution if and only if $\det D \not = 0$. It follows by Theorem \[existenceuniquenessbvpkNk\] that the nonhomogeneous BVP has a unique solution if and only if $\det D \not = 0$.
The next two lemmas are used to show that $\det D \not = 0$.
\[determinantnonzeroequivalence\] Let $D$ be as in . Then, $\det D \not = 0$ if and only if $\det \hat{D} \not = 0$, where $\hat{D}:=$ $$\label{nonzeroN-kdetAppendixtransformed}
\left( \begin{matrix} \prod\limits_{i=k+1}^{N-1}(i- j_1) & \prod\limits_{i=k+2}^{N-1}(i- j_1) & \cdots & \prod\limits_{i=N-1}^{N-1} (i- j_1) & 1 \\
\prod\limits_{i=k+1}^{N-1}(i- j_2) & \prod\limits_{i=k+2}^{N-1}(i- j_2) & \cdots & \prod\limits_{i=N-1}^{N-1}(i- j_2) & 1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\prod\limits_{i=k+1}^{N-1}(i- j_{N-k}) & \prod\limits_{i=k+2}^{N-1}(i- j_{N-k}) & \cdots & \prod\limits_{i=N-1}^{N-1}(i- j_{N-k}) & 1 \\ \end{matrix} \right).$$
Let $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_{k}^{N-1}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$. Then, the entry in row $m$ and column $p-k+1$ of the matrix $D$ is $H_{p-j_{m}}(b, a-N+p) = \frac{\Gamma(b-a+N-j_m)}{\Gamma(b-a+N-p)\Gamma(p-j_m+1)}.$ Then, $ \det D = \frac{\Gamma(b-a+N-j_1)\Gamma(b-a+N-j_2)\cdots \Gamma(b-a+N-j_{N-k})}{\Gamma(b-a+N-k)\Gamma(b-a+N-k-1)\cdots\Gamma(b-a+1)} \det E, $ where the entry in row $m$ and column $p-k+1$ of the matrix $E$ is $ \frac{1}{\Gamma(p-j_m+1)}.$ Note $\det E \not = 0$ if and only if $\det D \not = 0$. Next, multiplying row $m$ of the matrix $E$ by $\Gamma(N-j_m)$ for each $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$ and then using the property of the Gamma function given in Proposition \[gammaprop\], we obtain the matrix $\hat{D}$. Moreover, $\det \hat{D} \not = 0$ if and only if $\det D \not = 0$.
It can be shown that the matrix $\hat{D}$ can be obtained by elementary column operations on the matrix $E$ defined by$$\left(\begin{matrix} (-1)^{N-k-1}(j_1)^{N-k-1} & (-1)^{N-k-2}(j_1)^{N-k-2} & \cdots & (-1)j_1 & 1 \\
(-1)^{N-k-1}(j_2)^{N-k-1} & (-1)^{N-k-2}(j_2)^{N-k-2} & \cdots & (-1)j_2 & 1 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
(-1)^{N-k-1}(j_{N-k})^{N-k-1} & (-1)^{N-k-2}(j_{N-k})^{N-k-2} & \cdots & (-1)j_{N-k} & 1 \end{matrix} \right).$$ It follows by the Vandermonde determinant formula [@vandermonde p. 17] and properties of determinants that $\det E = (-1)^{\frac{(N-k)(N-k-1)}{2}}\prod\limits_{1 \leq p < r \leq N-k} (j_p-j_r) \not = 0$ since $j_1 < j_2 < \cdots < j_{N-k}$. Hence, we get the next lemma.
\[determinantnonzeropolynomial\] Let $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$ be fixed, $j_1 < j_2 < \cdots < j_{N-k}$, and $j_m \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$, for $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$. Then, $\det \hat{D} \not = 0$, where $\hat{D}$ is given by .
The next theorem follows directly from Lemmas \[determinantnonzeroequivalence\] and \[determinantnonzeropolynomial\].
\[Dnotzero\] The matrix $D$, given by , has a nonzero determinant.
Using Theorem \[necsuffN-kdetthm\] and Theorem \[Dnotzero\], we get the next theorem.
\[uniquebvpsolndetDnonzero\] The nonhomogeneous BVP has a unique solution.
The function $G: {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \times {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$ given in the next theorem is called the *Green’s function* for the homogeneous BVP . Note that the Green’s function is used to find the unique solution to the nonhomogeneous BVP .
\[GreensfunctionthmkNk\] Let $\nu > 1$ and $N:=\Ceil{\nu}$. Assume $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_{1}^{N-1}$, $j_m \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$ for $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k},$ with $j_1 < j_2 < \cdots < j_{N-k}$, and\
$b-a \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\max\{1,j_{N-k}-N+k+1\}}$. For each fixed $s \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$, let $u(t,s)$ be defined as the solution to the BVP $$\label{ubvp}
\begin{cases}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} u(t,s) = 0, &t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b\\
\nabla^i u(a-N+k,s) = 0, &i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1} \\
\nabla^{j_m} u(b,s) = -\nabla^{j_m} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)), &m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}.
\end{cases}$$ Define $$\label{GreenskNk}
G(t,s):= \begin{cases} u(t,s), \text{ if } t \leq \rho(s) \\
v(t,s), \text{ if } t \geq \rho(s),
\end{cases}$$ where $v(t,s):= u(t,s) + H_{\nu-1}(t, \rho(s))$ and $(t,s) \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \times {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$. Then, $w(t) := \int_a^b G(t,s) h(s) \nabla s$ is the unique solution to the nonhomogeneous $(k, N-k)$ BVP with $A_i, B_{j_m} = 0$, for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$ and $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$.
By Theorem \[uniquebvpsolndetDnonzero\], the BVP , for each fixed $s \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$, has a unique solution, so $u(t,s)$ is well defined. Let $G(t,s)$ be defined as in and $w(t):=\int_a^b G(t,s) h(s)\nabla s$. First, for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b$, $$\begin{aligned}
w(t)
&=\int_a^{t} v(t,s) h(s) \nabla s + \int_{t}^b u(t,s) h(s) \nabla s\\
&=\int_a^b u(t,s) h(s) \nabla s + \int_a^{t} H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s)) h(s) \nabla s \\
&\overset{\eqref{fracsumform}}{=}\int_a^b u(t,s) h(s) \nabla s + \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t).\end{aligned}$$
For $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} w(t) & = \nabla_{a*}^{\nu}\left[\int_a^b u(t,s) h(s) \nabla s + \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(t)\right] \\
&= \Sum_{s=a+1}^b \nabla_{a*}^{\nu} u(t,s) h(s) + \nabla_{a*}^{\nu} \nabla_{a}^{-\nu} h(t) \\
&\overset{\eqref{ubvp}, \hspace{1pt}\eqref{hparticularsoln}}{=} h(t).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\nabla_a^{-\nu} h(a-N+1) = \cdots = \nabla_a^{-\nu} h(a) = 0$ by convention, in particular, we get $\nabla^i(\nabla_a^{-\nu}h)(a-N+k) = 0$ for $ i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$. Thus, for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^i w(t)|_{t=a-N+k}&= \int_a^b \nabla^i u(a-N+k,s) h(s) \nabla s + \nabla^i(\nabla_a^{-\nu} h)(a-N+k)\\
&\overset{\eqref{ubvp}}{=} 0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for $j_m \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$, $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^{j_m} w(t)|_{t=b} &= \int_a^b \nabla_t^{j_m} u(t,s) h(s) \nabla s\Big|_{t=b} + \nabla^{j_m}\left[ \int_a^t H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s)) h(s) \nabla s \right]\Big|_{t=b} \\
&\overset{\eqref{leibnizformula}}{=} \int_a^b \nabla_t^{j_m}u(t,s)h(s) \nabla s\Big|_{t=b} \\
& + \left[\nabla^{j_m-1}\int_a^t \nabla_t H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s))h(s) \nabla s + H_{\nu-1}(\rho(t), \rho(t)) h(t) \right]\Big|_{t=b} \\
&= \int_a^b \nabla_t^{j_m}u(t,s)h(s) \nabla s\Big|_{t=b} \\
&+ \left[\nabla^{j_m-1}\int_a^t \nabla_t H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s))h(s)\nabla s\right]\Big|_{t=b} \\
& \quad \vdots \\
&\overset{\eqref{leibnizformula}}{=}\int_a^b \nabla_t^{j_m} u(t,s)h(s) \nabla s \Big|_{t=b} \\
& + \left[ \int_a^t \nabla_t^{j_m} H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s))h(s) \nabla s + \nabla_t^{j_m-1}H_{\nu-1}(\rho(t), \rho(t)) h(t) \right]\Big|_{t=b} \\
&\overset{\eqref{ubvp}}{=}\int_a^b -\nabla_t^{j_m}H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) h(s) \nabla s \\
&+ \int_a^b \nabla_t^{j_m} H_{\nu-1}(b, \rho(s)) h(s) \nabla s \\
&= 0.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of the following corollary is standard and follows in a straightforward manner from Theorem \[GreensfunctionthmkNk\].
\[solntononhomkNkaddw\] Assume that the hypotheses of Theorem \[GreensfunctionthmkNk\] hold. Also, let $h: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $G(t,s)$ be as defined in , and $w$ be the unique solution to the BVP $$\begin{cases} \nabla_{a*}^{\nu} w(t) = 0, &t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \\
\nabla^i w(a-N+k) = A_i, &i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1} \\
\nabla^{j_m}w(b) = B_{j_m}, &m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}.
\end{cases}$$ Then, the unique solution to the nonhomogeneous BVP $$\begin{cases} \nabla_{a*}^{\nu} y(t) = h(t), &t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \\
\nabla^i y(a-N+k) = A_i, &i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1} \\
\nabla^{j_m}y(b) = B_{j_m}, &m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k},
\end{cases}$$ is given by $y(t):= w(t) + \int_a^b G(t,s) h(s) \nabla s. $
\[Gdeterminant\] Assume that the hypotheses of Theorem \[GreensfunctionthmkNk\] hold. Then, the Green’s function for the $(k, N-k)$ BVP is given by , where $u(t,s)=$ $$\label{udeterminant}
\frac{1}{\beta} \left| \begin{matrix} 0 & H_k(t,\alpha) & \cdots & H_{N-1}(t,a-1) \\
\nabla^{j_1}H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_1}H_{k}(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_1}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\\
\nabla^{j_2} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_2}H_k(b, \alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_2}H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_k(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_{N-k}}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\end{matrix} \right|,$$ for $(t,s) \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \times {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$; with $\beta:= \det D$, where $D$ is given by ; $v(t,s):= u(t,s) + H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s))$; and $\alpha:=a-N+k$.
Let $u(t,s)$ be given by . By Theorem \[Dnotzero\], $\beta \not = 0$, so $u$ is well defined. Then, expanding $u(t,s)$ along the first row, for each fixed $s$, $u(t,s)$ is a linear combination of $H_{k}(t,a-N+k), H_{k+1}(t,a-N+k+1), \hdots, H_{N-1}(t,a-1)$. Hence, for each fixed $s$, $u(t,s)$ is a solution to $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) = 0$. Note that $\nabla^i H_{p}(a-N+k,a-N+p)= 0$ for each $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$ and $p \in {\mathbb{N}}_k^{N-1}$, so we have $\nabla^i u(a-N+k,s) = 0$ for each $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{k-1}$. Hence, $u(t,s)$ satisfies the boundary conditions at $t=a-N+k$ given in .
Next, define $z(t,s):=$ $$\frac{1}{\beta}\left| \begin{matrix} H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s)) & H_k(t,\alpha) & \cdots & H_{N-1}(t,a-1) \\
\nabla^{j_1}H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_1}H_{k}(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_1}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\\
\nabla^{j_2} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_2}H_k(b, \alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_2}H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_k(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_{N-k}}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\end{matrix} \right|,$$ where $\alpha=a-N+k$. Expanding $z(t,s)$ along the first row, we have $z(t,s) = $
$$\frac{1}{\beta} H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s)) \left| \begin{matrix}
\nabla^{j_1}H_{k}(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_1}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\\
\nabla^{j_2}H_k(b, \alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_2}H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_k(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_{N-k}}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\end{matrix} \right|$$
$$+ \frac{1}{\beta}\left| \begin{matrix} 0 & H_k(t,\alpha) & \cdots & H_{N-1}(t,a-1) \\
\nabla^{j_1}H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_1}H_{k}(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_1}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\\
\nabla^{j_2} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_2}H_k(b, \alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_2}H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_k(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_{N-k}}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\end{matrix} \right|.$$ Hence, we have $z(t,s) = H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s)) + u(t,s).$
Next, for $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$, $\nabla^{j_m} z(b,s)=$ $$\frac{1}{\beta}\left| \begin{matrix} \nabla^{j_m}H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_m}H_k(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_m}H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\nabla^{j_1}H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_1}H_{k}(b,\alpha)& \cdots & \nabla^{j_1}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\\
\nabla^{j_2} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_2}H_k(b, \alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_2}H_{N-1}(b,a-1) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)) & \nabla^{j_{N-k}} H_k(b,\alpha) & \cdots & \nabla^{j_{N-k}}H_{N-1}(b,a-1)\end{matrix} \right|.$$ Hence, $\nabla^{j_m} z(b,s)= 0$ for each $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_{1}^{N-k}$. Since $z(t,s) = H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s)) + u(t,s)$, this means for each $m \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-k}$, $\nabla^{j_m} u(b,s) = - \nabla^{j_m} H_{\nu-1}(b,\rho(s)).$ Therefore, we have that $u(t,s)$ satisfies the boundary conditions at $t = b$ in . Thus, the result follows by Theorem \[GreensfunctionthmkNk\].
In the next theorem, we apply Theorems \[GreensfunctionthmkNk\] and \[Gdeterminant\] to the special case of the BVP , which confirms [@jul Theorem 4.6].
\[nthordersolngenRF\] Consider the nabla Caputo $(N-1, 1)$ BVP $$\label{eq2nthgenRF}
\begin{cases}
-\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) = h(t), &t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^{b} \\
\nabla^i x(a-1)=0, &i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-2} \\
\nabla^j x(b) = 0,
\end{cases}$$ with $\nu > 1$, $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$, $j \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}$ fixed, $b-a \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\max\{1,j\}}$, and $h: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^{b} \to {\mathbb{R}}$. Then, $x: {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a solution to the $(N-1, 1)$ BVP if and only if $x(t)$ satisfies the integral equation $$\label{inteqnthgenRF}
x(t) = \int_a^b G_{\nu}(t,s)h(s) \nabla s,$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b$, where $G_{\nu}: {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \times {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is given by $$\label{greensnthgenRF}
G_{\nu}(t,s)= \begin{cases} \frac{H_{N-1}(t,a-1)H_{\nu-j-1}(b,\rho(s))}{H_{N-j-1}(b,a-1)}, & t \leq \rho(s) \\
\frac{H_{N-1}(t,a-1)H_{\nu-j-1}(b,\rho(s))}{H_{N-j-1}(b,a-1)} - H_{\nu-1}(t,\rho(s)), & t \geq \rho(s). \end{cases}$$
Lyapunov Inequalities
=====================
In this section, we will prove our main result involving Lyapunov inequalities in Theorem \[higherordersubsituting\]. First, we give a theorem involving uniqueness of solutions to initial value problems and prove some important lemmas which we will use in the proof of Theorem \[higherordersubsituting\].
\[uniqueIVPs\] Let $\nu > 1$, $N:=\lceil \nu \rceil$, and $f: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1} \to {\mathbb{R}}$. Then, the initial value problem $$\label{IVPeqn}
\begin{cases}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) + q(t) x(t-1) = f(t), \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1} \\
x(a-i) = A_i, \,\ i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-1}
\end{cases}$$ has a unique solution defined on ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}$.
By the initial conditions in , $x(t)$ is uniquely defined for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^a$. Expanding the operator $\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) &= \nabla_a^{-(N-\nu)}\nabla^N x(t) \\
&= \sum\limits_{s=a+1}^t H_{N-\nu-1}(t, \rho(s)) \sum\limits_{i=0}^N (-1)^i {N \choose i} x(s-i).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the equation in is equivalent to $$\label{IVPeqnexpanded}
\sum\limits_{s=a+1}^t H_{N-\nu-1}(t, \rho(s)) \sum\limits_{i=0}^N (-1)^i {N \choose i} x(s-i) + q(t) x(t-1) = f(t), \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}.$$ The result follows by induction on $k$, letting $t = a+k$ in .
In the next lemma, we will show that if there is a nontrivial solution to , it is not identically zero on the domain ${\mathbb{N}}_a^{b-1}$.
\[higherordersubx(s-1)issue\] Let $\nu > 1$ and suppose $x:{\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a solution to the equation $$\label{eqmth}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}x(t) + q(t) x(t-1) = 0, \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b,$$ where $\nu > 1$ and $N:=\Ceil{\nu}$. Assume $b-a \in {\mathbb{N}}_{N-1}$. If $x(t) = 0$ for all $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_a^{b-1}$, then $x(t) \equiv 0$ on ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b$.
Using the expanded form of given by , and assuming $x(t) = 0$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_a^{b-1}$, it follows by induction on $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$ that $$\label{zerosummations}
\Sum_{i=0}^N (-1)^i {N \choose i } x(a+k-i) = \Sum_{i=k+1}^N (-1)^i{N \choose i} x(a+k-i) = 0$$ holds for all $k \in {\mathbb{N}}_1^{N-1}$. Letting $k = N-1, N-2, \hdots, 1$ in in the given order, we get $x(a-1)=x(a-2)=\cdots = x(a-N+1)=0$, respectively. Additionally, we have $x(a)= 0$, which means by the uniqueness of solutions to IVPs given in Theorem \[uniqueIVPs\], $x(t) \equiv 0$ on its entire domain ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b$.
The proofs of the next three propositions are straightforward and hence omitted.
\[funcbds\] Let $\alpha > -1$ and $s \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a}$. Then, the following hold:
1. If $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\rho(s)}$, then $H_{\alpha}(t, \rho(s)) \geq 0$; if $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_s$, then $H_{\alpha}(t,\rho(s)) > 0$.
2. If $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\rho(s)}$ and $\alpha > 0$, then $H_{\alpha}(t, \rho(s))$ is a decreasing function of $s$; if $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{s}$ and $-1 < \alpha < 0$, then $H_{\alpha}(t, \rho(s))$ is an increasing function of $s$.
3. If $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{\rho(s)}$ and $\alpha \geq 0$, then $H_{\alpha}(t, \rho(s))$ is a nondecreasing function of $t$; if $\alpha > 0$ and $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_s$, then $H_{\alpha}(t,\rho(s))$ is an increasing function of $t$. Also, if $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{s+1}$ and $-1 < \alpha < 0$, then $H_{\alpha}(t, \rho(s))$ is a decreasing function of $t$.
\[funcabs\] Let $f,g$ be nonnegative real-valued functions on a set $S$. Moreover, assume $f$ and $g$ attain their maximum in $S$. Then, for each fixed $t \in S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left| f(t) - g(t)\right| &\leq \max\{ f(t), g(t)\} \leq \max\{ \max\limits_{t \in S} f(t), \max\limits_{t \in S} g(t) \}.\end{aligned}$$
\[taylormonineqs\] If $0 < \nu \leq \mu$, then $H_{\nu}(t,a) \leq H_{\mu}(t,a),$ for each fixed $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_a$.
Throughout this section, we let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A}
A&:= \max\left\{\frac{H_{\gamma-1}(b, a)}{H_1(b,a-1)}H_2(b,a-1), H_{\gamma}(b,a)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[intabsGbounds\] Let $s \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$ and $1 < \gamma \leq 2$. Then, for $j = 0$ in , $$\label{absGbd1}
\left|\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right| \leq A \text{ and } \left|\int_{t}^b G_{\gamma}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right| \leq A,$$ and, for $j=1$ in , $$\label{absGbd1j1}
\left|\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right| \leq H_2(b,a-1) \text{ and }
\left|\int_{t}^b G_{\gamma}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right| \leq H_2(b, a-1),$$ where $G_{\gamma}$ is defined by with $N=2$.
For $(t,s) \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^b \times {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$, by , $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau,s) \nabla \tau &= \int_{a-1}^{\rho(s)} \frac{H_1(\tau, a-1)H_{\gamma-j-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_{1-j}(b,a-1)} \nabla \tau\\ &+ \int_{\rho(s)}^t \left[\frac{H_1(\tau, a-1)H_{\gamma-j-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_{1-j}(b,a-1)} - H_{\gamma-1}(\tau, \rho(s)) \right] \nabla \tau \\
&= \frac{H_{\gamma-j-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_{1-j}(b,a-1)}\int_{a-1}^{t} H_1(\tau, a-1) \nabla \tau \\
& - \int_{\rho(s)}^t H_{\gamma-1}(\tau, \rho(s)) \nabla \tau.
\end{aligned}$$By Theorem \[taylormonprops\], part (3), $
\int_{a-1}^t H_1(\tau, a-1) \nabla \tau = H_2(t, a-1).$ Next, for $t > \rho(s)$, $
\int_{\rho(s)}^t H_{\gamma-1}(\tau, \rho(s)) \nabla \tau
= H_{\gamma}(t, \rho(s))$. Note that if $\rho(s) \geq t$, $\int_{\rho(s)}^t H_{\gamma-1}(\tau, \rho(s)) \nabla \tau = 0$. Thus, $
\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau = \frac{H_{\gamma-j-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_{1-j}(b,a-1)}H_2(t,a-1)-H_{\gamma}(t, \rho(s)),
$ so $$\label{intG}
\left|\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right| = \left|\frac{H_{\gamma-j-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_{1-j}(b,a-1)}H_2(t,a-1)-H_{\gamma}(t, \rho(s))\right|,$$ for $ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{s}^b$, and $$\label{intG2}
\left| \int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right|= \left|\frac{H_{\gamma-j-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_{1-j}(b,a-1)}H_2(t,a-1)\right|,$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^{\rho(s)}.$
We will now examine the first term from the right hand side of for the case $j=0$. By Proposition \[funcbds\], parts (1)-(2), for $s \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$, $$\label{ineq1}
0 \leq H_{\gamma-1}(b, \rho(s)) \leq H_{\gamma-1}(b,a),$$ and, for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^b$, $$\label{ineq2}
0 \leq H_{2}(t,a-1) \leq H_2(b, a-1).$$ Hence, by and , $$\label{term1bds}
0 \leq \frac{H_{\gamma-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_1(b,a-1)}H_2(t,a-1) \leq \frac{H_{\gamma-1}(b, a)}{H_1(b,a-1)}H_2(b,a-1).$$
Now we consider the second term in . By Proposition \[funcbds\], it follows that $$\label{term2bds}
0 \leq H_{\gamma}(t,\rho(s)) \leq H_{\gamma}(b,a).$$ From , , , , and Proposition \[funcabs\], for the case $j=0$, we obtain $
\left|\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau,s)\nabla \tau \right| \leq \max\left\{\frac{H_{\gamma-1}(b, a)}{H_1(b,a-1)}H_2(b,a-1), H_{\gamma}(b,a)\right\},$ so the first inequality in holds.
Consider the case $j=1$. Then, by Proposition \[funcbds\], parts (1)-(2), for $s \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$, $
0 \leq H_{\gamma-2}(b, \rho(s)) \leq H_{\gamma-2}(b,\rho(b)) = 1.$ Therefore, $$\label{ineqfocalcase}
0 \leq H_{\gamma-2}(b, \rho(s))H_2(t,a-1) \leq H_2(b,a-1).$$ Then, by , , and Proposition \[funcabs\], we obtain $
\left|\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau,s)\nabla \tau \right| \leq \max\left\{H_2(b,a-1), H_{\gamma}(b,a)\right\} .
$ Since $ 1<\gamma \leq 2$, we have $H_{\gamma}(b,a) \leq H_{2}(b,a) \leq H_2(b,a-1)$ by Proposition \[funcbds\], part (3) and Proposition \[taylormonineqs\], so in the case $j=1$, we have $
\left|\int_{a-1}^t G_{\gamma}(\tau,s)\nabla \tau \right| \leq H_2(b,a-1).
$ Thus, the first inequality in holds.
Similarly, from , for $(t,s) \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^b \times {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b$, $\int_{t}^b G_{\gamma}(\tau,s) \nabla \tau =$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{H_{\gamma-j-1}(b, \rho(s))}{H_{1-j}(b,a-1)} \int_{t}^{b} H_{1}(\tau, a-1)\nabla \tau - \int_{\rho(s)}^b H_{\gamma-1}(\tau, \rho(s))\nabla \tau .
\end{aligned}$$ Using arguments similar to the above, we obtain the second inequalities in and .
\[higherordersubsituting\] Let $q: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $\nu > 2$, and $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$. Assume $b-a \in {\mathbb{N}}_{N-1}$, and consider the BVP , $$\label{eqmthbcs1}
\nabla^{N-2}x(a-1) = 0, \,\ \nabla^{N-2}x(b) = 0, \,\ \nabla^i x(c_i) = 0 \text{ for } i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3},$$ where $c_i \in \{ a-1, b\}$, for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3}$. Let $A$ be as defined in with $\gamma = \nu-N+2$. If the boundary value problem , has a nontrivial solution $x: {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$, then $$\int_a^b |q(s)| \nabla s \geq \frac{1}{A} \cdot \frac{1}{(b-a+1)^{N-2}}.$$
Furthermore, consider the BVP , $$\label{eqmthbcs2}
\nabla^{N-2}x(a-1) = 0, \,\ \nabla^{N-1}x(b) = 0, \,\ \nabla^i x(c_i) = 0 \text{ for } i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3},$$ where $c_i \in \{ a-1, b\}$, for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3}$. If the boundary value problem , has a nontrivial solution $x: {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$, then $$\int_a^b |q(s)| \nabla s \geq \frac{1}{H_2(b, a-1)} \cdot \frac{1}{(b-a+1)^{N-2}}.$$
We will give the proof for the case of the BVP , . The proof is similar for the BVP , . First, note that for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu} x(t) &\overset{\eqref{fracdifform}}{=} \nabla_{a}^{-(N-\nu)}\nabla^N x(t) \\
&=\nabla_a^{-(N-\nu)}\nabla^2\nabla^{N-2}x(t) \\
&= \nabla_a^{-(2-(\nu-N+2))}\nabla^2\nabla^{N-2} x(t)\\
&= \nabla_{a*}^{\nu-N+2}\nabla^{N-2} x(t).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we can rewrite as $$\label{eqmthrewrite}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu-N+2}\nabla^{N-2} x(t) + q(t) x(t-1) = 0, \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b.$$ Let $y(t):= \nabla^{N-2} x(t)$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+3}^b$. Then, $y(t)$ solves the BVP $$\label{reducedtoconj}
\begin{cases}
-\nabla_{a*}^{\nu-N+2} y(t) = q(t) x(t-1), & t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \\
y(a-1) = y(b) = 0.
\end{cases}$$ By Theorem \[nthordersolngenRF\], we have $y(t) = \int_a^b G_{\nu-N+2}(t,s)q(s)x(s-1) \nabla s,$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^b$, where $G_{\nu-N+2}$ is given by with $j= 0$. Since $\nabla^{N-2} x(t) = y(t)$, we have $$\label{nablasquared}
\nabla^{N-2} x(t) = \int_a^b G_{\nu-N+2}(t,s)q(s)x(s-1) \nabla s.$$
Applying Theorem \[ftnc\], with the appropriate boundary condition\
$\nabla^{N-3} x(a-1) =0$ or $\nabla^{N-3} x(b) = 0$ given by , for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^b$, we get either $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bcata-1}
\nabla^{N-3} x(t) &= \nabla^{N-3} x(t) - \nabla^{N-3} x(a-1) \nonumber\\
&\overset{\eqref{nablasquared}}{=} \int\limits_{a-1}^t \int\limits_a^b G_{\nu-N+2}(\tau, s) q(s) x(s-1) \nabla s \nabla \tau\nonumber \\
&= \int\limits_a^b q(s) x(s-1) \left( \hspace{3pt} \int\limits_{a-1}^t G_{\nu-N+2}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right) \nabla s,\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bcatb}
-\nabla^{N-3} x(t) &= \nabla^{N-3}x(b) -\nabla^{N-3} x(t)\nonumber \\
&=\int\limits_a^b q(s) x(s-1) \left( \int\limits_t^b G_{\nu-N+2}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau \right) \nabla s,\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where we have interchanged the order of integration by using the linearity of the nabla integral. Let $F(t_0) :=\int_{a-1}^{t_0} G_{\nu-N+2}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau$ for the case or $F(t_0):= \int_{t_0}^b G_{\nu-N+2}(\tau, s) \nabla \tau $ for the case . Assume, without loss of generality, that the remaining boundary conditions in are $\nabla^i x(a-1)=0$, for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-4}$. Then, assuming $N \geq 4$, integrating either or $N-3$ times and then taking the absolute value of both sides, we get in either case $$\begin{aligned}
|x(t)| &= \left| \hspace{3pt} \int\limits_{a-1}^t \cdots \int\limits_{a-1}^t \int\limits_{a-1}^t \int\limits_a^b q(s) x(s-1) F(t_0) \nabla s \nabla t_0 \nabla t_1 \nabla t_2 \cdots \nabla t_{N-3} \right| \\
&\leq \int\limits_{a-1}^t \cdots \int\limits_{a-1}^t \int\limits_{a-1}^t \int\limits_a^b |q(s)| |x(s-1)|\left|F(t_0)\right| \nabla s \nabla t_0 \nabla t_1 \nabla t_2 \cdots \nabla t_{N-3} \\
& \leq \int\limits_{a-1}^b \cdots \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_a^b |q(s)| |x(s-1)| \left|F(t_0)\right| \nabla s \nabla t_0 \nabla t_1 \nabla t_2 \cdots \nabla t_{N-3},\end{aligned}$$ for $t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^b$. Let $t = t'$ such that $x(t') = \max\limits_{t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a-1}^b} |x(t)|$ and define $B:= x(t')$. By Lemma \[higherordersubx(s-1)issue\], since by hypothesis $x$ is a nontrivial solution, we have $x(t) \not \equiv 0$ on ${\mathbb{N}}_a^{b-1}$. In particular, $B \not = 0$. Letting $t = t'$ in the last inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
|x(t')|
& \leq \int\limits_{a-1}^b \cdots \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_a^b |q(s)| |x(s-1)| \left|F(t_0)\right| \nabla s \nabla t_0 \nabla t_1 \nabla t_2 \cdots \nabla t_{N-3} \\
& \leq \int\limits_{a-1}^b \cdots \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_a^b |q(s)| B \left|F(t_0)\right| \nabla s \nabla t_0 \nabla t_1 \nabla t_2 \cdots \nabla t_{N-3}, \end{aligned}$$ so $B \leq \int\limits_{a-1}^b \cdots \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_a^b |q(s)| B \left|F(t_0)\right| \nabla s \nabla t_0\nabla t_1 \nabla t_2 \cdots \nabla t_{N-3}.$ By Lemma \[intabsGbounds\], $|F(t_0)| \leq A$, where $A$ is defined by with $\gamma = \nu - N +2$. Therefore, we get $
1 \leq \int\limits_{a-1}^b \cdots \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_{a-1}^b \int\limits_a^b |q(s)| A \nabla s \nabla t_0 \nabla t_1 \nabla t_2 \cdots \nabla t_{N-3}.
$ It follows that $ \frac{1}{A(b-a+1)^{N-2}} \leq \int_a^b |q(s)| \nabla s. $
Note that for the proof involving the boundary conditions , we apply the bound $|F(t_0)| \leq H_2(t,a-1)$ given in Lemma \[intabsGbounds\].
The proof of the next theorem is similar to the proof of Theorem \[existenceuniquenessbvpkNk\].
\[nonhomsubstitution1\] Let $q: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $\nu > 2$, $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$, $b-a \in {\mathbb{N}}_{N-1}$, and $r \in \{1, 2\}$ be fixed. If the homogeneous BVP $$\begin{cases}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}x(t) + q(t) x(t-1) = 0, \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \\
\nabla^{N-2}x(a-1) = 0, \,\ \nabla^{N-r}x(b) = 0, \,\ \nabla^i x(c_i) = 0, \text{ for } i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3},
\end{cases}$$ where $c_i \in \{ a-1, b\}$, for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3}$, has only the trivial solution, then the nonhomogenous BVP $$\label{nonhomBVPhigherorder1}
\begin{cases}
\nabla_{a*}^{\nu}x(t) + q(t) x(t-1) = f(t), \,\ t \in {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \\
\nabla^{N-2}x(a-1) = A_0, \,\ \nabla^{N-r}x(b) = B_0, \,\ \nabla^i x(c_i) = C_i, \text{ for } i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3},\end{cases}$$ where $f: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and $A_0,$ $B_0,$ $C_i \in {\mathbb{R}}$ for $i \in {\mathbb{N}}_0^{N-3}$, has a unique solution defined on ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b$.
Using the Lyapunov inequalities in Theorem \[higherordersubsituting\] along with Theorem \[nonhomsubstitution1\], we get the following corollary.
Let $q: {\mathbb{N}}_{a+1}^b \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $\nu > 2$, $N:= \Ceil{\nu}$, and $r \in \{1, 2\}$ be fixed. Assume $b-a \in {\mathbb{N}}_{N-1}$. Consider the nonhomogeneous boundary value problem .
1. If $q(t)$ satisfies $ \int_a^b |q(t)| \nabla t < \frac{1}{A} \cdot \frac{1}{(b-a+1)^{N-2}}, $ then the BVP with $r = 2$ has a unique solution defined on ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b$.
2. If $q(t)$ satisfies $\int_a^b |q(t)| \nabla t < \frac{1}{H_2(b, a-1)} \cdot \frac{1}{(b-a+1)^{N-2}}, $ then the BVP with $r = 1$ has a unique solution defined on ${\mathbb{N}}_{a-N+1}^b$.
[^1]: CONTACT Areeba Ikram. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze the peaks in the ($\Lambda p$) and ($\Lambda d$) invariant mass distributions, observed in recent FINUDA experiments and claimed to be signals of deeply bound kaonic states, and find them to be naturally explained in terms of $K^-$ absorption by two or three nucleons leaving the rest of the target nucleus as a spectator. For reactions on heavy nuclei, the subsequent interactions of the particles produced in the primary absorption process with the residual nucleus play an important role. Thus at present there is no experimental evidence of deeply bound $K^-$ states in nuclei.'
address:
- |
Departament d’Estructura i Constituents de la Matéria,\
Universitat de Barcelona, Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
- |
Departamento de Física Teórica and IFIC Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia-CSIC\
Institutos de Investigación de Paterna, Apdo. correos 22085, 46071, Valencia, Spain
author:
- 'V.K. Magas'
- 'E. Oset'
- 'A. Ramos'
title: 'Two and three nucleon $K^-$ absorption in nuclei'
---
,
,
$K^-$ absorption in nuclei ,many body absorption ,final state interaction 13.75.-n ,13.75.Jz ,21.65.+f ,25.80.Nv
$K^-$-nucleons bound states at FINUDA {#sec-1}
=====================================
The possibility of having deeply bound $K^-$ states in nuclei is receiving much attention both theoretically (see for example Ref. [@Ramos:2008npa] for an overview) and experimentally. Here we discuss recent FINUDA data that have been sometimes used to imply the existence of deeply bound $K^-$ states.
![Invariant mass of $\Lambda p$ distribution for $K^-$ absorption in light nuclei in the following proportion [@Agnello:2005qj]: 51% $^{12}$C, 35% $^{6}$Li and 14% $^{7}$Li, including kaon boost machine corrections [@future_finuda]. Stars and histogram show result of our calculations [@Magas:2006fn], experimental points and error bars are taken from [@Agnello:2005qj].[]{data-label="fig1"}](chi2.eps){width="75.00000%"}
A peak observed by the FINUDA collaboration [@Agnello:2005qj] in the invariant mass distribution of $\Lambda p$, following $K^-$ absorption in a mixture of light nuclei, was interpreted as evidence for a $K^- pp$ bound state, with 115 MeV binding and 67 MeV width. However, it was soon shown in [@Magas:2006fn] that the peak seen is naturally explained in terms of $K^-$ absorption on a pair of nucleons leading to a $\Lambda p$ pair, followed by final state interactions (FSI), i.e. by the rescattering of $p$ or $\Lambda$ on the remnant nucleus, and that the back-to-back correlation of the $\Lambda p$ pairs is preserved to large extent. Fig. \[fig1\] shows the $\Lambda p$ invariant mass distribution for $K^-$ absorption in a mixture of light nuclei following the proportion [@Agnello:2005qj]: 51% $^{12}$C, 35% $^{6}$Li and 14% $^{7}$Li, including kaon boost machine corrections [@future_finuda]. However, we stress that in this mixture the contribution of reactions with $^{12}$C is absolutely dominant, about 99%. This is mostly due to the two orders of magnitude higher overlap of the nuclear density with the corresponding $K^-$ wavefunction $\int d\vec{r}\, |\Psi_{K^-}(\vec{r}\,)|^2
\rho_{A}^2(r)$ in $^{12}$C than in Li. Nevertheless, in order to verify in detail our model of $K^-$ two nucleon absorption dynamics, our choice of $\Psi_{K^-}(\vec{r}\,)$, and our simulation of FSI, experimental spectra for separate nuclei are necessary, while at the moment the ($\Lambda p$) invariant mass distribution is only available for the mixture of the three lightest targets [@Agnello:2005qj].
More recently, a new experiment of the FINUDA collaboration [@:2007ph] found a peak on the invariant mass of $\Lambda d$ following the absorption of a $K^-$ on $^6$Li, which was interpreted as a signature for a bound $\bar{K}NNN$ state with 58 MeV binding and 37 MeV width. Note that this result is in disagreement with the previous FINUDA statement [@Agnello:2005qj], since the bound state of the $K^-$ with three nucleons should have a larger binding energy than with two nucleons.
A similar experiment was performed at KEK [@Suzuki:2007kn] on $^4$He target, looking at the $\Lambda d $ invariant mass following $K ^-$ absorption. It is claimed, however, that the observed peak could be a signature of three body absorption.
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
In Ref. [@Magas:2008bp] we performed detailed calculations of $K^-$ absorption by three nucleons in $^6$Li and showed that all features observed in [@:2007ph] could be well interpreted in the picture of three body kaon absorption, as suggested in [@Suzuki:2007kn], with the rest of the nucleons acting as spectators - see Fig. \[fig2\]. It is also important to note that $ ^{12}$C was also used as a target in the same FINUDA experiment, and the corresponding $\Lambda d$ invariant mass spectrum does not show a clear peak [@:2007ph]. This was attributed in [@:2007ph] to FSI of the particles produced in the primary absorption process with the residual nucleus, in complete agreement with the mechanisms discussed in Ref. [@Magas:2006fn].
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
We have shown that the peaks observed by FINUDA in the ($\Lambda p$) [@Agnello:2005qj] and ($\Lambda d$) [@:2007ph] invariant mass distributions, following the absorption of stopped $K^-$ in different nuclei, are naturally explained in terms of:\
- $K^-$ absorption by two [@Magas:2006fn] or three [@Magas:2008bp] nucleons correspondingly, leaving the rest of the target nucleus as spectator;\
- for the reactions on heavy nuclei, the subsequent interactions of the particles produced in the primary absorption process ($\Lambda$, $p$, $d$, etc.) with the residual nucleus have to be taken into account.\
Thus, at present, there is no experimental evidence of deeply bound $K^-$ states in nuclei.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors thank H. Toki for fruitful and enlightening discussions. This work is partly supported by contracts FIS2006-03438 and FIS2005-03142 from MEC (Spain) and FEDER, the Generalitat de Catalunya contract 2005SGR-00343 and by the Generalitat Valenciana. We also acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity “Study of Strongly Interacting Matter” (HadronPhysics2, Grant Agreement n. 227431) under the EU 7th Framework Programme.
[0]{}
A. Ramos, V. K. Magas, E. Oset and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. [**A804**]{}, 219 (2008).
M. Agnello [*et al.*]{} \[FINUDA Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 212303 (2005).
V. K. Magas, E. Oset, A. Ramos and H. Toki, Phys. Rev. [**C74**]{}, 025206 (2006).
T. Bressani, private communication.
M. Agnello [*et al.*]{} \[FINUDA Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. [**B654**]{}, 80 (2007).
T. Suzuki [*et al.*]{} \[KEK-PS E549 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. [**C76**]{}, 068202 (2007).
V. K. Magas, E. Oset and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. [**C77**]{}, 065210 (2008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'I will be reviewing three methods to identify late-type giants in extragalactic systems, based on the main characteristics of AGB stars (they are infrared bright, variable, and have spectral peculiarities).'
author:
- 'M.A.T. Groenewegen'
title: AGB stars in extragalactic systems
---
Introduction
============
All main-sequence stars born with masses below $\la$ 8 $M_{\odot}$ have or will go through the evolutionary phase called Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB). The lower limit in initial mass is set by the age of the Galactic Disc, the upper limit is set by the mass where carbon can be ignited in the stellar core (but see the presentation by Siess on super-AGB stars in this volume). The AGB is the final phase where intermediate-mass stars have nuclear burning in the form of alternate Hydrogen and Helium shell burning, before they cross the Herzsprung-Russell diagram to become Planetary Nebulae and then White Dwarfs.
A summary of the interior structure and stellar evolution up to and on the AGB, and including the post-AGB phase, can be found in the recent textbook “Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars” (Habing & Olofsson 2004).
AGB stars are luminous (\[$\sim$0.1 – a few\] 10$^4$ $L_{\odot}$) and cool, with effective temperatures in the range 3850 to $\sim$2500 K (for M0 to M10 giants, e.g. Fluks et al. 1994). From this it follows that AGB stars are big (up to a few hundred $R_{\odot}$), and combining this with the classical pulsation equation $P = 0.038 \;
R^{1.5} \; M^{-0.5}$ it follows that any fundamental mode radial pulsations that would occur would have periods between tens and hundreds of days.
Equally important, and typical for the AGB, are the chemical peculiarities that occur during this evolutionary phase (see Chapter 2 in the aforementioned book). Depending in a complex way on initial mass, metallicity, mass-loss, mixing and burning in the envelope \[hot bottom-burning\], an AGB star may go through several third dredge-up events whereby mainly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and $s$-process elements are mixed ultimately into the stellar photosphere. Depending on the C/O-ratio different molecules form in the cool atmospheres (VO, TiO, C$_2$, CN) and a star can be classified as M-star (C/O $\la$ 0.95), S-star (0.95 $\la$ C/O $<$ 1.0) or C-star (C/O $\ge$ 1.0). Intermediate classes (MS, SC) also exist.
The low effective temperatures already make AGB stars redder than all their Main-Sequence progenitors. In addition, the formation of different molecules depending on chemical type makes that the infrared colours of M- and C-stars are different, as will be discussed later.
Furthermore, for spectral types later than $\sim$M4-M5 (e.g. Glass & Schultheis 2002) the region close to the star has the right combination of temperature and density for dust grains to form. Dust absorbs efficiently in the optical and radiates in the infra-red. This implies that AGB stars surrounded by dust shells are even redder.
In the present review I will only discuss the most recent results. For earlier reviews covering AGB stars in Local Group (LG) galaxies see, Azzopardi (1999), and Groenewegen (1999, 2002, 2006a,b).
Searches for AGB stars
======================
Near- and Mid-infrared studies
--------------------------------
As AGB stars are cool and many lose mass, infra-red colours are a natural way to search for them. A disadvantage is that only candidates may be identified, although the $(J-K)$ colour is often used to discriminate M and C-stars (see the discussion later). An advantage is that very red colours trace a different population of extreme mass loss and likely of higher initial mass, or stars at the very end of the AGB.
As the 2MASS $JHK$ survey (Cutri et al. 2003) was an all-sky survey that went reasonably deep ($K \approx 15$), it had the potential of discovering AGB stars in nearby LG galaxies. Quite a few studies have appeared that used 2MASS data: Demers et al. (2002) correlated spectroscopically confirmed C-stars in the Magellanic Clouds (MCs) with 2MASS and used this to propose 26 C-star candidates in the Fornax DSph. Cioni et al. (2003) studied the spatial C/M ratio over the MCs (also using DENIS data) to infer the distribution in \[Fe/H\]. Tsalmantza et al. (2006) used virtual observatory tools to identify luminous ($M_{\rm bol} < -6.0$) AGB stars with $(J-K) > 1.5$ and $(H-K)> 0.4$ in the MCs, M31 and M33. Groenewegen (2006a) selected 2MASS sources in LG galaxies within 1 Mpc (but excluding MCs, M31, M32, M33), and retaining objects with $(J-K)_0 >
1.22$, appropriate $M_{\rm K}$-range for AGB stars, errors in $J,K <
0.12$ and excluding known objects using the SIMBAD database.
In the last couple of years more studies appeared that used ground-based IR instrumentation sometimes combined with an optical colour. Cioni & Habing (2005a) studied a field in Draco of 40 x30 in $IJK$, and Cioni & Habing (2005b) studied a field in NGC 6822 of 20 x20 in $IJK$. At this conference she also presented preliminary results on M33. In her papers she selects O-rich and C-rich AGB stars from their infrared colours and then studies the spatially resolved C/M ratio. Kang et al. (2006) studied a smaller field of 6.3 x 3.6 in $giJHK$ in NGC 6822. Since this galaxy was observed using the narrow-band filter technique (see later) by Letarte et al. (2002) they could identify known carbon stars in various colour-colour diagrams. The M31 companions NGC 147, 185, 205 have been studied by Davidge (2005), Kang et al. (2005) and Sohn et al. (2006). Finally, Rejkuba et al. (2006, and this conference) present NIR data on dwarf ellipticals in Cen A.
Turning to the mid-IR, the [*Spitzer Space Telescope*]{} has a great discovery potential for luminous and especially mass-losing AGB stars in LG galaxies. First results have been published from the S$^3$MC survey of the SMC (Bolatto et al. 2006, program ID 3316), the SAGE survey of the LMC (Meixner et al. 2006, Blum et al. 2006, program ID 20203), and for M31 (Barmby et al. 2006, program ID 3126). Smaller LG galaxies will also be surveyed in both IRAC (P.I. R. Gehrz, program ID 128) and MIPS (P.I. E Skillman, program ID 20425).
First results on IRAC observations of WLM were presented by Dale Jackson et al. at this conference. As WLM has been surveyed using the narrow-band filter system (Battinelli & Demers 2004) they could compare the number of detections. Interestingly, they recovered 90% of the known C-stars in the IRAC colours, but this represented only of order 20% of the entire AGB population. Especially stars with $[3.6-4.5] {\raisebox{-1.1mm}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}}0.3$ were lacking among the known C-stars (and one would expect them to be C-stars at the low metallicity of WLM).
To aid in identifying AGB stars in the non-standard IRAC and MIPS filters, Groenewegen (2006c) has presented tracks for AGB stars in various optical, near- and mid-infrared colours as a function of mass loss rate and for both O- and C-stars. An example is shown in Fig. \[groen-WLM\]. Note that the fluxes and mass loss rates listed in that paper are for a particular luminosity and distance, and scaling relations need to be applied (as explained in the paper) to compute fluxes and mass loss rates for other values of luminosity and distance !
Variability
-------------
Variability is another main characteristic of AGB stars. Mira variables have peak-to-peak amplitudes of larger than 2.5, 0.9, and 0.4 mag in $V,I,K$, respectively, and are therefore easy to find. The disadvantage is that pulsation amplitude and period are not sufficient to discriminate O-rich from C-rich objects, and that the observations are (observing) time demanding. An advantage is that Miras follow a tight period-luminosity relation and hence (relative) distances can be derived.
The bars of the SMC and LMC have been surveyed with the OGLE and MACHO surveys, and the resulting databases have been extensively data mined for red variables, since the pioneering work by Wood (1999). By selecting on pulsation amplitude different sequences are populated, as illustrated in Figure \[groen-PL-MC\], with the largest amplitude Mira variables belonging to sequence “C”. For a summary of the results of the micro lensing surveys on red variables in the MCs, I refer to Groenewegen (2006b).
Works on other LG galaxies are those by: Bersier & Wood (2002) who describe 85 LPV candidates in Fornax. Gallart et al. (2004) who propose 6 LPV candidates in Phoenix. Rejkuba et al. (2003), Rejkuba (2004) who found 1146 LPVs in NGC 5128. Snigula et al. (this conference), who identify 11 / 2 / 52 / 0 LPV candidates in, respectively, Leo A / GR 8 / Pegasus / DDO 210.
A number of studies appeared recently on variables in M31: Ansari et al. (2004) present results from the AGAPE gravitational micro lensing survey. They present astrometry and photometry on 1579 variables stars in a 10x 14 field. They observed the field for 3 years and obtained between 40-80 epochs. The $(B-R)$ colours and $R$ magnitudes suggest that the majority are LPVs. Periods are only presented for 54 objects however. Fliri et al. (2006) present results from the WeCAPP micro lensing survey. A field of 16x 16 was monitored in $R$ and $I$ over 3 years with 200-400 epochs. 23781 variable sources are detected, of which 19167 are classified as “regular or semi-regular red variables”. Mould et al. (2004) monitored 33 fields covering 5 stripes of about 10x 60 in $I$ for over 6 years, with 13-17 epochs per field. Single-epoch $JHK$ photometry was also carried out, and astrometry and 4-band photometry is presented for 1915 LPVs. Using the period derived from the $I$-band monitoring and the single-epoch $K$-band they present a period-luminosity relation. Naturally there is quite some scatter, but more than one would expect even from single-epoch data. Some of the stars that are significantly brighter than the LMC $PL$-relations shifted to the distance of M31 can be identified with supergiants (as they seem associated with the ring of star formation in M31), but there are also objects at periods longer than 600 days that are 2 mag fainter than the $PL$-relation.
Narrow-band surveys
--------------------
This technique uses the specific spectral characteristic of late-type stars, where strong molecular TiO bands develop in M-stars, and C$_2$ and CN bands in C-stars. First introduced by Wing (1971) and Palmer & Wing (1982) and then applied by Richer et al. (1984) and Aaronson et al. (1984) the method typically uses two broad-band filters from the set $V,R,I$, and two narrow-band filters near 7800 and 8100 Å, which are centred on a CN-band in carbon stars (and near-continuum in oxygen-rich stars), and a TiO band in oxygen-rich stars (and continuum in C-stars), respectively. In an \[78-81\] versus $[V-I]$ (or $[R-I]$) colour-colour plot, carbon stars and late-type oxygen-rich stars clearly separate redwards of $(V-I) \approx$ 1.6. For an illustration of this, see Cook & Aaronson (1989) or Nowotny & Kerschbaum (2002).
At present a large fraction of LG galaxies have been surveyed, at least partially, using these narrow-band filters. For recent reviews see Azzopardi (1999) and Groenewegen (1999, 2002, 2006a,b). The most recent works [*not listed in these reviews*]{} are the surveys by: Battinelli & Demers (2005a) who find 15 C-stars in the disk of M31 beyond 30 kpc along it major axis, and Battinelli & Demers (2006) who identify 46 C-stars in DDO 190. In addition, Battinelli & Demers (2005b,c) summarise their work on over 10 LG galaxies regarding the standard candle aspect of the C-star $I$-band luminosity function, and the calibration of the C/M ratio versus metallicity. Kerschbaum et al. (2004) report 51 C-stars in (the direction of) M32, and Spindler et al. (2006) found 40 C-stars in Leo [i]{} (19 new), 11 in Leo [ii]{} (6 new), and 2 in Draco (no new). Finally, Harbeck et al. (2005) found one C-star candidate in And [ix]{}.
Figures \[groen-C\] and \[groen-CM\] show updated versions (cf. Groenewegen 2006a) of the well known relations between the total number of C-stars and absolute (visual) magnitude of the parent galaxy, and the relation between C-to-M number ratio and (mean) metallicity of the parent galaxy. The lines are not fits to the data but taken directly from Battinelli & Demers (2005b,c) who discussed specifically the dozen galaxies they observed over the last 6 years. The extended dataset fit these lines very well. Outliers are NGC 55, 300, 2403 whose surveys for AGB stars from the 1980s are incomplete.
Figures \[groen-LF1\] and \[groen-LF2\] show updated versions of the carbon star luminosity functions. Compared to Groenewegen (2006a), (a) the $V,I$ data from Brewer et al. (1995) for M31 (the dashed line) has been converted to $m_{\rm bol}$ using the bolometric correction from Nowotny et al. (2003) \[like was already the case for the other galaxies in this plot for which $V,I$ data is available\] and the LF now agrees much better with the LF of Battinelli et al. (2003, solid line), (b) M33, IC 10 and DDO 190 are added, and (c) the LF of Ursa Minor is not reproduced again for reasons of space.
\[groen-LF1\]
\[groen-LF2\]
The fact that LG galaxies are increasingly surveyed in the infrared as well, allows one to compare the selection of M- and C-stars using infrared data with that using the narrow-band filter system. Demers et al. (2006) has done this for NGC 6822. AGB stars are selected as being brighter than the tip of the RGB, with M-stars having $1.07 <
(J-K)_0 < 1.36$, and C-stars having $(J-K)_0 \ge 1.36$ (following Cioni & Habing 2005b). In the region of overlap the objects are correlated with the narrow-band data of Letarte et al. (2002). From the 85 infrared selected C-stars candidates, 69 fall in the region in the \[CN-TiO\] versus $(R-I)$ colour-colour diagram occupied by the C-stars, and 16 do not (10 are inside the region used to define M-stars, and 6 show bluer colours). These stars have a $(J-K)$ colour close to the limit used. Of the 207 infrared selected M-star candidates, 21 are in or close to the region defined by the C-stars, 3 have $(R-I)$ colours indicating a cool object but have an \[CN-TiO\] index intermediate between C- and M-stars, about 45 have bluer colours than used to define M-stars, and about $\frac{2}{3}$ of the sample are actually inside the region that define M-stars.
These results indicate that a slightly more “purer” sample of infrared selected C-stars might have been obtained by selecting slightly redder objects. It is not clear if this means redder in $(J-K)_0$ than 1.36 or if the foreground extinction, which is substantial with $A_{\rm V}$ = 0.8, was slightly underestimated.
It is not discussed in Demers et al. (2006) if increasing the lower limit for M-star selection would remove the bluer stars in $(R-I)$. The current selection criterion implies an oxygen-rich sample that is roughly 10% contaminated by C-stars, and with 20% stars that are bluer than used to define M-stars in the narrow-band surveys.
A different view on the same topic is the following. Letarte et al. (2002) identify 904 C-stars and derive a C/M ratio of 1.0 $\pm$ 0.2 in a 28 $\times$ 42 centred on NGC 6822. Cioni & Habing (2005b) observed a 20 $\times$ 20 area in $IJK$. Selecting stars above the TRGB and using 1.36 as the division between C- and O-stars in $(J-K)$, they find 1511 C-stars and a C/M ratio of 0.32. Kang et al. (2006) observed a 6.3 $\times$ 3.6 field. They use the criterion $(J-K) > 1.53$ and $(H-K) > 0.5$ to select 141 C-stars and derive a C/M ratio of 0.27. Their selection criterion is based on the NIR colours of the known C-stars from Letarte et al.
The fact that Kang et al. assume a redder limit for the selection of C-stars probably explains why they have relatively fewer C-stars compared to Cioni & Habing; 141 $\times$ (20 $\times$ 20) / (6.3 $\times$ 3.6) is about 2500 while Cioni & Habing have 1511 C-stars (the density of C-stars is not uniform as well). As the C/M ratio is very similar, their selection based on $(J-K)$ and $(H-K)$ must also have led to fewer M-stars than in Cioni & Habing.
The large discrepancy in C/M ratio between the infrared works and the narrow-band work is likely due to a larger number of “M-stars” in the infrared works. As already mentioned earlier in discussing the results by Demers et al., even selecting M-stars as having $1.07 <
(J-K) < 1.36$ results in more M-stars that found by the narrow-band surveys. [**No**]{} lower limit on the selection of M-stars in $(J-K)$, as appears to be the case in Kang et al. and Cioni & Habing (the bluest stars included have $(J-K) = 0.8$), will therefore lead to too many “M-stars” and hence to a lower C/M ratio.
Conclusions and future work
===========================
The narrow band surveys of the LG are fairly complete. Notable exceptions are Fornax DSph$^{\star}$ (at 140 pc distance), LGS3 (620 pc), Leo A$^{\star}$ (800 pc), Sextans B$^{\star}$ (1320 pc), Sextans A$^{\star}$ (1440 pc), IC 5152 (1700 pc), GR 8 (2200 pc). It might also be worthwhile to re-do NGC 55$^{\star}$ (2200 pc), NGC 300$^{\star}$ (2200 pc), NGC 2403$^{\star}$ (3600 pc), for which incomplete data from the 1980’s exist. A search for AGB stars would certainly be successful as PNe are known to exist in almost all of these galaxies (those marked by a $^{\star}$). Crowding may be an issue from the central parts of the most distant galaxies (see e.g. DDO 190 at 2.8 Mpc), but is not an issue in e.g. NGC 3109 at 1.3 Mpc.
The largest telescopes which currently have the CN, TiO narrow-band filter system installed are SOAR (4.1m, 5.2 FoV), CFHT (3.6m, 42$^\prime$ x 28$^\prime$ FoV), WIYN (3.5m, 9.6$^\prime$ FoV) and the TNG (3.5m, 9.4$^\prime$ FoV).
The first results of the IRAC [*Spitzer*]{} observations of WLM presented at this conference reveal a significant population of red stars not detected in the narrow-band survey for this galaxy. In the near future, analysis of IRAC observations of other LG galaxies will reveal if this is a more general phenomenon. We may need to revise our understanding of mass loss at low metallicity if the presence of obscured AGB stars is more widespread that we now believe.
Related to this, an increasing number of LG galaxies is being observed in the near-infrared. Simple infrared criteria have been used to separate C- from M-stars but a comparison to the results obtained using the narrow-band filter system suggests that the infrared criteria need refinement as they lead to the selection of too many C, and way too many oxygen-rich stars that are earlier than spectral type M (as defined by the narrow-band surveys).
Additional information that might be used in classification is variability. Projects like super-MACHO, OGLE-[iii]{} continue to observe the MC and Galactic Bulge region. Some work on LG galaxies is being carried out using the SIRIUS camera on the IRSF in South-Africa. A revolution is this respect in the more distant future will be the LSST (see Ivezić, this conference) that will observe the visible sky in a few days only.
In a nearer future abundance studies of AGB stars in LG galaxies will become available. Some results have been presented by de Laverny et al. (2006) for 1 SMC and 2 C-stars in the Sag DSph using VLT/UVES, and by Wahlin et al. (2006, and this conference) who have observed 50 C-stars in the MCs, Sculptor, Carina and Fornax using VLT/ISAAC. With the commissioning of VLT/CRIRES a very-resolution infrared spectrograph will become available that is very well suited for abundance studies.
Observations that also will be significant in an intermediate future are heterodyne observations with ALMA. For a few dozen bright and red AGB stars it will be possible to detect the lower-transition CO lines (Groenewegen 1996) and thereby determine the expansion velocity and the gas mass loss rate, and by comparison to the dust mass loss rate, the important dust-to-gas ratio.
Aaronson, M., Da Costa, G.S., Hartigan, P., et al. 1984, ApJ, 277, L9
Ansari, R., Aurière, M., Baillon, P., et al. 2004, A&A, 421, 509
Azzopardi, M. 1999, Ap&SS, 265, 291
Barmby, P., Ashby, M.L., Pahre, M.A., et al. 2006, AAS, 208, 1407
Battinelli, P., & Demers, S. 2004, A&A, 416, 11 Battinelli, P., & Demers, S. 2005a, A&A, 430, 905 Battinelli, P., & Demers, S. 2005b, A&A, 434, 657 Battinelli, P., & Demers, S. 2005c, A&A, 442, 159 Battinelli, P. &, Demers, S. 2006, A&A, 447, 473 Battinelli, P., Demers, S., & Letarte B. 2003, AJ, 125, 1298 Bersier, D., & Wood, P.R. 2002, AJ, 123, 840
Blum, R.D., Mould, J.R., Olsen, K.A., et al. 2006, AJ, in press (astro-ph/0608189)
Bolatto, A.D., Simon, J.D., Stanimirović, S., et al. 2006, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0608561)
Brewer, J., Richer, H.B., & Crabtree, D.R. 1995, AJ, 109, 2480 Cioni, M.-R. L., & Habing, H.J. 2003, A&A, 402, 133 Cioni, M.-R. L., & Habing, H.J. 2005b, A&A, 429, 837 Cioni, M.-R. L., & Habing, H.J. 2005a, A&A, 442, 165 Cook, K.H., & Aaronson, M. 1989, AJ, 97, 923
Cutri, R.M., Skrutskie, M.F., Van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, Explanatory Supplement to the 2MASS All-Sky Data Release
Davidge, T.J. 2005, AJ, 130, 2087
Demers, S., Battinelli, P., & Artigau, E. 2006, A&A, 456, 905 Demers, S., Dallaire, M., & Battinelli, P. 2002, AJ, 123, 3428
de Laverny, P., Abia, C., Dominguez, I., et al. 2006, A&A, 446, 1107 Fliri, J., Riffeser, A., Seitz, S., & Bender, R. 2006, A&A, 445, 423
Fluks, M.A., Plez, B., Thé, P.S., et al. 1994, A&AS, 105, 311
Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Freedman, W.L., et al. 2004, AJ, 127, 1486
Glass I.S., Schultheis M., 2002, MN 337, 519
Groenewegen, M.A.T. 1996, in Science with large millimetre arrays, ed. P. Shaver, Springer Verlag, p. 164
Groenewegen, M.A.T. 1999, in IAU symp. 191, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars, ed. T. Le Bertre, A. Lèbre and C. Waelkens (ASP, San Francisco), 535
Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2002, in The Chemical Evolution of Dwarf Galaxies, astro-ph/0208449
Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2004, A&A, 425, 595 Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2006a, in Planetary Nebulae beyond the Milky Way, ed. L. Stanghellini, J.R. Walsh & N. Douglas (Berlin, Springer-Verlag), 108
Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2006b, in Resolved Stellar Populations, ed. D. Valls-Gavaud and M. Chavez (San Fransisco, ASP), in press (astro-ph/0506381)
Groenewegen, M.A.T. 2006c, A&A, 448, 181
Habing, H.J., & Olofsson, H. 2004, Asymptotic Giant Branch stars, Springer Verlag
Harbeck, D., Gallagher, J.S., Grebel, E., et al. 2005, AJ, 623, 159
Ita Y., Tanabé T., Matsunaga N., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 720
Kang, A., Sohn, Y.-J., Rhee, J., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 61 Kang, A., Sohn, Y.-J., Kim, H.-I., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 717 Kerschbaum, F., Heiling, B., & Nowotny, W. 2004, in Variable stars in the Local Group, ASP Conf. Ser. 310, Eds. W. Kurtz and K. Pollard, 153 Letarte, B., Demers, S., Battinelli, P., & Kunkel, W.E. 2002, AJ, 123, 832 Meixner, M., Gordon, K.D., Indebetouw, R., et al. 2006, AJ, in press (astro-ph/0606356)
Mould, J., Saha, A., & Hughes, S. 2004, ApJS, 154, 623
Nowotny, W., & Kerschbaum, F. 2002, Hvar Obs. Bulletin, 26, 63
Nowotny, W., Kerschbaum, F., Olofsson, H., & Schwarz, H.E., 2003 A&A, 403, 93
Palmer, L.G., & Wing, R.F. 1982, AJ, 87, 1739
Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., & Silva, D.R. 2003, A&A, 406, 75
Rejkuba, M. 2004, A&A, 413, 903
Rejkuba, M., Da Costa, G.S., Jerjen, H., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, 93 Richer, H.B., Crabtree, D.R., & Pritchet, C.J. 1984, ApJ, 287, 138
Sohn, Y.-J., Kang, A., Rhee, J., et al. 2006, A&A, 445, 69 Spindler, C., Kerschbaum, F., & Nowotny, W. 2006, A&A, in prep. Tsalmantza P., Kontizas, E., Cambrésy, L., et al. 2006, A&A, 447, 89 Wing, R. F. 1971, in Late-Type Stars, ed G. W. Lockwood and H. M. Dyck, Kitt Peak National Observatory, Contribution No. 554, 145
Wahlin, R., Eriksson, K., Gustafsson, B., et al. 2006, in Proceeding of the 8th Torino Workshop in Granada, in press, astro-ph/0605244
Wood, P.R., Alcock, C., Allsman, R.A., et al. 1999, in: IAU Symposium 191: AGB stars, eds. T. Le Bertre, A. Lèbre and C. Waelkens, Kluwer Publishers, p. 151
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is proposed that the $50-70$ meV dispersion anomaly (kink) in electron-doped cuprates revealed by recent angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy experiments is caused by coupling with the spin fluctuation. We elaborate that the kink exists both along nodal and antinodal directions, and both in the superconducting and normal state. The renormalized effect for the density of states is also studied and the hump feature outside the superconducting coherent peak is established, consistent with recent scanning tunnelling microscopy experiments.'
author:
- 'Tao Zhou and C. S. Ting'
title: 'Effect of spin excitations on the property of quasiparticles in electron-doepd cuprates'
---
Although high-temperature superconductivity in cuprates was discovered more than twenty years ago, the mechanism of their unusually high critical temperatures has not yet been clarified [@leea]. An insightful view may be obtained through the understanding of the role played by certain collective excitations by studying the renormalized single-particle properties. Experimentally, the Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) and scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) have been powerful tools for providing the electronic structure and probing the interaction of the quasiparticle with certain boson modes.
The superconductivity in cuprates can be achieved by doping either holes or electrons into parent antiferromagnetic (AF) Mott insulators. One of the most important features in hole doped cuprates revealed by the ARPES experiments is the slope change of the quasiparticle dispersion (kink) from the momentum distribution curve (MDC) [@lan]. The kink is observed along both nodal and antinodal directions at the energies about $40\sim80$ meV. In the past few years, the origin of the kinks attracted intensive study both theoretically and experimentally because it speculated some kind of interaction which might act as the mysterious glue for Cooper pairs. Two possible bosonic modes, namely, phonon [@rez] and spin resonance mode revealed by neutron scattering experiments [@mook], have been proposed to account for the dispersion kink. Theoretically it seems that both electron-phonon interaction [@dev] and the coupling of the spin resonance mode [@man; @nor; @jxli] can reproduce the dispersion kink. Unfortunately, this two modes could have similar energies, thus it is difficult to distinguish between the two. Up to now no consensus has yet been reached. On the other hand, STM experiments also identified the existence of the bosonic mode in the hole-doped cuprates, but the origin is also under debate [@lee; @pas; @dasp].
In the past few years, more and more attention has been turned to the electron-doped cuprates. It is well known that the electron-doped materials exhibit different behaviors from that of hole-doped ones, namely, they usually have lower superconducting (SC) transition temperature and narrower SC doping range. Therefore, the spin resonance energy is much less, namely, only about $10$ meV [@wil; @zha] revealed by the neutron scattering experiments. On the other hand, the phonon energies are expected to be similar to those of holed-doped ones. Thus the energies of these two modes are quite different so that their contributions should be easily separated by experiments. Moreover, earlier ARPES experiments in the electron-doped cuprates did not observe the kink along the nodal direction, only the antinodal kink with the energy about $50-70$ meV was observed [@sato; @arm; @mat]. Very recently, it was reported by several groups that the kinks exist in several families of electron-doped cuprates, both along the nodal direction [@par; @sch; @liu; @tsu] and antinodal direction [@par; @sch], with the energy being $50-70$ meV. And the kinks depend weakly on the doping level and exist even in the normal state. Another renormalized effect revealed by the experiments is the peak-dip-hump structure in the energy distribution curve (EDC) [@sch], namely, the EDC line-shapes display a sharp quasiparticle peak near the Fermi energy $E_F$ along the antinodal direction. This peak terminates and is accompanied with a dip at the energy about $50$ meV. The peak width decreases when approaching the Fermi energy. A faint hump-like feature is also revealed in the nodal direction. Because the kink energy is much greater than the resonance energy and the spin resonance peak in fact does not exist in the normal state. Thus it was proposed that the phonon should account for the dispersion kink [@par; @sch; @tsu; @liu]. On the other hand, a distinct bosonic mode of the energy about $10$ meV has also been reported by the STM experiment in electron-doped cuprates [@nie]. It is proposed that the mode is caused by spin fluctuations rather than phonons.
In this letter, the spectral function and density of states in electron-doped cuprates observed by experiments [@par; @sch; @tsu; @liu; @nie] can be reproduced by only considering the coupling between the spin excitations and the quasiparticle. We assume phenomenologically that the spin excitations are from spin fluctuations and the retarded Green’s function $G({\bf k},\omega)$ is a function of the bare normal state quasiparticle dispersion $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$, the SC order-parameter $\Delta_{\bf k}$, and the self-energies $\Sigma({\bf
k},\omega)$ due to the coupling of spin fluctuations [@ram; @esc; @esc1]. The bare normal state quasiparticle dispersion is expressed by, $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{\bf k}=-2 t_1 (\cos k_x+\cos k_y)-4t_2 \cos k_x\cos k_y
\nonumber\\-2 t_3 (\cos 2k_x+\cos 2k_y)\nonumber\\ -4 t_4 (\cos
k_x\cos 2k_y+\cos k_y \cos 2k_x)\nonumber\\-4 t_5 \cos 2k_x\cos
2k_y-t_0,\end{aligned}$$ with $t_{0-5}=-82$, $120$, $-60$, $34$, $7$ and $20$ meV. This single-particle dispersion was used by Ref. [@das] to fit the ARPES experiments in electron-doped cuprates [@mat].
The SC order parameter is chosen to have $d$-wave symmetry, namely, $$\Delta_{\bf k}=\Delta_0(\cos k_x-\cos k_y)/2.$$
The spectral function of the electrons can be calculated from the retarded Green’s function as $A({\bf{k}},\omega)=-(1/\pi)$Im$
G_{11}({\bf{k}},\omega+i\delta)$. Here the Green’s function $G_{ij}$ ($i,j=1,2$) is calculated by Dyson’s equation in the Nambu representation ($2\times2$ matrix), namely, $$\label{g}
\widehat{G}({\bf{k}},\omega+i\delta)^{-1}=\widehat{G}_0({\bf{k}},\omega+i\delta)^{-1}-\widehat{\Sigma}({\bf{k}},\omega+i\delta).$$ The bare Green function of the electron $\hat{G}_0$ is expressed by, $$\hat{G}^{-1}_0({\bf k},\omega)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
i\omega-\varepsilon_{\bf k}&-\Delta_{\bf k}\\
-\Delta_{\bf k}&i\omega+\varepsilon_{\bf k}
\end{array}\right).$$ The self-energy due to spin fluctuation is written as [@jianxin], $$\label{sig}
\widehat{\Sigma}({\bf{k}},i\omega)=\frac{1}{{\beta}N}\sum_q\sum_{i\omega_m}g^{2}\chi({\bf
q},i\omega_m)
\widehat{\sigma}_3\widehat{G}_0({\bf{k}}-{\bf{q}},i\omega-i\omega_m)\widehat{\sigma}_3,$$ where $\widehat{\sigma}_3$ is the Pauli matrix. $\chi({\bf
q},i\omega_m)$ is the spin susceptibility in the random phase approximation (RPA), namely, $$\chi({\bf q},\omega)=\frac{\chi_0({\bf q},\omega)}{1+U_{\bf
q}\chi_0({\bf q},\omega)}.$$ Here $U_{\bf q}=U_0 (\cos q_x +\cos q_y)$ consistent with the $t-J$ type model. $\chi_0 ({\bf q},\omega)$ can be calculated from the Fermionic bubble, $$\chi_0({\bf q},\omega)=-\frac{1}{\beta N} \sum_{{\bf
k},i\omega_m}\mathrm{Tr} [\hat{G}_0({\bf k},i\omega_m)\hat{G}_0({\bf
k}+{\bf q},i\omega+i\omega_m)].$$
![The imaginary part of the spin susceptibility versus the energy $\omega$ at the AF momentum $Q=(\pi,\pi)$ in the SC state and normal state, respectively.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1){width="2.7in"}
In the following presented results, we set $U_0=260$ meV, $g=360$ meV [@note; @hkee; @aba]. The temperatures and gaps in the SC and normal states are $T=0.5$ meV, $\Delta_0=10$ meV and $T=T_c=2.3$ meV, $\Delta_0=0$, respectively. We have checked numerically that the main results are not sensitive to the choice of the parameters.
The imaginary parts of the spin susceptibilities as a function of the energy $\omega$ are plotted in Fig. 1. A sharp resonance peak is seen in the SC state at the energy about $\Omega_r=10$ meV. The origin of the resonance has been studied intensively [@mor; @jxl]. It arises from a collective spin excitation mode corresponding to the real part of the RPA factor ($1+U_{\bf Q}$Re$\chi_0$) equals to zero and the imaginary part of the bare spin susceptibility Im$\chi_0$ is small. The resonance is absent in the normal state, where the peak intensity decreases dramatically and only a low-energy broad peak can be seen. While in fact the weight of the spectra are at low energies and near AF momentum both in the SC and normal states.
Figs.2(a-d) show the intensity maps of the spectral functions $[A({\bf k},\omega)f(\omega)]$ ($f(\omega)$ is the Fermi distribution function) as well as the MDC dispersions in the SC state (up panels) and normal state (down panels), respectively. Clear kinks at the energy about $\omega_k\approx 60-70$ meV can be seen along the antinodal direction. Well defined quasiparticle peaks exist below the kink energy. At higher energy, the peak intensity is small. In the normal state the dispersion kink still exists and no qualitative difference can be seen.
![(Color online) The intensity plots of the spectral functions as functions of the momentum and energy in the SC state (a-b) and normal state (c-d), respectively. The left and right panels are along $(\pi,0)$ to $(\pi,\pi)$, and $(0,0)$ to $(\pi,\pi)$ direction, respectively. The solid and dotted lines are the MDC dispersions and the bare band dispersions, respectively. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2){width="3.1in"}
The right panels of Fig.2 show the nodal data of the spectral function. Here, the dispersion kink can also be seen clearly at the energy about $\omega_k=60$ meV. The renormalized effect is much weaker than that of antinodal direction but does exist, which can be seen more clearly by comparing the dispersion with that of the bare band. As shown, the renormalized dispersion and the bare one are nearly parallel at high energies while the renormalized one bends to low energy at about 60 meV indicating that the kink is indeed caused by the self-energy. In addition, the peak intensity is larger at low energies $(\omega \leq \omega_k)$, and decreases evidently at the kink energy. Similar with the case of antinodal direction, there is also no remarkable difference between the spectrum of the SC state with that of the normal state along the nodal direction.
![(Color online) The line-shape $A({\bf k},\omega)f(\omega)$ as a function of the energy at different momentums in the SC state (a-b) and normal state (c-d), respectively. The left and right panels are along $(\pi,0)$ to $(\pi,\pi)$, and $(0,0)$ to $(\pi,\pi)$ directions, respectively.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3){width="2.95in"}
The EDC line shapes along the antinodal and nodal directions are plotted in Fig.3. Along the antinodal direction a sharp quasiparticle peak can be seen near the Fermi momentum $K_F$ following a $50$ meV dip, which is consistent with the experiment as we mentioned above [@sch]. The peak intensity decreases dramatically as the momentum is far away from $K_F$. Only a broad peak can be seen at the momentum $(\pi,0.18\pi)$. Much weaker renormalized effect is obtained along the nodal direction, namely, a sharp quasiparticle peak accompanied by a high-energy hump-like tail near the Fermi energy. At higher energies $(\omega\geq\omega_k)$, the peak becomes a little broader while it is still well defined and the hump-like tail disappears. The curve seems to be symmetric with respect to the peak energy. We can also see that there is no qualitative difference of the line-shape between the SC state and normal state.
Our theoretical results reproduce the dispersion kink. Though the spin susceptibility shows remarkable difference between the SC state and normal state, namely, a sharp resonance peak can be observed only in the SC state, as seen in Fig. 1, while the renormalized spectral function show no evident difference between the SC state and normal state. Although here we propose that the spin excitations should be responsible for the kink, while in fact the spin resonance phenomenon is not essential to the kink. In the following we demonstrate the origin of the kink and propose that the bare band structure and the renormalization by the spin susceptibility are both important to produce the kink.
A sound explanation for the dispersion kink can be given through analyzing the self-energy. The peak position is determined by the pole condition $\omega-\varepsilon_{\bf k}-$Re $\Sigma({\bf
k},\omega)=0$ in the normal state. The real-part of the self-energy is responsible for the kink. Performing the summation over $i\omega_m$ \[Eq.(5)\] we can rewrite the self-energy as, $$\Sigma({\bf k},\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi N}\sum_{\bf
q}{\int}g^{2}\mathrm{Im}\chi({\bf
q},\omega_1)\frac{b(\omega_1)+1-f(\varepsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf
q}})}{\omega-\omega_1-\varepsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf
q}}+i\delta}d\omega_1,$$ where $b(\omega)$ is the Bose distribution function. The real part of the self-energy is calculated by using the parameters of the bare band. The summation over $\sum_{\bf q}$ can be written as the integral form, $1/(\pi N)\sum_{\bf q}\rightarrow 4\pi \int d {\bf
q}\rightarrow 4\pi\int d\varepsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}} /
[d\varepsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf q}}/d{\bf q}]$. The spin susceptibility is peaked at the AF momentum ${\bf Q}$ and very low energy. As a result, approximately, the absolute of self-energy $\mid \Sigma
\mid$ should have the maxima value and a kink is expected near the flat band, namely, $\nabla_{\bf k}\varepsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf Q}}=0$.
We show the real parts of the self-energies in the normal state and the bare band dispersions along the antinodal direction in Fig.4(a) and Fig.4(b). As seen in Fig.4(a), the absolute values of the real part of the self-energy $\mid$ Re $\Sigma$ $\mid$ reach the local maximum at the energies about $50$ meV and $400$ meV. The origin of the two peaks can be seen from Fig.4(b), namely, the band dispersion is flat $(\nabla_{\bf k}\varepsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf Q}}=0)$ at the energies about $50$ meV and $400$ meV. As a result, the MDC dispersion has an obvious kink at the energies about $50-60$ meV along the antinodal direction. The kink is always there, regardless Im$\chi({\bf Q},\omega)$ has a resonance peak or not (see Fig. 1).
![(Color online) The real parts of the self-energies Re $\Sigma({\bf k},\omega)$ vs. the energy $\omega$ at different momentums and the bare band dispersions $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$ and $\varepsilon_{{\bf k}-{\bf
Q}}$ along the antinodal (a-b) and nodal (c-d) directions, respectively.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4){width="3in"}
The real parts of the self-energies and the bare band dispersions along nodal directions are shown in Figs.4(c) and (d). As seen from Fig.4(d), below the Fermi momentum $k<K_F$, $\varepsilon_{{\bf
k}-{\bf Q}}$ is always greater than zero, so that for negative energies the self-energy is quite small. And different from that along antinodal direction, there is in fact no obvious peak at low energies and the absolute value of Re $\Sigma$ is maximum at zero energy, indicating that the renormalized effect for peak position is prominent at low energies, consistent with the dispersion shown in Fig.2. As the momentum is away from the Fermi momentum, the self-energy tends to be a constant at high energies so that the renormalized dispersion is parallel to the bare one at high energies, which can be seen in Fig.2.
For the case of the SC state, because the SC gap is much less than the kink energy, and the spin susceptibility is still peaked at very low energy. Thus in fact the SC gap does not influence the kink very much. We have also check numerously for different gap symmetry, i.e., the nonmonotonic $d$-wave gap [@mat] and obtain similar results.
We now turn to address the renormalized effect of the density of states \[$\rho(\omega)=\int A({\bf k},\omega)d{\bf k}$\] in the SC state. Fig.5 shows the density of states as a function of the energy. The SC coherence peaks at the energies $\pm\Delta_0$ can be seen clearly. Outside the gaps the hump-like features exist, and this reveals the existence of the bosonic mode, which is sensitive to the intensity and energy of the spin resonance peak and located at the energies about $\pm (\Delta_0+\Omega_r)$ with $\Omega_r\sim
10$ meV, thus the spin resonance mode should account for the humps outside the gap. This result is consistent with recent STM experiments on electron-doped cuprates [@nie]. In hole-doped cuprates similar renormalized effect caused by the bosonic mode was also predicted theoretically [@zhu] and observed by STM experiments very recently [@lee; @pas; @dasp]. We can also see that the renormalized effect in the electron part (negative energy) and hole part (positive energy) is asymmetric. The intensity of the SC coherent peak is smaller and the renormalized hump caused by the spin resonance is also weaker at the negative energy part. In fact, the ARPES experiments can only examine the electronic structure in the electron part so that the possible renormalized effect at the energy $\Delta_0+\Omega_r$ for spectral function $A({\bf k},\omega)$ is hard to detect and also is not obtained by our calculation. In fact, very recently the kink at about the energy $20$ meV along nodal direction was reported by Ref. [@liu] while this result was not reported by other groups [@par; @sch; @tsu].
![The density of state as a function of the energy in the SC state.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5){width="2.7in"}
In summary, we study theoretically the effect of the spin fluctuation mode on the spectral function and density of states in electron-doped cuprates. We have elaborated that the spin excitation is able to cause the $50-70$ meV dispersion anomaly and the hump-like feature of density of states observed by recent experiments. Thus we present a consistent picture of the effect of bosonic mode coupling for ARPES and STM spectra in electron-doped cuprates.
We are grateful to Jian-Xin Zhu and Yan Chen for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston and by the Robert A. Welch Foundation under the Grant no. E-1411.
[99]{} For a review, see, e.g., P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X. G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 17 (2006). A. Lanzara $et$ $al$., Nature [**412**]{}, 510 (2001); T. Sato $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 157003 (2003); T. K. Kim $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 167002 (2003); A. D. Gromko $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 174520 (2003); A. A. Kordyuk $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 257006 (2004); G.-H. Gweon $et$ $al.$, Nature [**430**]{}, 187 (2004); K. Terashima $et$ $al$., Nat. Phys. [**2**]{}, 27 (2006); V. B. Zabolotnyy $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 037003 (2006). D. Reznik $et$ $al.$, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2396 (1995); R. J. McQueeney $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 628 (1999). H. A. Mook $et$ $al.$, Phys. Rev. Lett [**70**]{}, 3490 (1993).
T. P. Devereaux, T. Cuk, Z.-X. Shen, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 117004 (2004). D. Manske, I. Eremin, and K. H. Bennemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 177005 (2001). M. Eschrig and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 277005 (2002). J. X. Li, T. Zhou, and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 094515 (2005). J. Lee $et$ $al.$, Nature [**442**]{}, 546 (2006). A. N. Pasupathy $et$ $al$., Science [**320**]{},197 (2008). P. Das $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev B [**78**]{}, 214505 (2008). S. D. Wilson $et$ $al$., Nature (London) [**442**]{}, 59 (2006). J. Zhao $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 017001 (2007).
N. P. Armitage $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev B [**68**]{}, 064517 (2003). H. Matsui $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 017003 (2005). T. Sato $et$ $al$., Science [**291**]{}, 1517 (2001). S. R. Park $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 117006 (2008). F. Schmitt $et$ $al$., Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 100505(R) (2008).
M. Tsunekawa $et$ $al$., New J. Phys. [**10**]{}, 037005 (2008). H. Liu $et$ $al$., arxiv: 0808.0802 (unpublished). F. C. Niestemski $et$ $al$., Nature [**450**]{}, 1058 (2007). J. Rammer and H. Smith, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**58**]{}, 323 (1986).
M. Eschrig and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3261 (2000).
M. Eschrig and M. R. Norman, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 144503 (2003).
T. Das, R. S. Markiewicz, and A. Bansil, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 020506(R) (2006). J. X. Li, C. Y. Mou, and T. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 640 (2000). The value of the coupling strength $g$ is controversial, as discussed in Ref. [@hkee; @aba]. It is estimated to be only about $14$ meV in ref. [@hkee] while to be the order of 1 eV in Ref. [@aba]. The coupling strength we used here is reasonable according to the $t-J$-type model and Ref. [@aba], and we have checked numerically that the kink will appear as $g\geq
200$ meV and the kink energy depends weakly on the value of $g$.
H.-Y. Kee, S. A. Kivelson, and G. Aeppli, Phys. Rev. Lett [**88**]{}, 257002 (2002). Ar. Abanov $et$ $al.$, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 177002 (2002).
J.-P. Ismer, I. Eremin, E. Rossi, and D. K. Morr, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 047005 (2007). J. X. Li, J. Zhang, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 224503 (2003). J. X. Zhu $et$ $al.$, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 017002 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on the position, timing, and energy resolution of a range of plastic scintillator bars and reflector treatments using dual-ended silicon photomultiplier readout. These measurements are motivated by the upcoming construction of an optically segmented single-volume neutron scatter camera, in which neutron elastic scattering off of hydrogen is used to kinematically reconstruct the source direction and energy of an incoming neutron. For this application, interaction position resolutions of about 10 mm and timing resolutions of about 1 ns are necessary to achieve the desired efficiency for fission-energy neutrons. The results presented here indicate that this is achievable with an array of $5\times5\times190~\mathrm{mm}^3$ bars of EJ-204 scintillator wrapped in Teflon tape, read out with SensL’s J-series $6\times6~\mathrm{mm}^2$ silicon photomultipliers. With two independent setups, we also explore the systematic variability of the position resolution, and show that, in general, using the difference in the pulse arrival time at the two ends is less susceptible to systematic variation than using the log ratio of the charge amplitude of the two ends. Finally, we measure a bias in the absolute time of interactions as a function of position along the bar: the measured interaction time for events at the center of the bar is $\sim$100 ps later than interactions near the SiPM.'
address:
- 'Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA'
- 'University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA '
author:
- 'M. Sweany'
- 'A. Galindo-Tellez'
- 'J. Brown'
- 'E. Brubaker'
- 'R. Dorrill'
- 'A. Druetzler'
- 'N. Kaneshige'
- 'J. Learned'
- 'K. Nishimura'
- 'W. Bae'
title: 'Interaction position, time, and energy resolution in organic scintillator bars with dual-ended readout'
---
fast neutron imaging ,special nuclear material detection
Introduction {#sec:one}
============
Recently, the concept of a single volume neutron scatter camera was reported [@pips; @svsc; @mtc]. In comparison to current implementations of the technology (see e.g. [@miner]), a single volume scatter camera aims to detect multiple neutron-proton interactions within the same contiguous volume of scintillator, rather than distributed volumes of scintillator. If successful, the resulting instrument would out-perform current state-of-the-art double-scatter imagers in terms of imaging efficiency for fission-energy neutrons by an estimated order of magnitude [@svsc], as well as improve deployability factors such as size, weight, and power consumption. For some non-proliferation applications, the reduced size of the instrument would also enable closer inspection of objects, leading to rate increases and corresponding reductions in acquisition times and an improvement in imaging resolution.
The key to realizing such an instrument lies in accurately reconstructing the time, position, and energy of neutron-proton interactions within the volume of scintillator. The kinetic reconstruction of the neutron direction requires two neutron-proton elastic scatters: the neutron direction before the first scatter is constrained to a cone defined by the angle $\theta$:
$$\mathrm{cos}(\theta) = \sqrt{\frac{E_{n'}}{E_n}},$$
where $E_n$ is the incoming neutron energy and $E_{n'}$ is the neutron’s energy after the first interaction. In the non-relativistic limit, $E_{n'}$ is determined by the neutron time-of-flight ($\Delta t$) and distance ($\Delta d$) between the first and second neutron interactions, where $m_n$ is the mass of the neutron:
$$E_{n'} = \frac{1}{2} m_n \left(\frac{\Delta d}{\Delta t} \right)^2.$$
Finally, $E_n$ is determined by the energy deposited in the first interaction, $E_p$, measured by the light emitted in the first scintillation pulse, and $E_{n'}$:
$$E_n = E_{n'} + E_p.$$
The accuracy of the cone defined by $\theta$ is thus dependent on the energy resolution of the first scintillation pulse, and the timing and position resolution of the two interactions. The focus of this work is to characterize with experimental data the energy, timing, and position resolution of an optically segmented volume of scintillator. In this instance of the concept, only the position along each bar segment of the array must be reconstructed for the position of each interaction, while the other position dimensions are determined by the particular photodetector in which the scintillation light was detected. Monte Carlo simulations of various detector configurations of optically segmented bars have been previously performed [@pips] and provided guidance as to the optimal choice of scintillator, reflector material, and photon detection technology. However, practical considerations have limited the experimental space explored.
There are other detection systems that share the same goals to optimize the energy, timing, and position resolution of interactions within scintillator volumes. Time-of-flight Positron Emission Tomography (TOFPET) systems require good spatial and timing resolution, and benefit from increased light output from gamma interactions in the scintillator volume (see e.g. [@tofpet]): because only gamma interactions are of interest, inorganic scintillators are used, which typically have higher light output compared to organic scintillators. While TOFPET systems can look very similar to what is described here, the problem of reconstructing a second interaction very close in time and position to the first motivates scintillator responses not only with fast pulse rise times, but with reasonably fast pulse decay times as well. PET systems also work in a relatively limited energy range, annihilation gammas at 511 keV, and therefore use the energy measurement primarily for background rejection as opposed to reconstruction. Neutrino detection systems also benefit from good energy resolution to reconstruct the incoming neutrino spectrum, and good spatial and timing resolution, either to reconstruct the neutrino direction (for neutrino-electron scattering interactions) or for background rejection based on event topology (for inverse-beta decay interactions). Because neutrino interaction cross sections are so low, large detector systems are a paramount design consideration, motivating larger segmentation and cost-effective readout. These requirements often lead to similar systems with dual-sided readout of long canes with a similar aspect ratio presented here (see e.g. [@sweany; @panda; @prospect]). While these differences may result in different design details, the methods and conclusions presented here are relevant to a wider detection community.
Design Considerations
---------------------
The experimental measurements presented here are constrained to 190 mm long rectangular scintillator bars with a cross sectional area of $5\times5~\mathrm{mm}^2$. The length constraint is determined by the approximate desired volume of the instrument, coupled with the currently available readout size of fast photo-detectors (approximately 50 mm). For photo-detection, the fastest available on the market currently are micro-channel plate photomultiplier tubes (MCP-PMTs) and silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs). In terms of timing, MCP-PMTs typically have the best single photoelectron timing performance, but have a higher cost and typically much lower photodetection efficiency (PDE). SiPMs were chosen for their low cost and superior photon separation and PDE. For data acquisition, we use the 4-channel DRS4 evaluation board [@drs41; @drs42] from the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) for its high sampling speed and ease of use.
The scintillator types explored here are constrained to the plastic scintillators with parameters from the manufacturer that are expected to optimize our performance metrics. In this case, the relevant scintillator parameters for consideration are:
1. total output and emission wavelength well-matched to the wavelength-dependent PDE of the SiPMs to optimize detectable photons,
2. rise time of the scintillator pulse for optimal timing resolution as well as position resolution along the bar,
3. emission wavelength in relation to surface treatment reflectivity, and
4. attenuation length ($\lambda$) to either optimize position resolution (short) or maximize the number of detectable photons (long).
The method used to reconstruct the position resolution dictates the desired attenuation length. The methods used here are based on the difference in the pulse arrival time and amplitude at each end of the bar. Potentially, the difference in pulse shape provides an additional method [@pips], however this is not explored in this work. In the case of the pulse amplitude difference, a shorter attenuation length maximizes the difference in amplitude and therefore the position resolution. However, this leads to a reduction in energy resolution. The difference in both pulse arrival time and pulse shape may be enhanced by a longer attenuation length: in the case of pulse arrival time, an increase in photons arriving directly from the interaction could improve the precision of the measurement, and in the case of the pulse shape, an increase in late arriving photons may enhance the tail end of the pulse for interactions further from the readout end. Based on this, the preference is for longer attenuation lengths. It should be noted, however, that different attenuation lengths for different processes may exist within a bar, and so measurements may need to be re-evaluated if the bar length changes significantly.
Scintillator $t_R$ (ns) $\lambda$ (cm$^{-1}$) $N_e$ (MeV$^{-1}$) $N_D$ (MeV$^{-1}$)
---------------- ------------ ----------------------- -------------------- --------------------
[**EJ-200**]{} 0.9 380 10,000 4,905
[**EJ-204**]{} 0.7 160 10,400 5,084
EJ-208 1.0 400 9,200 4,378
[**EJ-230**]{} 0.5 120 9,700 4,557
EJ-232 0.35 - 8,400 3,679
EJ-260 - 350 9,200 3,470
EJ-262 - 250 8,700 3,548
[**EJ-276**]{} - - 8,600 4,203
EJ-276G - - 8,000 2,991
: A list of plastic scintillator candidates from Eljen Technology, with the parameters listed from their website. Some parameters were not listed. In addition, the number of detectable photons per MeV after a PDE is applied, $N_D$, is listed for $6\times6~\mathrm{mm}^{2}$ J-series SiPM from SensL. Bold entries correspond to those with the highest $N_D$ values.[]{data-label="tab:tab1"}
Table \[tab:tab1\] lists the available plastic scintillators from Eljen Technology’s catalog that have been considered for our bar length. Not included in the list are EJ-212 and EJ-214, which are intended for thin sheets, and EJ-228, which has an attenuation length too small for bars greater than 10 cm in length. Loaded scintillators such as EJ-254 (boron) and EJ-256 (lead) are also not included, nor are the high-temperature analogs of EJ-200 and EJ-208 (EJ-244/M and EJ-248/M). The number of detectable photons, $N_D$, for SensL’s J-series SiPMs was determined by sampling the total emitted photons, $N_e$, over the emission wavelength of the scintillator, and applying the wavelength-dependent PDE for a 5.0 V over-voltage. No propagation losses or geometrical acceptance effects are included in this estimate of $N_D$. The top three candidates in terms of $N_D$ are EJ-200, EJ-204, and EJ-230, shown in bold in Table \[tab:tab1\]. We are also including EJ-276, for its potentially beneficial neutron/gamma pulse-shape discrimination power: neutrons and gammas can also be discriminated by the time-of-flight between interactions, but the power of that metric will be dependent on the timing resolution of the final system.
In terms of surface reflectivity, we have narrowed the options to 3M’s Enhanced Specular Reflector (ESR), which has a specular reflectivity of 98.5% above approximately 380 nm wavelengths [@janecek; @motta], PTFE (Teflon) tape with a diffuse reflectivity greater than 95% over a broad wavelength range for a 0.5 mm thick layering [@janecek; @teflon], and finally no surface treatment with only total internal reflection (TIR) to guide the light to the readout ends. These were chosen because they are among the highest reflectivity materials for pure diffuse (Teflon) and specular (ESR) reflectivity that are commercially and readily available.
In addition to surface reflectivity, the surface roughness of the scintillator material has been previously shown by others to have a significant effect on the light transportation properties. On results with a $6\times6\times200~\mathrm{mm}^{3}$ bar of BC400, the authors of [@gierlik] report greater than an order of magnitude reduction in the number of photons emitted at 200 mm from the photodetector surface compared to 20 mm from the photodetector surface for a bare bar with poor surface roughness: this value is reduced to 30% for a finely polished sample. The effect is also evident with highly reflective surface coatings: the ratio of detected photoelectrons between 200 and 20 mm was reported to be 60% for poorly polished samples wrapped with ESR, and only 9% for a finely polished sample. While there was some effort to reproduce these effects here, polishing is a time consuming processes, especially for bars of this form factor. For the studies reported here, we used the best surface polish quality available from the scintillator supplier.
Experimental Setup {#s:detchar}
==================
Two independent experimental setups are used to perform characterizations on the test scintillators. These two setups serve to validate one another, and also provide an effective method to identify and study systematic effects that may lead to differences in performance.
At Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), timing, position resolution, and energy resolution are all characterized using the back-to-back 511 keV annihilation gammas emitted from a $^{22}$Na source. A $5 \times 5 \times 5~\mathrm{mm}^{3}$ stilbene crystal wrapped in Teflon and coupled to a single-channel SensL J-series $6\times6~\mathrm{mm}^{2}$ SiPM is used to trigger the data acquisition system. The SiPM is biased at +30 V using a BK Precision 1761 DC power supply. This “trigger” scintillator is placed on two automated linear stages from Newport: UTS150PP, with a 150 mm range and UTS50PP, with a 50 mm range. Both stages are controlled through a GPIB interface with Newport’s MM3000 motion controller. The manufacturer quotes a guaranteed [$4~\mu\mathrm{m}$]{} accuracy with a [$0.5~\mu\mathrm{m}$]{} repeatability for both linear stages, far exceeding the resolution limit of our apparatus: 5/$\sqrt{12}$ mm, due to the size of the trigger scintillator. The 150 mm stage is used to scan the length of the bar, and the 50 mm stage is used for vertical alignment. The $5 \times 5 \times 190$ mm “test” scintillator bar is placed opposite the trigger scintillator, with the long axis of the test bar parallel to the motion of the 150 mm stage. The test scintillator bar is coupled with optical grease to two additional single-channel SensL J-series $6\times6~\mathrm{mm}^2$ SiPMs, also biased at +30 V. Two cylindrical optical rods wrapped with black felt are used to support the scintillator bar in order to prevent decoupling from the SiPMs. Finally, the $^{22}$Na source is placed equidistant between the trigger and test scintillators and on the same stage as the trigger scintillator, so that each measurement has the same distribution of interactions in the test bar, and there is a one-to-one translation between the trigger scintillator position and the interaction location in the test scintillator. The entire apparatus, shown in Figure \[fig:fig1\]a, is placed in a light-tight enclosure. The energy resolution is characterized at the center of the bar, and the position and timing resolution are characterized with a set of trigger scintillator positions that span the bar from 15 mm from one edge of the test bar to 135 mm from the edge. For two scans (EJ-200 bare1 and EJ-204 ESR), the total range covers over half the bar, but the spacing and range differs from the others. For each position, 100,000 triggers are acquired with the DRS4 Eval board, which is calibrated for 5.12 GHz sampling. We acquire full waveforms, and use C++ along with libraries from the analysis toolkit ROOT [@root] for pulse processing and subsequent analysis.
At the University of Hawaii (UH), position resolutions are studied using a $^{90}$Sr (beta-emitting) source. A lead collimator is used to limit the incident position of betas from the source onto a narrow region of the scintillator. The collimator geometry limits the range of incident positions of betas on the scintillator to under 2 mm. The entire collimator is mounted to a Velmex XSlide (XN10-0120-M01-71), driven by a stepper motor (PK245-01AA), so that the position of incidence can be scanned over the length of the scintillator bar under test. Source positions are varied by 5 mm per step, via a USB interface to the motor controller. The manufacturer-specified repeatability and step sizes are well below our resolution, as well as the geometric spread induced by the collimator. The photodetectors, including bias voltage, and data acquisition electronics are identical to the SNL setup, though the waveform analysis tools to process the stored data were independently developed at each site.
For each source position, a total of 4000 interactions are acquired. The DRS4 evaluation board triggers itself on a coincident signal on both SiPMs, with a trigger threshold of roughly 7 mV. The UH setup is shown in Figure \[fig:fig1\]b. At UH, energy calibrations and resolution measurements are obtained by placing a separate $^{137}$Cs source at the center of the bar.
[0.45]{} ![A picture of the testing apparatus at (a) SNL and (b) UH. For (a), the blue lines indicate coincident back-to-back 511 gammas from the $^{22}$Na source interacting in both the bar under test and the trigger scintillator.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](Fig1a.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.53]{} ![A picture of the testing apparatus at (a) SNL and (b) UH. For (a), the blue lines indicate coincident back-to-back 511 gammas from the $^{22}$Na source interacting in both the bar under test and the trigger scintillator.[]{data-label="fig:fig1"}](Fig1b.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Waveform Analysis
=================
For all measurements, we acquire the fast output (FOUT) of the SiPMs, primarily due to the finite number of samples that the DRS4 can record: for 5 GS/s digitization, trace lengths are limited to 200 ns. Waveforms recorded with the DRS4 are analyzed to determine the pulse height and time. Figure \[fig:fig2\] shows two example waveforms from the two readout SiPMs of a scintillator bar, in this case EJ-204 with no reflector material. The pulse shape from the FOUT of the SiPM typically has a significant dip below baseline, shown in the figures around 100 ns: for this reason we take the pulse height, or maximum sample value after baseline subtraction, for the energy measurement. In addition, the DRS4 output often includes one or two sample spikes that are removed by considering the mean before and after a particular sample value. Finally, a smoothing filter is applied.
The pulse time is the interpolated value between samples corresponding to 50% of the maximum value on the rising edge of the filtered pulse. This timing algorithm was found to outperform methods based on the zero crossing of the derivative. Figure \[fig:fig2\] shows the original waveform output from the DRS4, the result after spike removal and smoothing is applied, and the pulse time. The same trace zoomed into the pulse time is also shown with the samples indicated by dots on the filtered output.
![(top) An example waveform from the bar channels coupled to EJ-204 with no reflector material. The black curve is the waveform output from the DRS4, and the red curve is after spike-removal and smoothing filters are applied. The pulse time is shown with the blue triangle. (bottom) The same two traces zoomed into the region of 50% of the pulse rise time, with sample values shown with dots and the pulse time indicated on the figure. The spikes between 150 and 200 ns for channel two are removed with the filtering.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](Fig2a.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![(top) An example waveform from the bar channels coupled to EJ-204 with no reflector material. The black curve is the waveform output from the DRS4, and the red curve is after spike-removal and smoothing filters are applied. The pulse time is shown with the blue triangle. (bottom) The same two traces zoomed into the region of 50% of the pulse rise time, with sample values shown with dots and the pulse time indicated on the figure. The spikes between 150 and 200 ns for channel two are removed with the filtering.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](Fig2b.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Detector Response
=================
Energy response
---------------
With both experimental setups, the single photon response of SiPMs used for each end of the bar was characterized so that an absolute comparison of the overall collection efficiency can be made between bars. In order to observe the single photon response, the FOUT was amplified with a Photek PA200-10 (Mini-Circuits ZFL-1000LN+) 20 dB amplifier at SNL (UH) and data was acquired with a random trigger and no light source in the enclosure. For two SiPM pixels at SNL, Figure \[fig:fig3\] shows the maximum pulse height for interactions in which a pulse was found over threshold. The first peak is due to noise pulses above the software threshold of the peak-finding algorithm, and the subsequent peaks are the single, double, and triple photon responses. The results of a four-gaussian fit are included. We calculate the single photon amplitude as the average distance between the mean of the real (not noise) peaks: 0.226 mV for channel 1 and 0.223 mV for channel 2 when corrected for the gain of the amplifiers. Table \[tab:spe\] lists the single photon pulse heights for both apparatuses.
Apparatus Channel 1 (mV) Channel 2 (mV)
----------- ---------------- ----------------
UH 0.2312 0.2418
SNL 0.2257 0.2230
: The single photon pulse height for the individual SiPM readout channels.[]{data-label="tab:spe"}
[0.49]{} ![The response of the SiPMs to low photon counts for (a) channel 1 and (b) channel 2, with a four-Gaussian fit: the parameters are the amplitude, mean, and standard deviation for the four Gaussian distributions. The first peak is due to noise, and the subsequent three are the single, double and triple photon response. We calculate the gain as the average distance between the mean of the peaks: 0.226 mV for channel 1 and 0.223 mV for channel 2. Note that these data were acquired with a x10 amplifier, and the remaining bar characterizations were not. Data shown is for the SNL setup, though this process was repeated at UH with comparable results, as evident from Table \[tab:spe\].[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](Fig3a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![The response of the SiPMs to low photon counts for (a) channel 1 and (b) channel 2, with a four-Gaussian fit: the parameters are the amplitude, mean, and standard deviation for the four Gaussian distributions. The first peak is due to noise, and the subsequent three are the single, double and triple photon response. We calculate the gain as the average distance between the mean of the peaks: 0.226 mV for channel 1 and 0.223 mV for channel 2. Note that these data were acquired with a x10 amplifier, and the remaining bar characterizations were not. Data shown is for the SNL setup, though this process was repeated at UH with comparable results, as evident from Table \[tab:spe\].[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](Fig3b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
For energy resolution measurements with $^{22}$Na tagged or $^{137}$Cs data, interactions in the central 5 mm of the bar are selected by coincidence with the trigger scintillator ($^{22}$Na) or by using the timing difference calibration from the position scans ($^{137}$Cs). The resulting energy spectrum, calculated from the geometric mean of the calibrated energy measurements at each end of the bar, $E = \sqrt{E_1E_2}$, is used to compare to the expected spectrum without any resolution effects from the Klein-Nishina formula. In order to obtain the energy resolution, the experimental result is converted to keVee units with a linear transformation:
$$E_{keVee} = q_0E_{mV}+q_1.$$
Next, an arbitrary y-scale, $q_2$, is applied to the Klein-Nishina prediction for the gamma emissions resulting from the source superposed with a power law contribution to account for down-scattered gammas, and a gaussian convolution is performed with a standard deviation of:
$$\frac{\sigma}{E_{keVee}}= \sqrt{q_3^2 + \frac{q_4^2}{E_{keVee}} + \frac{q_5^2}{E_{keVee}^2} }.
\label{eq:res}$$
The terms in Equation \[eq:res\] represent geometrical effects of light transmission ($q_3$), the statistical variation of the production and multiplication of photo-electrons ($q_4$), and the electronic noise ($q_5$) [@klein]. The power law has an additional two parameters ($q_6$) and ($q_7$). The minimization routine MINUIT [@minuit1; @minuit2] is used to find the parameters, $q_0$ through $q_7$, for which the $\chi^2$ of the convolved Klein-Nishina spectrum and measured energy spectrum is minimized. This is a large parameter space, so many of the parameters are restricted in range, or in the example of the offset in the linear transformation, fixed to the known value. The range over which the fit is performed is also restricted to the region of the Compton edge feature. As an example, for a bare EJ-204 bar Figure \[fig:fig4\] shows the resulting convolved model prediction and calibrated experimental spectra after the minimization for the coincident $^{22}$Na spectrum. Energy resolution results using both $^{22}$Na and $^{137}$Cs data for all configurations are summarized in Table \[tab:summary\].
![An example energy calibration using the coincident $^{22}$Na spectrum for the EJ-204 bar with no reflector. []{data-label="fig:fig4"}](Fig4.pdf){width="0.49\columnwidth"}
Position Response
-----------------
The position resolution is evaluated with both setups. It should be noted that, to increase performance by a factor of ten compared to traditional two-plane scatter camera systems, we desire an overall position resolution of roughly 10 mm ($\sigma$) [@svsc]. This translates to a z-position resolution of 9.8 mm, given that the $x$ and $y$ positions are $5/\sqrt{12}$ mm ($\sigma$).
Results are presented below for the position resolution evaluated with the difference in time of arrival at each end of the bar, denoted $\sigma_z^t$, as well as the log of the charge amplitude ratio at the end of each bar, denoted $\sigma_z^A$. For each interaction, the difference in times and the log of the charge amplitude ratio are evaluated, and the distribution of each for a given scan position/interaction location is fit to a Gaussian function. Under the assumption of a single exponential attenuation model, the form of the log of the charge amplitude ratio with interaction location ($z$) is expected to be linear:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{ln}\frac{A_1}{A_2} &=& \mathrm{ln}\frac{e^{-z/\lambda}}{e^{-(L-z)/\lambda}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{L}{\lambda} - \frac{2z}{\lambda},
\label{eq:7} \end{aligned}$$
where $A_1/A_2$ are the pulse heights of channel 1 and 2, $z$ is the position along the bar, $L$ is the total length of the bar, and $\lambda$ is the effective attenuation length. However, this assumes that the effective attenuation length (a function of reflection losses and the bulk attenuation) is the only source of light loss and is constant throughout the scintillator bar. The difference in time is also expected to be linear if the velocity of light within the scintillator bar is constant throughout:
$$\begin{aligned}
t_1-t_2 &=& \frac{z}{v} - \frac{L-z}{v} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{2z}{v} - \frac{L}{v}.
\label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$
The values are then combined to form the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (BLUE) [@blue].
### Scanning Results with $^{90}$Sr and $^{22}$Na
Example position characterizations with both the difference in timing and the log ratio of the charge amplitude is shown for $^{90}$Sr (Figures \[fig:fig5\] and \[fig:fig6\]) and $^{22}$Na (Figures \[fig:fig7\] and \[fig:fig8\]). Only interactions with an energy deposition between 300 and 400 keVee are used for this analysis. Both the mean of the Gaussian fit and the standard deviation as a function of distance is shown, and the position resolution is calculated as $
\frac{\sigma_{avg}}{m}$, in which $m$ is the slope of the first order polynomial fit to the mean as a function of $z$, and $\sigma$ is the average of the standard deviations as a function of $z$ determined with a zeroth order polynomial fit ($^{22}$Na) or as a simple average ($^{90}$Sr). Our data show only minor deviations from a linear fit in this regime. For example, for the $^{22}$Na data, the maximum deviation from the linear fit on the order of 50 ps. A summary of all the position resolution results are presented in Tables \[tab:UHpos\] and \[tab:SNLpos\]. For the $^{22}$Na data, each measurement in Table \[tab:SNLpos\] corresponds to a specific and unique sample of scintillator, with the indicated wrapping. In order to study systematic effects, repeated measurements were performed on some bars for the $^{90}$Sr scans, and bars used with wrappings were also tested bare. The errors quoted are statistical, propagated from the errors on the fit values. The BLUE combination of the first two columns is shown in the third.
[0.49]{} ![(a) The difference in time of arrival between the two SiPMs as a function of $z$ and (b) the standard deviation of the timing difference as a function of $z$. Both plots are for the EJ-204, bare 1 run from the UH setup. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig5"}](Fig5a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) The difference in time of arrival between the two SiPMs as a function of $z$ and (b) the standard deviation of the timing difference as a function of $z$. Both plots are for the EJ-204, bare 1 run from the UH setup. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig5"}](Fig5b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) The log ratio of the charge amplitude as a function of interaction position and (b) the standard deviation of the log ratio as a function of interaction position. Both plots are for the EJ-204, bare 1 run from UH setup. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig6"}](Fig6a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) The log ratio of the charge amplitude as a function of interaction position and (b) the standard deviation of the log ratio as a function of interaction position. Both plots are for the EJ-204, bare 1 run from UH setup. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig6"}](Fig6b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) The difference in time of arrival between the two readout ends of the bar as a function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a first order polynomial, and the value on the plot is the position resolution. (b) The standard deviation of the timing difference as a function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a zeroth order polynomial. Both plots are for EJ-204 with no reflector. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig7"}](Fig7a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) The difference in time of arrival between the two readout ends of the bar as a function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a first order polynomial, and the value on the plot is the position resolution. (b) The standard deviation of the timing difference as a function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a zeroth order polynomial. Both plots are for EJ-204 with no reflector. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig7"}](Fig7b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) The log ratio of the charge amplitude as a function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a first order polynomial, and the value on the plot is the position resolution. (b) The standard deviation of the log ratio function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a zeroth order polynomial. Both plots are for EJ-204 with no reflector. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig8"}](Fig8a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![(a) The log ratio of the charge amplitude as a function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a first order polynomial, and the value on the plot is the position resolution. (b) The standard deviation of the log ratio function of $z$. The fit parameters are for a zeroth order polynomial. Both plots are for EJ-204 with no reflector. Only energy depositions between 300-400 keVee are included.[]{data-label="fig:fig8"}](Fig8b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Scintillator $\sigma_z^{t}$ (mm) $\sigma_z^{A}$ (mm) $\sigma_z$ (mm)
---------------- --------------------- --------------------- -----------------
EJ-200, bar 1: 16.27$\pm$0.18 40.77$\pm$0.60 14.29
bar 2: 16.14$\pm$0.19 39.51$\pm$0.58 13.99
bar 3: 16.61$\pm$0.13 42.90$\pm$0.66 14.53
Teflon bar 3: 13.31$\pm$0.18 10.37$\pm$0.10 7.65
ESR, bar 1: 14.07$\pm$0.17 35.58$\pm$0.51 12.31
bar 2: 13.94$\pm$0.17 29.29$\pm$0.37 11.87
EJ-204, bar 1: 12.37$\pm$0.14 33.46$\pm$0.44 10.77
bar 2: 12.44$\pm$0.15 36.32$\pm$0.53 10.86
bar 3: 11.73$\pm$0.19 27.32$\pm$0.31 10.03
bar 4: 12.28$\pm$0.14 40.57$\pm$0.63 11.03
Teflon, bar 4: 10.89$\pm$0.14 9.58$\pm$0.08 6.54
ESR, bar 1: 10.43$\pm$0.12 22.08$\pm$0.24 8.74
bar 1: 11.16$\pm$0.15 36.68$\pm$0.57 10.13
bar 1: 11.31$\pm$0.14 34.85$\pm$0.52 10.15
bar 2: 11.05$\pm$0.14 28.25$\pm$0.35 9.53
EJ-230, bar 1: 10.80$\pm$0.14 22.79$\pm$0.27 8.85
bar 2: 10.93$\pm$0.14 22.44$\pm$0.26 8.74
bar 3: 10.51$\pm$0.13 25.52$\pm$0.32 8.91
bar 4: 10.69$\pm$0.13 24.40$\pm$0.30 8.94
Teflon, bar 1: 10.88$\pm$0.32 9.30$\pm$0.23 6.32
ESR, bar 1: 10.04$\pm$0.11 23.57$\pm$0.25 8.43
bar 1: 10.35$\pm$0.11 24.76$\pm$0.26 8.59
bar 2: 10.35$\pm$0.12 23.32$\pm$0.24 8.53
EJ-276, bar 1: 18.38$\pm$0.25 17.49$\pm$0.20 13.17
bar 2: 19.07$\pm$0.27 18.56$\pm$0.22 13.85
Teflon, bar 1: 16.66$\pm$0.26 10.83$\pm$0.14 9.54
ESR, bar 1: 13.76$\pm$0.19 17.18$\pm$0.20 10.45
: Summary of the position resolution results of UH. The errors are statistical only, on the fit of the particular distribution; see Table \[tab:UH-SNL-compare\] for an estimate of the systematic errors. The third column is the best linear unbiased estimator of the first two columns.[]{data-label="tab:UHpos"}
$\sigma_z^{t}$ (mm) $\sigma_z^{A}$ (mm) $\sigma_z$ (mm)
-- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------- -------
14.58$\pm$0.26 33.10$\pm$0.64 13.34
bare: 14.74$\pm$0.36 31.55$\pm$0.87 13.35
Teflon: 14.17$\pm$0.36 14.96$\pm$0.39 10.29
ESR: 12.82$\pm$0.28 22.52$\pm$0.54 11.14
11.93$\pm$0.28 20.59$\pm$0.53 10.32
bare: 11.29$\pm$0.23 20.06$\pm$0.44 9.84
Teflon: 12.33$\pm$0.26 10.66$\pm$0.22 8.06
ESR: 9.83$\pm$0.26 17.69$\pm$0.50 8.59
11.31$\pm$0.22 18.24$\pm$0.38 9.61
bare: 11.46$\pm$0.26 19.02$\pm$0.47 9.82
Teflon: 11.23$\pm$0.24 12.62$\pm$0.28 8.39
ESR: 12.30$\pm$0.30 18.10$\pm$0.46 10.17
17.83$\pm$0.59 18.95$\pm$0.72 12.98
bare: 16.56$\pm$0.46 15.37$\pm$0.40 11.27
Teflon: 15.41$\pm$0.32 11.65$\pm$0.24 9.29
ESR: 15.45$\pm$0.46 17.74$\pm$0.59 11.65
: Summary of position resolution results from the SNL setup. The errors are statistical only on the fit of the particular distribution; see Table \[tab:UH-SNL-compare\] for an estimate of the systematic errors. The third column is the best linear unbiased estimator of the first two columns. []{data-label="tab:SNLpos"}
### Comparison
The two independent measurement setups and sources provide a valuable tool to compare results and identify significant systematic effects that can cause differences in effective resolutions. An understanding of such systematic effects can lead to component selection and design decisions that improve the robustness of the resolution results. In order to make a direct comparison for each scintillator and wrapping at each test site, we have collected multiple repeated measurements into a combined measurement for each setup. This comparison is shown in Table \[tab:UH-SNL-compare\], which accumulates results based off of entries from Tables \[tab:UHpos\] and \[tab:SNLpos\].
When multiple measurements are made for different samples of the same scintillator and surface treatment, these measurements are averaged into a single entry. Statistical uncertainties in Table \[tab:UH-SNL-compare\] are based on the average of statistical uncertainties for multiple entries, if available. Systematic uncertainties dominate the measurements, as can be seen from the significant variations in timing-based and amplitude-based resolution both between sites as well as within measurements taken at the same site using the same configuration. Our systematic uncertainty estimation assumes that systematic uncertainties at each site are unique, but that there is a single systematic uncertainty at each site that dominates uncertainties for all measurements taken there. We thus assume that our measurements at each site are normally distributed, with a standard deviation corresponding to the site’s systematic uncertainty. In this case, repeated measurements of resolution for the same material with the same surface treatment can be considered as drawing two samples from a single normal distribution of resolutions. We can estimate a standard deviation of all such differences, and then infer a site’s systematic uncertainty, $s$, using the following formula:
$$s = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{\mathrm{all\,pairs}} \left(\sigma_\mathrm{A} - \sigma_\mathrm{B}\right)^2},$$
where A and B correspond to a pair of repeated measurements for the same configuration, and $N$ is the total number of measurement pairs. A graphical depiction of the results, including these systematic uncertainties, is shown in Figure \[fig:fig9\].
------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
\[UH\] \[SNL\] \[UH\] \[SNL\]
EJ-200, bare 16.34$\pm$0.19 14.66$\pm$0.31 41.06$\pm$0.61 32.33$\pm$0.76
Teflon 13.31$\pm$0.18 14.17$\pm$0.36 10.37$\pm$0.09 14.96$\pm$0.39
ESR 14.01$\pm$0.17 12.82$\pm$0.28 32.44$\pm$0.44 22.52$\pm$0.54
EJ-204, bare 12.21$\pm$0.15 11.61$\pm$0.26 34.42$\pm$0.48 20.33$\pm$0.49
Teflon 10.89$\pm$0.15 12.33$\pm$0.26 9.58$\pm$0.78 10.66$\pm$0.22
ESR 10.99$\pm$0.14 9.83$\pm$0.26 30.47$\pm$0.42 17.69$\pm$0.50
EJ-230, bare 10.73$\pm$0.18 11.39$\pm$0.24 23.79$\pm$0.29 18.63$\pm$0.43
Teflon 10.88$\pm$0.82 11.23$\pm$0.24 9.30$\pm$0.23 12.63$\pm$0.28
ESR 10.25$\pm$0.11 12.30$\pm$0.30 23.88$\pm$0.25 18.01$\pm$0.26
EJ-276, bare 18.73$\pm$0.26 17.20$\pm$0.53 18.03$\pm$0.21 17.16$\pm$0.56
Teflon 16.66$\pm$0.26 15.41$\pm$0.32 10.83$\pm$0.14 11.65$\pm$0.32
ESR 13.76$\pm$0.19 15.45$\pm$0.46 17.18$\pm$0.20 17.74$\pm$0.46
Systematic error $\pm$0.30 $\pm$0.59 $\pm$4.45 $\pm$1.64
------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
![Position resolution results summarized for the two experimental setups, using the timing information, amplitude information, and the BLUE combination. Error bars reflect systematic uncertainties only, as reported in Table \[tab:UH-SNL-compare\] and described in detail in the text, since these dominate the uncertainties.[]{data-label="fig:fig9"}](Fig9.png){width="\columnwidth"}
The summary comparisons presented in Table \[tab:UH-SNL-compare\] and shown graphically in Figure \[fig:fig9\] show a few notable effects. In general, using timing differences seems to be a more robust approach to calculating $z$: the agreement between the $^{90}$Sr and $^{22}$Na results is much closer for most measurements, despite significant differences in the experimental setups (to be described in Section \[sec:systematics\]). Furthermore, the systematic uncertainties associated with the timing-based measurements are generally much smaller, indicating better repeatability between identical setups.
We note that there are multiple methods that could be used to estimate systematic uncertainties, in particular with the $^{90}$Sr data taken at UH, since there are many repeated measurements over identical configurations. It is clear from the $^{90}$Sr data in Table \[tab:UHpos\] that the large systematic uncertainties are driven primarily by the EJ-204 measurements. If these are excluded from the above analysis, the amplitude-based systematic uncertainty drops from 4.5 mm to 1.8 mm, giving a result quite consistent between sites. Since the root cause of this larger variation for the EJ-204 samples is unclear, we include the EJ-204 data in the composite estimate to be conservative. We also note that the ESR data hints at larger systematics using ESR than that seen with bare bars. Again, it is not clear from the limited sample size whether this is a feature of the ESR wrapping or was specific to these samples or experimental setups, so we conservatively include these samples when calculating the overall site uncertainty.
### Studies on Systematic Variations between Sites {#sec:systematics}
While the relative trends in $\sigma_{z}^{A}$ are the same in the two setups, the absolute agreement for $\sigma_{z}^{A}$ is notably worse than for $\sigma_{z}^{t}$. In addition, the systematic uncertainties on $\sigma_{z}^{A}$ are large, indicating substantial variations observed within data on the same setups. A number of studies were conducted in order to better understand these variations in $\sigma_{z}^{A}$, all conducted using the $^{90}$Sr setup at UH, and using bare EJ-204 bars.
The experimental setup for EJ-204 with no reflector material, which shows the most significant difference between the two measurement sites, was re-tested. Three different scenarios based on possible systematic differences are investigated and summarized in Table \[tab:6\]:
1. Modified optical coupling, using approximately three times more than the typical amount of EJ-550 silicone grease.
2. Modified triggering conditions, using a logical OR of trigger signals from either side of the bar, compared to the baseline AND trigger.
3. Added a metal support underneath the EJ-204 bar near the midpoint between the two ends, as shown in Figure \[fig:fig10\].
--- ------------------- --------------- ------------ ------------------- ----------------- -------
$\sigma_z^t $(mm) $p_1$ (ns/mm) $p_0 $(ns) $\sigma_z^A$ (mm) $p_1$(m$^{-1}$) $p_0$
1 12.88$\pm$0.15 0.020 0.253 31.87$\pm$0.43 -3.20 0.102
2 13.17$\pm$0.11 0.020 0.267 29.74$\pm$0.26 -3.47 0.103
3 11.13$\pm$0.07 0.018 0.207 20.04$\pm$0.11 -4.55 0.091
--- ------------------- --------------- ------------ ------------------- ----------------- -------
: The results of systematic studies in $\sigma_z^t$ and $\sigma_z^A$, including fit results used to calculate the resolutions in each configuration. See text for a description of the individual test configurations.[]{data-label="tab:6"}
![A picture of the test with the scintillator bar sustained by a support[]{data-label="fig:fig10"}](Fig10.png){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
The position resolutions using the difference in time remained within the systematic errors, with the exception of the addition of the metal support (configuration 3). For the log ratio of the charge amplitude, an improvement of less than 5% was obtained in $\sigma_{z}^{A}$ by adding more silicon grease. It rose up to 11.1% when the condition of the trigger was changed, and it reached 40.1% up when a support for the bar was placed.
The relative invariance of the timing-based results is generally as-expected, since the rising edge of the pules is less susceptible to photon variations compared amplitude measurements, which should vary proportionally to the total number of detected photons. The number of detected photons can vary with optical coupling, triggering, or interaction with support structures. Optical coupling has a clear impact on observed amplitudes, so better coupling should generally improve performance due to a higher signal-to-noise ratio. Triggering conditions can cause an asymmetry in the types of interactions observed: the standard AND based trigger can result in a bias toward generally larger depositions, whereas depositions resulting in a single large pulse on one end and a small pulse on the other end might be missed entirely. These types of interactions are precisely those that would show good amplitude-based resolutions due to the large asymmetry between near- and far-end amplitudes, so this improvement is not unexpected.
On the other hand, the addition of the support structure had a much larger impact than originally anticipated. The significant improvement in $\sigma_{z}^{A}$ is coupled with a substantially lower light yield, as observed in $^{137}$Cs calibration data. This implies that the support itself is causing an overall decrease in light collection, of order $\sim$20% for bare bars, possibly due to interfering with TIR at the contact positions. Since the baseline $^{90}$Sr data was taken with no mid-bar support and the $^{22}$Na data was taken with supports, this could explain some of the systematic differences seen there. It should be noted, however, that the support types likely differ in their effect on optical transport because of their shapes (rectangular vs. cylindrical) and reflectivity (bare aluminum vs. black felt wrapped). The effect of a support is less clear in the cases of ESR or Teflon, though we speculate that it should impact Teflon the least, since it is already in good contact with the bar, compared to ESR, which is loosely fitted around the bar.
### Performance as a Function of Deposited Energy
It is expected that there will be variation in position resolution as a function of deposited energy due to improved photostatistics, which are not readily apparent in the limited 300–400 keVee measurements reported to this point. Figure \[fig:fig11\] shows $\sigma_z^t$ and $\sigma_z^A$ for Teflon-wrapped EJ-204 as a function of energy from the $^{90}$Sr data. Using the same position calibration as that obtained for the nominal 300–400 keVee bin, resolutions were studied in the range of 250–600 keVee. As expected, both resolutions improve with energy, indicating that system performance for neutron imaging is expected to be better than our reported summary resolutions for higher energy depositions.
[0.45]{} ![Position resolution results using time differences (a) and log amplitude ratios (b) as a function of energy for Teflon wrapped EJ-204 using $^{90}$Sr data.[]{data-label="fig:fig11"}](Fig11a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.45]{} ![Position resolution results using time differences (a) and log amplitude ratios (b) as a function of energy for Teflon wrapped EJ-204 using $^{90}$Sr data.[]{data-label="fig:fig11"}](Fig11b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Timing Response
---------------
The overall timing response of the system is evaluated with the tagged $^{22}$Na data, in which the interaction time is defined as
$$t_0 = \frac{t_1+t_2}{2}-t_{tag},
\label{eq:9}$$
where $t_{tag} $ is the pulse time of the tag scintillator, and $t_{1,2}$ are the pulse time of the bar interaction evaluated from SiPM1 and SiPM2, respectively. It should be noted that, to increase performance by a factor of ten compared to traditional two-plane scatter camera systems, we desire an overall timing resolution of roughly 1 ns ($\sigma$) [@svsc]. The distribution of $t_0$ for the center of the EJ-204, bare measurement is shown in Figure \[fig:fig12\]a, where only interactions in which the energy deposition is between 300–400 keVee are included. The interaction time defined in this manner is expected to be constant as a function of the z-position, if we assume a constant velocity throughout the bar, as in Equations \[eq:7\] and \[eq:8\]:
$$\begin{aligned}
t_0 &=& \frac{z}{2v} + \frac{L-z}{2v} - t_{tag} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{L}{2v} - t_{tag},\end{aligned}$$
However, as Figure \[fig:fig12\]b shows, this is not the case. Nor is the standard deviation constant, as shown in Figure \[fig:fig12\]c. This effect, which was seen for all test configurations, may be due to the changes in the pulse shape along the rise as the light propagates down the bar. In order to ensure that electronic crosstalk is not contributing, the test configuration with EJ-204 and Teflon wrapping was repeated with a LeCroy WaveRunner 640zi oscilliscope capturing full waveforms and applying similar processing methods: this interaction time feature persisted, as shown in Figure \[fig:fig13\]. While this feature does not directly affect single bar characterizations, it will be critical to characterize for the purposes of double scatter imaging. The standard deviation of the interaction time $t_0$ is also dependent on the interaction location, however the effect may be statistical due to the lower light levels detected for interactions near the center of the bar. It should be noted that the results are an upper limit on the timing resolution, due to the unknown timing resolution of the tag scintillator. While the timing resolution of the tag scintillator could be calculated with the assumption of no correlations between $t_{tag}$, $t_{1}$, and $t_{2}$, it is not clear this is a valid assumption. The results for all configurations are presented in Table \[tab:summary\].
[0.29]{} ![For EJ-204 with no reflector: (a) The distribution of $t_0$ for one $z$ position. (b) The fitted mean $t_0$ vs $z$. (c) The fitted $\sigma_{t_0}$ vs $z$. []{data-label="fig:fig12"}](Fig12a.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.29]{} ![For EJ-204 with no reflector: (a) The distribution of $t_0$ for one $z$ position. (b) The fitted mean $t_0$ vs $z$. (c) The fitted $\sigma_{t_0}$ vs $z$. []{data-label="fig:fig12"}](Fig12b.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.29]{} ![For EJ-204 with no reflector: (a) The distribution of $t_0$ for one $z$ position. (b) The fitted mean $t_0$ vs $z$. (c) The fitted $\sigma_{t_0}$ vs $z$. []{data-label="fig:fig12"}](Fig12c.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
![For Teflon-wrapped EJ-204, the interaction time $t_0$ as a function of $z$ position for the DRS4 data acquisition and LeCroy oscilliscope data acquisition. The persistence of the dependence on $z$ indicates that it is not due to potential channel crosstalk in the DRS4 eval board. A constant vertical offset has been applied to the LeCroy data to align it with the DRS4 data, correcting for different timing offsets in the two acquisitions. []{data-label="fig:fig13"}](Fig13.pdf){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
### Timing Response with $^{90}Sr$
![The layout for 2-bar timing tests at UH.[]{data-label="fig:fig14"}](Fig14.png){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Additional studies were carried out at UH with two scintillator bars triggered in tandem, as shown in Figure \[fig:fig14\]. The interaction time was calculated for each bar using Equation \[eq:9\], and the difference between the interaction times was studied. The distribution of interaction time differences, $t_{0,bar1}-t_{0,bar2}$ is shown in Figure \[fig:fig15\]a for a fixed source position. The timing difference as a function of energy deposited in the second bar is shown in Figure \[fig:fig15\]b. A further test was carried out with the same setup and a moving $^{90}$Sr source, acquiring 1000 interactions in steps of 50 mm along the length of the bar. The mean and standard deviation of the timing distribution as a function of $z$ is shown in Figure \[fig:fig16\]a and \[fig:fig16\]b. Only interactions in which the energy deposition in bar 1 is $1.00\pm0.15$ MeVee are presented, and outliers with timing differences greater than 5 ns are excluded.
[0.49]{} ![ The $t_{0,bar1}-t_{0,bar2}$ distribution, i.e. the arrival time differences in each bar, are shown for a fixed source in (a). This data is then binned versus energy to find a mean and standard deviation, which is plotted as a function of energy deposition in the second bar as shown in (b).[]{data-label="fig:fig15"}](Fig15a.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![ The $t_{0,bar1}-t_{0,bar2}$ distribution, i.e. the arrival time differences in each bar, are shown for a fixed source in (a). This data is then binned versus energy to find a mean and standard deviation, which is plotted as a function of energy deposition in the second bar as shown in (b).[]{data-label="fig:fig15"}](Fig15b.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![The test from Figure \[fig:fig15\] was repeated with a moving source and the mean and standard deviation of the timing difference as a function of the source position in $z$ are shown in (b) and (c).[]{data-label="fig:fig16"}](Fig16a.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![The test from Figure \[fig:fig15\] was repeated with a moving source and the mean and standard deviation of the timing difference as a function of the source position in $z$ are shown in (b) and (c).[]{data-label="fig:fig16"}](Fig16b.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
While we observe similar timing resolutions to the $^{22}$Na data, we do not appear to observe the same systematic time shift as a function of interaction position. We conclude that this is consistent with the hypothesis of pulse shape differences seen in the $^{22}$Na data, as in this case the effect happens on both the front and rear bars, and largely subtracts away.
Summary and Discussions
=======================
Table \[tab:summary\] summarizes the timing, position, and energy resolution for all configurations tested. In both amplitude-based and timing-based resolutions, Teflon-wrapped EJ-204 and EJ-230 show the best performance overall. As the performance is generally in agreement within uncertainties, EJ-204 is identified as the best candidate for neutron kinematic imaging, as it also offers significantly better light yield. Because the fission spectrum motivates the lowest possible detection threshold, we chose EJ-204 over EJ-230 for this particular application. The coupling of Teflon and ESR performed similarly in the case of EJ-204, however the difficulties associated with wrapping ESR in a uniform fashion for a 64-bar system, along with optical crosstalk concerns [@esr], motivated the use of Teflon.
The results generally suggest that timing-based position calculations should be more robust than amplitude-based calculations due to systematic effects related to optical coupling and triggering. Variations from mechanical construction and optical coupling may have a significant impact on amplitude-based calibrations, and could lead to more complicated requirements on calibration. We note other effects that also may have significant impact on a full-scale detector designed around such scintillating elements. For example, the systematic studies indicating variations due to optical coupling, trigger conditions, and structural supports all have significant impact on energy calibrations and light yields. We have also observed significant differences in performance between repeated measurements of the same scintillator with the same surface treatment, implying that careful calibration of individual elements may be required for a large array of such scintillators. These calibrations will likely need to be done in-situ, since many of our systematic uncertainties are attributed to effects, such as optical coupling, that will arise during assembly of the system. Nevertheless, the data reported here indicate that sub-cm position resolutions can be obtained.
Finally, we note that although the data presented here show reasonable linearity for the amplitude-based resolutions, prior data on longer bars ($\sim 1$ m length) were better fit by a double exponential. This suggests strongly that the optimizations of both scintillator material and wrapping may need to be reevaluated for longer bars, and that the results reported here should not be extrapolated to significantly different geometries due to the complexities of the optical photon propagation.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
$^{22}$Na $^{90}$Sr $^{22}$Na $^{137}$Cs
155$\pm$2 13.35 14.27 16.7 14.1
Teflon 154$\pm$3 10.29 7.65 14.5 15.8
ESR 145$\pm$3 11.14 12.09 16.6 12.2
136$\pm$3 10.08 10.67 15.7 14.7
**[Teflon]{} &**[142$\pm$2]{} &**[8.06]{} &**[6.54]{} &**[13.1]{} &**[14.3]{}\
&ESR &125$\pm$3 &8.59 &9.64 &17.6 &12.2\
&141$\pm$3 &9.61 &8.86 &17.8 &15.0\
&Teflon &142$\pm$2 &8.39 &6.32 &22.6 &13.9\
&ESR &156$\pm$3 &10.17 &8.52 &23.4 &13.0\
&183$\pm$5 &12.13 &13.51 &17.8 &14.1\
&Teflon &171$\pm$2 &9.29 &9.54 &16.5 &14.1\
&ESR &177$\pm$4 &11.65 &10.45 &15.0 &11.3\
&$\pm$7 &$\pm$0.73 &$\pm$0.42 &$\pm$3.5 &-\
************
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
: Summary of results with statistical (for $\sigma_t$) and systematic errors for configurations in which they were measured. Note that the energy resolution measurements are at different energies (340 keV for $^{22}$Na and 478 keV for $^{137}$Cs), so differences in resolution are not unexpected. Sufficient data were not acquired for a systematic error of the last column.[]{data-label="tab:summary"}
Conclusions
===========
We have performed a series of measurements to motivate the choice of scintillator and reflector material for an optically segmented scatter-based neutron imaging system. We have determined the top performing scintillator and reflector material in terms of the timing, position, and energy resolution, and overall detectable light to maximize the detection efficiency. In the case of $5\times5\times19~\mathrm{cm}^3$ scintillator bars coupled to SensL’s J-series $6\times6~\mathrm{mm}^2$ SiPMs, the top performer was EJ-204 wrapped in Teflon. We expect a threshold of approximately 30 keVee given the light observed and the threshold of the device’s electronics.
We have also explored the systematic variability of the position resolution measurement, and have determined that the variability of the position as determined by the log ratio of the amplitudes is greater than by the position determined by the difference in pulse time. Finally, we observed that the measured interaction time is variable with the interaction location, which is presumed to be biased due to pulse-shape distortions on the rising edge as the light propagates along the bar.
Acknowledgments
===============
Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. This paper describes objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that might be expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.
We would like to thank the US DOE National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation for funding this work.
We thank Serge Negrashov for data acquisition software development that was utilized in this work, and Glenn Jocher for prior work on longer scintillating bars that helped to inform this study.
[1]{} K. Weinfurther, J. Mattingly, E. Brubaker, and J. Steele “Model-based design evaluation of a compact, high-efficiency neutron scatter camera” [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A*]{} [**883**]{} (2018) 115-135 J. Braverman, J. Brennan, E. Brubaker, B. Cabrera-Palmer, S. Czyz, P. Marleau, J. Mattingly, A. Nowack, J. Steele, M. Sweany, K. Weinfurther, E. Woods. “Single-Volume Neutron Scatter Camera for High-Efficiency Neutron Imaging and Spectroscopy” [arXiv:1802.05261]{} (2018) J. Koblanski “Antineutrino Detection and Neutron Directionality Studies with the miniTimeCube, the World’s Smallest Neutrino Detector" [*Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa*]{} (2018) J. E. M. Goldsmith, M. D. Gerling, and J. S. Brennan “A compact neutron scatter camera for field deployment” [*Review of Scientific Instruments* ]{} [**87**]{} (2016) 083307 S. Vandenberghe, E.Mikhaylova, E. D’Hoe, P. Mollet and J.S.Karp “Recent developments in time-of-flight PET” [*EJNMMI Physics*]{} (2016) [**3:3**]{} M. Sweany, J. Brennan, B. Cabrera-Palmer, S. Kiff, D. Reyna, and D. Throckmorton “Above-ground antineutrino detection for nuclear reactor monitoring” [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A*]{} [**769**]{} (2015) 37-43. S.Oguri, Y.Kurodaa, Y.Kato, R.Nakata, Y.Inoue, C.Ito, and M.Minowa “Reactor antineutrino monitoring with a plastic scintillator array as a new safeguards method” [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A*]{} [**757**]{} (2014) 33-39 J Ashenfelter [*et al.*]{} “The PROSPECT physics program” [*J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{} (2016) 113001 Stefan Ritt, Roberto Dinapoli, and Ueli Hartmann. “Application of the DRS chip for fast waveform digitizing.” [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment*]{} [**623**]{} (2010) 486-488 M. Bitossi, R. Paoletti, D. Tescaro “Ultra-fast sampling and data acquisition using the drs4 waveform digitizer” [*IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci*]{} [**63** ]{} 2309?2316 (2016) M. Janecek “Reflectivity Spectra for Commonly Used Reflectors” [*IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science*]{} [**59**]{} 3 (2012) D. Motta, C. Buck, F.X. Hartmann, Th. Lasserre, S. Schonert, U. Schwan “Prototype scintillator cell for an In-based solar neutrino detector” [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A*]{} [**547**]{} (2005) 368-388 B. Waldwick, C. Chase, and B. Chang, “Increased efficiency and performance in laser pump chambers through use of diffuse highly reflective materials” [*Proc. SPIE*]{} (2007) [**6663**]{} 66630N.1-66630N.7. M. Gierlik, T. Batsch, R. Marcinkowski, M. Moszyński, and T. Sworobowicz “Light transport in long, plastic scintillators” [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A*]{} [**593**]{} (2008) 426-430. R. Brun and F. Rademakers. [*Nucl. Inst. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A*]{} [**389** ]{} (1997) 81-86 L. Lista “Combination of measurements and the BLUE method” [*EPJ Web of Conferences: XIIth Quark Confinement & the Hadron Spectrum*]{} [**137**]{} (2017) DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/201713711006 11006 (2017) H. Klein and S. Neumann. [*Nucl. Inst. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A.*]{} [**476**]{} 132-142 F. James and M. Winkler. “MINUIT User’s Guide” [*http://lcgapp.cern.ch/ project/cls/work-packages/mathlibs/minuit/doc/doc.html*]{}, Accessed on February 4, 2016 F. James and M. Roos. [*Computer Physics Communications*]{} [**10**]{} (1975) 343-367. F. Loignon-Houle, C. M. Pepin, S. A. Charlebois, and R. Lecomte “Reflectivity quenching of ESR multilayer polymer film reflector in optically bonded scintillator arrays” [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A*]{} [**851**]{} (2017) 62-67.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
Department of Physics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106\
[email protected]
- |
Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4030\
[email protected]
author:
- 'S. HELLERMAN'
- 'J. POLCHINSKI'
title: |
SUPERSYMMETRIC QUANTUM MECHANICS\
FROM LIGHT CONE QUANTIZATION
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
NSF-ITP-99-101\
hep-th/9908202
Preface
=======
In the three decades since the pioneering works,[@susy] supersymmetry has steadily grown both in importance and in depth. It is the most widely anticipated form of new physics to be seen near the weak scale; it is central to the structure of string theory; it is the key to the recent understanding of nonperturbative physics both in field theory and string theory; it is the focal point of many connections between mathematics and physics; and, it appears to be the principle that is responsible for cancellation of quantum corrections, stabilizing both the weak symmetry breaking scale and spacetime itself. It seems likely that we still have much to learn in these and other directions.
Even in quantum mechanics, supersymmetry has many applications. Most recently, through discrete light cone quantization, supersymmetric quantum mechanics has been proposed as a nonperturbative formulation of M theory and other exotic systems. Supersymmetric quantum mechanics is in some ways less constrained than supersymmetric field theory, due to the reduced spacetime symmetry. For example, there is no direct relation between the number of bosonic and fermionic fields (quantum mechanical coordinates). In this paper we study some supersymmetric quantum mechanical systems that arise from the discrete light cone quantization of theories with minimal supersymmetry in various dimensions. These are distinguished by having fewer fermionic fields than the familiar Kähler and hyper-Kähler models.
Introduction
============
Light-cone quantization [@dirac] has played an important role in field and string theory. In this description, free quanta satisfy nonrelativistic kinematics, with the positive ‘spatial’ momentum $p_-$ playing the role of the mass. Of particular interest is discrete light-cone quantization (DLCQ),[@dlcq] in which the light-like spatial direction is compact. In this case $p_-$ is quantized as well as positive, so that a sector of given total $p_-$ contains only a finite number of nonrelativistic particles. This has been used for numerical and analytic study of quantum field theories, and recently has been used to provide a nonperturbative definition of M theory.[@matrix]
In recent work [@hp1; @hp2] we have attempted to employ DLCQ to study weak/strong duality in supersymmetric gauge theories. This has required a version of DLCQ that preserves this duality, the so-called light-like limit (LLL). This is more complicated than the usual DLCQ, in that one must in many cases solve a dynamical problem just to obtain the DLCQ Hamiltonian: it is an effective Hamiltonian in the Wilsonian sense, rather than a simple reduction of the original Hamiltonian.
Given this complication, it is useful to take maximum advantage of supersymmetry to restrict the form of the Hamiltonian. We are thus interested in various supersymmetric quantum mechanical systems. In this paper we focus on field theories with minimal (unextended) supersymmetry in various dimensions, because these lead to supersymmetric QM systems that are somewhat unfamiliar. The more general context of DLCQ and LLL will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.[@hp2]
Let us begin with some simple counting. We start with a field theory in $d$ spacetime dimensions with ${\cal N}$ real supersymmetry charges. The nonrelativistic particles move in the $d-2$ transverse dimensions. A sector with $k$ particles is then described by quantum mechanics with $N_B = k(d-2)$ real bosonic coordinates.
The supersymmetries separate into $\frac{1}{2}{\cal N}$ dynamical charges $Q_\alpha$ and $\frac{1}{2}{\cal N}$ kinematical charges $q_\alpha$, with the algebra $$\begin{aligned}
\{ Q_\alpha, Q_\beta \} { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }2\delta_{\alpha\beta} p_+
\equiv 2\delta_{\alpha\beta} H\ ,
\nonumber\\
\{ q_\sigma, Q_\beta \} { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }2\Gamma^i_{\sigma\beta} p_i\ ,
\nonumber\\
\{ q_\sigma, q_\rho \} { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }2\delta_{\sigma\rho} p_- \ .\end{aligned}$$ We can work in an eigenbasis for $p_-$ so that the $q_\sigma$ are essentially oscillator variables. The system can be separated into center-of-mass variables $(q_\sigma,p_i)$ and the rest. The algebra of the $q_\sigma$ determines how the center-of-mass variables enter into $Q_\alpha$ and $H$ but does not otherwise constrain the theory. The essential problem is then supersymmetric quantum mechanics with ${\cal
N}_Q=\frac{1}{2}{\cal N}$ supercharges $Q_\alpha$. To count the fermionic coordinates, consider first a single particle. It has $2^{{\cal N}/4}$ spin states, which can be thought of as generated by the $q_A$.[^1] A state with $k$ particles thus has $2^{k{\cal N}/4}$ states. These would be described by quantizing $N_F = \frac{1}{2} k{\cal N}$ real fermionic coordinates, with action first order in time. In table 1 we give the count of real bosonic and fermionic coordinates in $3 \leq d \leq 10$, for the minimal supersymmetry algebra in each dimension.
$d$ ${\cal N}$ $N_B/k$ $N_F/k = {\cal N}_Q$
------ ------------ --------- ----------------------
$3$ $2$ $1$ $1$
$4$ $4$ $2$ $2$
$5$ $8$ $3$ $4$
$6$ $8$ $4$ $4$
$7$ $16$ $5$ $8$
$8$ $16$ $6$ $8$
$9$ $16$ $7$ $8$
$10$ $16$ $8$ $8$
: Number of real bosonic and fermionic coordinates per particle.
Consider the case of $d=6$, where there are four supercharges. Supersymmetric QM with ${\cal N}_Q = 4$ can be obtained by dimensional reduction from the familiar $D=4$, $N=1$ nonlinear sigma models,[@zumino] giving QM on a Kähler space. A space with $4k$ bosonic coordinates can be described with $2k$ chiral superfields, each having complex scalar. Each chiral superfield also contains two complex fermion fields, giving a total of $8k$ real fermion fields. Under dimensional reduction to QM, each field becomes a coordinate. From table 1, the number of fermionic coordinates in the Kähler models is twice that in the DLCQ theory, so the latter are not of the familiar type. Note from the table that in dimensions 3, 4, 6, and 10 the numbers of bosonic and fermion coordinates are equal. In other dimensions the number of fermionic coordinates is greater, but always less than would be obtained with $D=4$, $N=1$ superfields.
After some work on this problem, we learned that the quantum mechanical systems with $N_B = N_F$ (as in $d = 3, 4, 6, 10$) had already been constructed in some detail by Gibbons, Papadopoulos, and Stelle,[@GPS] following earlier work of Coles and Papadopoulos,[@CP] Gibbons, Rietdijk, and van Holten,[@GRV] and De Jonghe, Peeters, and Sfetsos ;[@DPS] they have been further analyzed in a recent paper by Michelson and Strominger.[@MS] The physical motivation was different, namely the study of black hole moduli spaces. The QM systems for $d = 4,
6$, and $10$ are respectively the 2A, 4A, and 8A models of those authors (for $d=3$, where ${\cal N}_Q = 1$, the models are constructed with standard superfields). The supersymmetry multiplets cannot be obtained by dimensional reduction from four dimensions, but they can be obtained dimensional reduction of the $(2,0)$, $(4,0)$, and $(8,0)$ multiplets in two dimensions. Not all quantum mechanical Lagrangians can be obtained by dimensional reduction, because the one-dimensional theory has less spacetime symmetry.
In this paper we will describe some small extensions of the earlier work on these models. First, we show how the the 4A theories can be constructed with $D=1$, $N=4$ superfields (the reduction of the familiar $D=4$, $N=1$ superfields) with an extra constraint; the previous work used $D=1$, $N=1$ superfields. Second, we consider the addition of a gauge field on moduli space. Finally, we show how models with $N_B < N_F$ can be obtained by a reduction of those with $N_B = N_F$; a new feature here is that a potential energy term can arise.
Superfield Description of the 4A Theories
=========================================
To deduce the field content we consider the states of a free massless particle in six dimensions. The 6-dimensional supersymmetry algebra has an $SU(2)$ $R$-symmetry. Under $SO(5,1)
\times SU(2)_R$ the supercharge transforms as $({\bf
4}, {\bf 2})$. The DLCQ breaks this to $SO(4) \times SU(2)_R = SU(2)_1 \times SU(2)_2 \times SU(2)_R$. The supercharge decomposes $$\begin{aligned}
&(\frac{1}{2}, {\bf 2}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 2}):& Q_{AX} \nonumber\\
&(-\frac{1}{2}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 2}, {\bf 2}):& q_{MX} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the $\pm \frac{1}{2}$ is the transformation under the longitudinal $SO(1,1)$. Indices $A, \ldots$, $M, \ldots$, and $X,
\ldots$ are used to label doublets of the three $SU(2)$’s. The supercharges satisfy a reality condition $$Q_{AX}^* = \epsilon^{AB} \epsilon^{XY} Q_{BY}\ , \qquad
q_{MX}^* = \epsilon^{MN} \epsilon^{XY} q_{NY}\ .
\label{real}$$
On a massless particle with $p_+ = 0$, the $Q_{AX}$ vanish while the $q_{MX}$ generate the spin states. In the quantum mechanics, the latter role is played by the quantized fermionic coordinates $\psi$, so we can identify these as transforming as $\psi_{MX}$ with the same reality condition as the $q_{MX}$. The bosonic coordinates are vectors of $SO(4)$ and so transform as $X_{AM}$, again with a reality condition: $$X_{AM}^* = \epsilon^{AB} \epsilon^{MN} X_{BN}\ , \qquad
\psi_{MX}^* = \epsilon^{MN} \epsilon^{XY} \psi_{NY}\ .
\label{realit}$$ We can readily write down the supersymmetry algebra for a free particle, $$\begin{aligned}
[ Q_{AX}, X_{B}\!^{M} ] { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\sqrt{2} \epsilon_{AB} \psi^{M}\!_{X}\ ,
\nonumber\\
\{ Q_{AX}, \psi^{M}\!_{Y} \} { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }i \sqrt{2} \epsilon_{XY} \dot
X_{A}\!^{M}\ .
\label{susy1}\end{aligned}$$ We use conventions of Wess and Bagger.[@WB] For example, $\epsilon^{12} = \epsilon_{21} = +1$, and indices are raised and lowered by left-multiplication with $\epsilon$.
Now let us compare with the superfields obtained by dimensional reduction from $D=4$. We should emphasize that dimensional reduction and DLCQ, while they both lead to supersymmetric QM, are completely different. The DLCQ takes a quantum field theory in $d$ dimensions to QM in $d-2$ spatial dimensions. Reduction takes quantum field theory in $D$ dimensions to quantum field theory in 1 dimension (time), where the fields are reinterpreted as coordinates.
To get the right number of bosons we take two chiral superfields $\Phi^i$. In addition to the doublet index $i$ there is a doublet index $\alpha$ on the superspace coordinates $\theta$ and a doublet index $\dot\alpha$ on their conjugates. Because the reduction breaks $SO(3,1)$ to $SO(3)$, indices ${}_\alpha$ and ${}^{\dot\alpha}$ transform in the same way. The superderivative algebra reduces to $$\{ D_\alpha, D_{\dot\beta} \} = 2i
\delta_{\alpha\dot\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\ .$$ The supersymmetry transformations of the scalar components are $$\begin{aligned}
[ Q_{\alpha}, A^{i} ] { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\sqrt{2}
\psi^i_\alpha\ ,
\nonumber\\
{}[ Q_{\alpha}, A^{i*} ] { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }0\ ,\end{aligned}$$ and the conjugate relations. The DLCQ and superfield transformations are of the same form provided we identify $$Q_\alpha = Q_{2X} \big|_{X=\alpha} \ ,\quad A^i =
X_{1}\!^{M}\big|_{M=i}\ ,
\quad \psi^i_\alpha = \psi^{M}\!_{X} \big|_{X=\alpha, M=i}
\ . \label{dict}$$ Notice in particular that $A^{i*}$ is then $-\epsilon_{ij}
X_{2}^j$.
From the introduction we know that the superfield description has twice as many fermion fields as the DLCQ. Here this arises because the latter satisfy the reality condition, $$\psi^{i*}_\alpha = -\epsilon_{ij} \epsilon^{\alpha\beta}
\psi^j_\beta\ .\label{psireal}$$ This can be incorporated into the superfield formalism by the new constraint $$\bar D_{\dot\alpha} \Phi^{i*} = -\epsilon_{ij}
\delta_{\dot\alpha\alpha}
\epsilon^{\alpha\beta} D_{\beta} \Phi^j\ , \label{newcon}$$ which is in addition to the usual chiral constraint $\bar D_{\dot\beta}
\Phi^j = 0$. This has no effect on the lowest, bosonic, components $A^i$, while eliminating half of the fermionic components. It also eliminates the auxiliary components in terms of the velocities.
To describe $k$ free particles one would use $k$ pairs of superfields, with the constraint Eq. \[newcon\] on each. To obtain a general interacting theory we must consider the generalization $$\bar D_{\dot\alpha} \Phi^{i*} =
J^{\bar\imath}\!_{j\dot\alpha}\!^\beta (\Phi,\Phi^*)
D_{\beta} \Phi^j\ . \label{newgen}$$ This nonlinear constraint must be consistent, meaning that it represents only the same number of constraints as the linearized version Eq. \[newcon\], eliminating the auxiliary fields and half the fermions, and leaving the lowest components unconstrained. First, from the conjugate of Eq. \[newgen\] we obtain $$J^{\bar\imath}\!_{j\dot\alpha}\!^\beta (
J^{\bar\jmath}\!_{k\dot\beta}\!^\gamma)^* =
\delta^{\bar\imath}{}_{\bar k}
\delta_{\dot\alpha}{}^{\dot\gamma}$$ Second, acting on both sides with $\bar D_{\dot\gamma}$ gives $$\bar D_{\dot\gamma} \bar D_{\dot\alpha} \Phi^{i*} =
J^{\bar\imath}\!_{j\dot\alpha}\!^\beta{}_{,\bar k}
\bar D_{\dot\gamma} \bar\Phi^k D_{\beta} \Phi^j +
2i J^{\bar\imath}\!_{j\dot\alpha}\!^\beta
\delta_{\beta\dot\gamma} \partial_t
\Phi^j
\ . \label{barD}$$ Focus on the lowest component of this equation. The LHS is antisymmetric in $\dot\alpha\dot\gamma$; in order that this equation not constrain the velocities, but just eliminate the auxiliary field, the second term on the RHS must also be antisymmetric in $\dot\alpha\dot\gamma$. Thus, $$J^{\bar\imath}\!_{j\dot\alpha}\!^\beta(\Phi,\Phi^*)
= J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j}(\Phi,\Phi^*)
\delta_{\dot\alpha\alpha} \epsilon^{\alpha\beta}\ ,
\qquad J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j} J^j{}_{\bar k}
= -\delta^{\bar\imath}{}_{\bar k} \label{almost}$$ where $J^j{}_{\bar k} \equiv (J^{\bar \jmath}{}_{k})^*$. The part of Eq. \[barD\] which is symmetric in $\dot\alpha\dot\gamma$ comes only from the first term on the RHS, and can now be written $$0 = J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j, \bar k}
J^{\bar k}{}_{l}(
D^{\gamma} \Phi^l D^{\alpha} \Phi^j + D^{\alpha} \Phi^l D^{\gamma}
\Phi^j)
\label{barD1}$$ The expression in parentheses is antisymmetric in $lj$. In order that Eq. \[barD1\] not represent new constraints on the fields we need that it hold identically, and so $$J^{\bar k}{}_{[l} J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j], \bar k} = 0\ . \label{barD2}$$ Finally, acting on both sides of Eq. \[newgen\] with $D_\gamma$ and using the constraints gives $$2i\epsilon_{\delta\gamma} \partial_t \Phi^{i*} =
J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j, k} D_{\gamma} \Phi^k
D_{\delta} \Phi^j
+ J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j}
D_{\gamma} D_{\delta} \Phi^j\ .$$ The antisymmetric part of this again relates the auxiliary field to the velocities. Only the first term on the RHS has a symmetric part, and its vanishing identically implies $$J^{\bar\imath}{}_{[j, k]} = 0 \label{barD3}$$
Eqs. \[almost\], \[barD2\], and \[barD3\] imply consistency of the constraints: for example, one can regard them as determining the derivatives of $\Phi_i$ with respect to $\bar\theta^1$, $\bar\theta^2$, and $\theta^2$, and these are integrable. They imply $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{i*}_{1} { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j}(A, A^*) \psi^{j}_{2}
\nonumber\\
F^i { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }-i J^i{}_{\bar \jmath} \dot A^{j*} + J^i{}_{\bar \jmath}
J^{\bar
\jmath}{}_{k,l}\psi^k_{1} \psi^l_{2}
\ , \label{constr}\end{aligned}$$ for the components of [@WB] $$\Phi^i = A^i(y) + \sqrt{2} \theta\psi^i(y) + \theta\theta
F^i(y)\ ,$$ where $y = t - i \theta^\alpha \bar\theta^{\dot\alpha}
\delta_{\alpha\dot\alpha}$.
The geometric interpretation of the constraint Eqs. \[almost\], \[barD2\], and \[barD3\] is as follows. Eq. \[almost\] implies that the tensor $I_2$ defined by $$I_2 \biggl[ \begin{array}{c} \Phi^i \\ \Phi^{i*} \end{array}
\biggr] = \biggl[ \begin{array}{c} J^{i}{}_{\bar\jmath} \Phi^{j*}
\\ J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j} \Phi^j \end{array}
\biggr]$$ is an almost complex structure. This is in addition to the usual complex structure $$I_1 \biggl[ \begin{array}{c} \Phi^i \\ \Phi^{i*} \end{array}
\biggr] = \biggl[ \begin{array}{c} i\Phi^i \\ -i\bar\Phi^{i*}
\end{array}
\biggr]$$ of the superfield formalism. Eqs. \[barD2\] and \[barD3\] are then the vanishing of the Nijenhuis tensor for $I_2$, written in the complex coordinates associated to $I_1$. Thus $I_1$ is a complex structure, as is $I_3 = I_1 I_2 = - I_2 I_1$, in agreement with the conditions found previously.[@GPS]
An invariant action is given by the superspace invariant $$\int dt\,d^4\theta\,K(\Phi,\Phi^*)\ .$$ This automatically satisfies the geometric conditions for supersymmetry from refs. [@GPS; @MS] though we have not shown that all solutions are of this form.[^2] The bosonic kinetic term is $$K_{,i\bar\jmath}(A,A^*) (\dot A^i \dot A^{j*} + F^i F^{j*})
= K_{,i\bar\jmath}(A,A^*) (\dot A^i \dot A^{j*} +
J^i{}_{\bar k} J^{\bar \jmath}{}_l \dot A^l \dot A^{k*} )
\label{kin}$$ Introducing general real coordinates $x^a$, the metric on moduli space can be written symmetrically among the three complex structures, $$g_{ab} = \sum_{r=0}^3 I_{r}{\!}^c{\!}_a I_{r}{\!}^d{\!}_b K_{,cd}\ ,
\label{genmet}$$ where $I_0$ is the identity.
Gauge Fields on Moduli Space
============================
A small generalization of previous work is to add a gauge field on moduli space. We will do this both with $D=1$, $N=1$ superfields, following ref. [@GPS], and the $D=1$, $N=4$ superfields above.
In $N=1$ superfields we add a term $$S'=\int dt\,d\theta\, {\cal A}_a DX^a$$ where the lowest component of $X^a$ is the real coordinate $x^a$. Under the variation $$\delta X^a = \epsilon I^a_{rb} DX^b\ , \label{n1susy}$$ the variation of the action is $$\begin{aligned}
\delta S'{ \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\int dt\,d\theta\, ( {\cal A}_{a,b} \delta X^b DX^a
+ {\cal A}_a D \delta X^a ) \nonumber
\\ { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\int dt\,d\theta\, ( {\cal A}_{a,b}
- {\cal A}_{b,a}) DX^b \delta X^a \nonumber
\\ { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\epsilon\int dt\,d\theta\, {\cal F}_{ab} I^a_{rc} DX^b DX^c \ .\end{aligned}$$ By antisymmetry of $DX^b DX^c$, $${\cal F}^{\vphantom a}_{ab} I^a_{rc} + {\cal F}^{\vphantom a}_{ca}
I^a_{rb} = 0\ .$$ Thus the condition for 4A supersymmetry is that the indices of ${\cal
F}_{ab}$ be mixed — ${\cal F}$ be a (1,1)-form — in all three complex structures.
In $N=4$ superfields consider the half-superspace integral $$\begin{aligned}
S''{ \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\int dt\,d^2\theta\, W(\Phi,\Phi^*) + {\rm c.c.}
\nonumber\\
{ \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }-i W_{,i} J^i{}_{\bar \jmath} \dot A^{j*} + {\rm fermionic} +
{\rm c.c.} \ .\end{aligned}$$ so that $${\cal A}_{j} = i W_{,\bar\imath} J^{\bar\imath}{}_{j} \ ,\quad
{\cal A}_{\bar \jmath} = -i W_{,\bar\imath}^* J^i{}_{\bar \jmath} \
.\label{vect}$$ We do not assume $W$ to be holomorphic, but will see how it is constrained by supersymmetry. The supersymmetry variation of $S''$ is the integral of a total derivative except for the $\bar\theta$ derivative $$\int dt\,d^2\theta\, W_{,\bar\imath} D_{\dot\alpha} \Phi^{i*} + {\rm
c.c.} = -i \int dt\,d^2\theta\,
{\cal A}_{j} D^{\alpha} \Phi^j + {\rm c.c.}$$ using constraint Eq. \[newgen\]. In order that this integrate to zero, we must have ${\cal A}_{j} = \lambda_{,j}$ for some $\lambda$, or equivalently $${\cal F}_{jk} = {\cal F}_{\bar\jmath\bar k} = 0 \label{fmixed1}
\ .$$ Thus $\cal F$ is (1,1) with respect to $I_1$. Eq. \[vect\] is equivalent to $$0 = \partial_{[k} (J_{i]}{}^{\bar \jmath} {\cal A}_{\bar \jmath})
= J_{[i}{}^{\bar \jmath} \partial_{k]}{\cal A}_{\bar \jmath}\ ,
\label{amixed}$$ using Eq. \[barD3\]. Together with its conjugate this implies $$J_{[i}{}^{\bar \jmath} {\cal F}_{k]\bar \jmath} = 0\ , \label{fmixed}$$ which is the statement that $\cal F$ is (1,1) with respect to both $I_2$ and $I_3$. Thus we recover the same models as with $N=1$ superfields.[^3]
Dimensional Reduction
=====================
Systems with $N_B < N_F$ can be obtained from those with $N_B = N_F$ by a process of reduction. This requires that the original system have one or more isometries. With a single isometry, for example, we can choose coordinates in which it takes the form $\delta \xi =
\epsilon$. Then $\xi$ does not appear in the action undifferentiated, and so $\dot
\xi$ can be regarded as an independent auxiliary field $F$.
In $N=1$ superfield language, the corresponding superfield $\Xi$ does not appear in the action but $D \Xi$ may. The lower component of $D \Xi$ is a fermion and the upper is $\dot \xi \to F$. Such superfields, with a fermion and an auxiliary field, were considered in ref. [@CP], where they were denoted $\psi$. They can be used to construct models with $N_F > N_B$. However, it appears that not all such models can be obtained by dimensional reduction: we can work backwards, introducing a superfield $\Xi$ and replacing $\psi$ everywhere with $D\Xi$, only if the supersymmetry variations of $\psi$ are total spinor derivatives. For $D=1$, $N=1$ systems this is always possible, but for higher supersymmetries it is nontrivial.
This reduction process is suggested by the application to DLCQ: the systems in table 1 having $N_B < N_F$ can be obtained from those with $N_B = N_F$ by dimensional reduction. For example we can go from the $d=6$ system to the $d=5$ system by Kaluza-Klein reduction on $x^4$. In a $k$-particle system, all wavefunctions will be independent of $x^4$, so there are actually $k$ isometries.
Examples
--------
Let us illustrate the reduction for the 4A theory with a single isometry. The general bosonic action with an isometry is $$\frac{1}{2} g_{mn} \dot x^m \dot x^n + \frac{1}{2}
g_{\xi\xi} (\dot \xi + {\cal A}'_m \dot x^m)^2 + {\cal A}_m \dot
x^m + {\cal A}_\xi \dot \xi\ .$$ Here $m,n$ run only over the $4k-1$ non-cyclic coordinates. Note the Kaluza-Klein gauge field on moduli space ${\cal A}'_m$, which is in addition to the gauge field $({\cal A}_m, {\cal A}_4)$ introduced in section 4. Replacing $\dot
\xi \to F$ and solving for $F$ gives $$\frac{1}{2} g_{mn} \dot x^m \dot x^n - \frac{1}{2
g_{\xi\xi} } {\cal A}^2_\xi + ({\cal A}_m
- {\cal A}_\xi {\cal A}'_m) \dot x^m \ .$$ Thus a potential energy ${\cal A}^2_\xi / 2
g_{\xi\xi}$ is introduced. The net reduced gauge field ${\cal A}_m - {\cal A}_\xi {\cal A}'_m$ is invariant under reparameterization of $\xi \to \xi + \lambda(x^m)$.
Now let us begin with the simplest example, $k=1$ with the linear constraint Eq. \[newcon\] and no gauge field. The bosonic action in Eq. \[kin\] takes the form $$(K_{,1\bar 1} + K_{,2\bar 2}) (\dot A^1 \dot A^{1*} + \dot A^2
\dot A^{2*})\ .$$ In real coordinates this is $$\frac{1}{2} H(x^a)\, \dot x^b \dot x^b\ ,$$ where $H = \nabla^2 K$ is a generic function of $x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$. This example appears in refs. [@chs; @GPS].
Now reduce under translation in $x^4$. To make the result more interesting add a constant potential ${\cal A}_4 = C_1$. Then $H$ depends only on $x^m \equiv x^1,x^2,x^3$ and the reduced bosonic action is $$\frac{1}{2} H(x^m)\, \dot x^n \dot x^n -
\frac{C_1^2}{2H(x^m)} \ .$$
Focusing now on systems with spherical symmetry we have $H = H(r)$. An obvious generalization is to add a spherically symmetric magnetic field $${\cal B}_m = \frac{C_2 x^m}{r^3}\ ,\qquad {\cal A}_4 = C_1 +
\frac{C_2}{r} \ .$$ The form of ${\cal A}_4$ follows from the (1,1) condition on ${\cal F}$, which here reduces to self-duality. The reduced action is then $$\frac{1}{2} H(r)\, \dot x^n \dot x^n -
\frac{1}{2H(r)} \biggl( C_1 + \frac{C_2}{r} \biggr)^2
+ {\cal A}_m \dot x^m \ . \label{spher2}$$
An independent search for spherically symmetric quantum mechanical systems produced a further one-parameter generalization of these models. The bosonic actions are all of the form Eq. \[spher2\]; the generalization appears in the supersymmetry transformations and consequently the fermionic terms. These models can be obtained from reduction as follows. For $k=1$ there is a one-parameter generalization of the complex structures, given by Taub-NUT space, with the constant complex structure as a limit. This space has an $SU(2) \times U(1)$ isometry, so reducing on the $U(1)$ leaves a theory with $SU(2)$ rotational symmetry.
Taub-NUT Reduction
------------------
In the remainder of this paper we work out some of the (rather tedious) details of this reduction, beginning with the bosonic action. In coordinates $(x^1,x^2,x^3,\xi)$ with $\xi$ cyclic, the three complex structures are [@taubnut] $$\begin{aligned}
I_{1}\!^a\!_b { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\frac{1}{S} \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
-a_1 & -a_2 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -S & 0 \\
0 & S & 0 & 0 \\
S^2 + a_1^2 & a_1 a_2 & S a_2 & a_1 \end{array} \right]
\nonumber\\
I_{2}\!^a\!_b { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\frac{1}{S} \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & S & 0 \\
-a_1 & -a_2 & 0 & -1 \\
-S & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
a_1 a_2 & S^2 + a_2^2 & - S a_1 & a_2 \end{array} \right]
\nonumber\\
I_{3}\!^a\!_b { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }\left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -S^{-1} { a}_2 & 0 & - S^{-1} \\
- { a}_2 & { a}_1 & S & 0 \end{array} \right]\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is the Taub-NUT parameter and $a_n$ is a magnetic monopole field of unit strength, $$S = \frac{1}{2m} + \frac{1}{r}\ ,\qquad a_\phi = \cos \theta\ .$$ After some computation, one finds from Eq. \[genmet\] that the general metric with a $U(1)$ isometry is $$ds^2 = H(x^m) \bigl[ d x^n d x^n + S^{-2}(d \xi + a_n
d x^n )^2 \bigr] \ ,$$ where $H = \partial_m \partial_m K$ and $K$ is independent of $\xi$. For $H = 2mS$ this is the hyper-Kähler Taub-NUT metric, so these metrics are conformal to Taub-NUT.
We now add a gauge field ${\cal A}_a$. We find it convenient to impose rotational invariance before the $(1,1)$ condition. The condition that the gauge field term ${\cal A}_a
\dot x^a$ be invariant up to a time derivative under a general Killing vector $L^a$ is $$L^a {\cal F}_{bc,a} = L^a\!_{,b} {\cal F}_{ca}
- L^a\!_{,c} {\cal F}_{ba} \ .$$ In this case the Killing vectors are $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }x^2 \partial_3 - x^3 \partial_2 + \frac{r x^1}{(x^1)^2 +
(x^2)^2}\partial_\xi \ ,\nonumber\\
L_2 { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }x^3 \partial_1 - x^1 \partial_3 + \frac{r x^2}{(x^1)^2 +
(x^2)^2}\partial_\xi\ ,\nonumber\\
L_3 { \hspace{-6pt}&=&\hspace{-6pt} }x^1 \partial_2 - x^2 \partial_1 \ ,\quad L_\xi =
\partial_\xi\ .\end{aligned}$$ Rotational invariance then implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}_{m\xi} = x^m f(r)\, ,\quad
{\cal F}_{12} = x^3 g(r)\, ,\quad
{\cal F}_{23} = x^1 h(r,x^3)\, ,\quad {\cal F}_{31} = x^2
h(r,x^3)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $h(r,x^3) = g(r) - r f(r) / (r^2 - (x^3)^2)$. The Bianchi identity becomes $$f + rf' = 3rg + r^2 g'$$ and the $(1,1)$ conditions reduce to $$g = -f/2m\ .$$ Integrating the Bianchi identity gives $$f = \frac{a}{r(r+2m)^2}$$ with $a$ an integration constant. The gauge field is then $${\cal A}_\phi = \frac{az}{2m(r+2m)}
\ ,\qquad {\cal A}_\xi = - \frac{a}{r+2m} + b\ .$$
Upon reduction, the bosonic action is the same as in Eq. \[spher2\] with $$C_1 = \frac{b}{2m}\ ,\qquad C_2 = \frac{2mb-a}{2m}\ .$$ Taking the limit $m \to 0$ with $C_1$ and $C_2$ fixed gives the earlier models. In the bosonic action the three parameters $(m, a, b)$ collapse into two, $(C_1,C_2)$. However, the third parameter appears in the supersymmetry transformation, Eq. \[n1susy\], since this depends on the complex structure and therefore on $m$ separately. The fermionic terms in the action are therefore also affected. The general Lagrangian can be written $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{2} g_{ab} \dot x^a \dot x^b + \frac{i}{2} \psi^a
\bigl[ g_{ab} \dot \psi^b + (\Gamma_{abc} - c_{abc}) \dot x^b
\psi^c \bigr] - \frac{1}{6} c_{abc,d} \psi^a \psi^b \psi^c
\psi^d \nonumber\\
&& \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
{}+ {\cal A}_a \dot x^a + \frac{1}{2} {\cal F}_{ab}
\psi^a \psi^b\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is a torsion form.[@GPS; @MS] The torsion form here is $$c = \biggl(H'(r) + \frac{2m}{r^2} \biggr) \sin \theta d\phi \wedge
d\theta \wedge d\xi$$ (see the appendix to ref. [@chs] or Eq. 4.14 of ref. [@GPS]). Thus the fermionic terms depend separately on $m$, through $g_{ab}$ and $c_{abc}$. For the Taub-NUT metric the torsion vanishes, as it must.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by NSF grants PHY94-07194 and PHY97-22022.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Yu. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman, [*JETP Lett.*]{} [**13**]{}, 323 (1971);\
P. Ramond, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**3**]{}, 2415 (1971);\
A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**31**]{}, 86 (1971);\
J. L. Gervais and B. Sakita, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**34**]{}, 632 (1971);\
D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, [*JETP Lett.*]{} [**16**]{} 438 (1972); [*Phys.Lett.*]{} B [**46**]{}, 109 (1973);\
J. Wess and B. Zumino, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**70**]{}, 39 (1974). P. A. Dirac, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**21**]{}, 392 (1949). T. Maskawa and K. Yamawaki, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**56**]{}, 270 (1976); ;\
A. Casher, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**14**]{}, 452 (1977);\
R. Giles and C. B. Thorn, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**16**]{}, 366 (1977);\
C. B. Thorn, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**19**]{}, 639 (1979);\
H. C. Pauli and S. J. Brodsky, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**32**]{}, 1993 (1985). For reviews see:\
T. Banks, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**67**]{}, 180 (1998) hep-th/9710231.\
D. Bigatti and L. Susskind, hep-th/9712072. S. Hellerman and J. Polchinski, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} D [**59**]{}, 125002 (1999) hep-th/9711037. S. Hellerman and J. Polchinski, Proceedings of Strings ’99. B. Zumino, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} B [**87**]{}, 203 (1979). G. W. Gibbons, G. Papadopoulos and K.S. Stelle, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**508**]{}, 623 (1997) hep-th/9706207. R. A. Coles and G. Papadopoulos, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**7**]{}, 427 (1990). G. W. Gibbons, R. H. Rietdijk, and J. W. van Holten, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**404**]{}, 42 (1993) hep-th/9303112. F. De Jonghe, K. Peeters, and K. Sfetsos, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**14**]{}, 35 (1997) hep-th/9607203. J. Michelson and A. Strominger, hep-th/9907191. J. Wess and J. Bagger, [*Supersymmetry and Supergravity*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992). C. G. Callan, J. A. Harvey, and A. Strominger, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} B [**359**]{}, 611 (1991). G. W. Gibbons and P. J. Ruback, [*Comm. Math.Phys.*]{} [**115**]{}, 267 (1988).
[^1]: We are interested in particles that are massless (or BPS) in $d$ dimensions, and so transform in small multiplets.
[^2]: The superspace formalism is not essential here; once the transformation laws are determined one can take the fourth variation of a scalar function.
[^3]: Eq. \[amixed\] would appear to be stronger than Eq. \[fmixed\], but the difference is a gauge choice. The earlier Eq. \[fmixed1\] implies that ${\cal A}_j = \partial_j \lambda$ and ${\cal A}_{\bar\jmath} =
\partial_{\bar\jmath}(\lambda^*)$. The real part of $\lambda$ can be set to zero by a gauge transformation, and then Eqs.\[amixed\] and \[fmixed\] are equivalent.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a low energy expansion of the Kramers-Heisenberg formula for atomic hydrogen in terms of $(\omega/\omega_l)$, where $\omega_l$ and $\omega$ are the angular frequencies corresponding to the Lyman limit and the incident radiation, respectively. The leading term is proportional to $(\omega/\omega_l)^4$, which admits a well-known classical interpretation. With higher order terms we achieve accuracy with errors less than 4 % of the scattering cross sections in the region $\omega/\omega_l\le 0.6$. In the neighboring region around Ly$\alpha$ ($\omega/\omega_l >0.6$), we also present an explicit expansion of the Kramers-Heisenberg formula in terms of $\Delta\omega\equiv
(\omega-\omega_{Ly\alpha})/\omega_{Ly\alpha}$. The accuracy with errors less than 4 % can be attained for $\omega/\omega_l \ge 0.6$ with the expansion up to the fifth order of $\Delta\omega$. We expect that these formulae will be usefully applied to the radiative transfer in high neutral column density regions, including the Gunn-Peterson absorption troughs and Rayleigh scattering in the atmospheres of giants.
author:
- |
Hee-Won Lee[^1] and Hee Il Kim [^2]\
Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos\
Department of Astronomy and Space Sciences, Sejong University, Seoul, 143-747, Korea
date: 'Accepted 1988 December 15. Received 1988 December 14; in original form 1988 October 11'
title: 'Rayleigh Scattering Cross Section Redward of Ly$\alpha$ by Atomic Hydrogen'
---
\[firstpage\]
atomic data — atomic processes — radiative transfer — scattering
Introduction
============
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and therefore one may often encounter astronomical situations associated with the radiative transfer in a region with a very high neutral hydrogen column density $N_{HI}$. The extended atmosphere around a giant star is such an example, where near UV photons can be significantly scattered by atomic hydrogen (e.g. Isliker, Nussbaumer & Vogel 1989). Another example may be found in searches for the first objects that are responsible for the reionization of the universe. When the universe is still partially neutral before the completion of the reionization process, radiation should go through regions with a very high neutral hydrogen column density $N_{HI}$.
In particular, the interactions with low energy electromagnetic waves with angular frequency $\omega$ are simply Rayleigh scattering, where the scattering cross section is known to be proportional to $\omega^4$ in the limiting case where $\omega$ is much smaller than the angular frequency $\omega_{Ly\alpha}$ corresponding to the Ly$\alpha$ transitions.
In quantum mechanics, the Rayleigh scattering process is described by a second-order time dependent perturbation theory, where the scattering atom suffers level transition twice, one associated with the annihilation of the incident photon and the other associated with the creation of the scattered photon. The scattering cross section is known as the Kramers-Heisenberg formula, which is obtained by combining an infinite sum over all the bound $np$ states with the energy $E=-E_0/n^2$ and an integral over all continuum states $n'p$ with the energy $E=E_0/n'^2$, where $E_0$ is the Rydberg energy (e.g. Sakurai 1967). Since the wave functions are analytically known for a single electron atom, the Kramers-Heisenberg formula for hydrogen can be written explicitly in a closed form.
However, the Kramers-Heisenberg formula is unwieldy due to the presence of the infinitely many atomic levels contributing to the cross section. In the case of a hydrogen atom in the ground state interacting with incident radiation with $\omega$ much less than $\omega_{Ly\alpha}$, this inconvenience can be overcome by expanding the Kramers-Heisenberg formula in terms of $\omega/\omega_{Ly\alpha}$. Devoid of any resonance in the red region of Ly$\alpha$, the scattering cross section is a well-behaved monotonic function of $\omega$, and the leading term is proportional to $\omega^4$, which admits an immediate classical interpretation. Because $\omega^4$ dependence is the limiting behaviour of $\omega/\omega_{Ly\alpha} \ll 1$, inclusion of higher order terms will be useful to obtain more accurate cross section values in the red vicinity of Ly$\alpha$. However, very near the Ly$\alpha$ resonance, the cross section is well approximated by a Lorentzian and hence a polynomical approximation becomes poor. Lee (2003) introduced an expansion of the Kramers-Heisenberg formula near Ly$\alpha$, by computing the deviation from the Lorentzian.
In this paper, we will provide and compute the accuracy of the expansions that provide the Rayleigh scattering cross section redward of Ly$\alpha$.
Calculation
===========
The Kramers-Heisenberg Formula
------------------------------
The interaction of electromagnetic waves with an atomic electron is described using the Kramers-Heisenberg formula that is obtained from the fully quantum mechanical second-order time dependent theory (e.g. Sakurai 1969, Merzbacher 1970). In terms of the matrix elements of the dipole operator, the Kramers-Heisenberg formula can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{d\sigma\over d\Omega}
&=& r_0^2 \left|{1\over m_e\hbar}
\sum_I \left({{\omega({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha')})_{IA}
({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha)})_{AI}}\over{\omega_{IA}-\omega}}
\right.\right.
\nonumber \\
&-& \left.\left. {{\omega({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha)})_{IA}
({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha')})_{AI}}\over{\omega_{AI}+\omega}}
\right)\right|^2r
\nonumber \\
&=& \left({r_0\omega\over m_e\hbar}\right)^2 \left|
\sum_I \left({{({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha')})_{IA}
({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha)})_{AI}}\over
{\omega_{IA}^2(1-\omega/\omega_{IA})}}
\right.\right.
\nonumber \\
&-& \left.\left. {{({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha)})_{IA}
({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha')})_{AI}}\over{\omega_{IA}^2
(1+\omega/\omega_{IA})}}
\right)\right|^2,
\nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$ where $m_e$ is the electron mass, $r_0=e^2/m_e c^2$ is the classical electron radius, and $\epsilon^{\alpha}, \epsilon^{\alpha'}$ are polarization vectors of incident and scattered radiation respectively. Here, $\omega_{IA}$ is the angular frequency between the intermediate state $I$ and the ground state $A=1s$. The intermediate state $I$ includes all the bound $np$ and free $n'p$ states, and therefore the summation notation should be interpreted as a sum over all bound $np$ states plus an integration over all continuum $n'p$ states.
The Wigner-Eckart theorem allows one to separate the matrix elements of the rank 1 tensor operator $p$ into the angular part and the radial part, where the radial part is given by the reduced matrix elements $<f\parallel p\parallel i>$. (e.g. Merzbacher 1970). Applying the Wigner-Eckart theorem, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_I& {\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha)})_{AI}
({\bf p}\cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha')})_{AI} \nonumber \\
%&=&\sum_I <p>_{IA}<p>_{AI}\epsilon^{(\alpha)} \cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha')}
%\nonumber \\
&=&\sum_I |<I\parallel p\parallel A>|^2
\epsilon^{(\alpha)} \cdot \epsilon^{(\alpha')}. \end{aligned}$$ The dot product of the polarization gives rise to the same dipole type angular distribution as that for Thomson scattering or classical Rayleigh scattering (e.g. Lee & Ahn 1998, Lee & Lee 1997, Schmid 1989).
Blueward of Ly$\alpha$ the cross section shows singular behaviours at resonances with bound excited states, which can be avoided introducing damping terms associated with the finite life times of excited states. However, redward of Ly$\alpha$, there is no resonance and the cross section is a well-behaved monotonic function of $\omega_i$. We have $\omega<\omega_{IA}$ for any intermediate state $I$ redward of Ly$\alpha$, which allows the expansion $$\left(1\pm {\omega\over\omega_{IA}}\right)^{-1}
=1\mp {\omega\over\omega_{IA}} + {\omega^2\over\omega_{IA}^2}\mp
\cdots.$$
Substituting these relations into Eq. (1), we have $$\begin{aligned}
{d\sigma\over d\Omega}
&=& \left({r_0 m_e \over \hbar}\right)^2 \omega^4 \left|
\epsilon^{(\alpha')}\cdot\epsilon^{(\alpha)}\right.
\nonumber \\
& & \sum_I \left[{|<A\parallel r\parallel I>|^2 \over
\omega_{IA}}
(1+{\omega\over\omega_{IA}}+{\omega^2\over \omega_{IA}^2}+ \cdots)\right.
\nonumber \\
&+& \left.\left.
{|<I\parallel r\parallel A>|^2 \over\omega_{IA}}
(1-{\omega\over\omega_{IA}} +{\omega^2 \over \omega_{IA}^2} -\cdots)
\right]\right|^2
\nonumber \\
&=& \left({2r_0 m_e \over \hbar}\right)^2 \omega^4 \left|
\epsilon^{(\alpha')}\cdot\epsilon^{(\alpha)}\right|^2
\nonumber \\
& & \left|\sum_I {|<A\parallel r\parallel I>|^2 \over
\omega_{IA}}
(1+{\omega^2\over\omega_{IA}^2}+{\omega^4\over \omega_{IA}^4}+ \cdots)
\right|^2\end{aligned}$$ Here, we used a commutation relation $$<A|{\bf p}|I>=im_e\omega_{IA}<A|{\bf x}|I>,$$ which results from the commutation relation ${\bf p}=m[{\bf x}, H_0]/i\hbar$ with $H_0$ being the Hamiltonian. The leading term is proportional to $\omega^4$, which is well-known result for the Rayleigh scattering cross section in the low energy limit.
By performing the angular integration for unpolarized incident radiation and averaging over the polarization for an outgoing radiation, we have $\int d\Omega |\epsilon^{(\alpha')}\cdot\epsilon^{(\alpha)}| =
{8\pi\over 3}$. We define the dimensionless angular frequencies $$\tilde\omega_{IA}\equiv {\omega_{IA}\over\omega_l},$$ where $\omega_l$ is the angular frequency corresponding to the Lyman limit. From this we have $\tilde\omega_{np\ 1s} =1- n^{-2}$ and $\tilde\omega_{n'p\ 1s} =1+ (n')^{-2}$ for a bound $np$ state and a continuum $n'p$ state, respectively. In a similar way, we define a dimensionless position operator $${\bf \tilde r} = {{\bf r}\over a_0}$$ where $a_0=\hbar^2/(m_e e^2)=0.53{\rm\ \AA}$ is the Bohr radius for hydrogen.
With these definitions we may write the total scattering cross section $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(\omega) &=& \sigma_T
\left({\omega\over 3\omega_l}\right)^4
\left|
\sum_I {|<A\parallel {\tilde r}\parallel I>|^2 \over \tilde\omega_{IA}}
\right. \nonumber \\
& & \left[1+{1\over\tilde\omega_{IA}^2}\left({\omega\over\omega_l}\right)^2
\right. +
\left.\left. {1\over\tilde\omega_{IA}^4}\left({\omega\over\omega_l}\right)^4
+\cdots \right]
\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\sigma_T={8\pi r_0^2/3}=0.665\times 10^{-24}{\rm\ cm^2}$ is the Thomson scattering cross section. We note that the leading term is proportional to $\omega^4$, which is a well-known result for Rayleigh scattering. We are interested in the higher order terms of $\omega/\omega_l$ for better approximation redward of Ly$\alpha$.
The matrix elements of the dipole operators $<np\parallel \tilde r\parallel 1s>, <n'p\parallel x\parallel 1s>$ are easily found in textbooks on quantum mechanics (e.g. Berestetski, Lifshitz & Pitaevskii 1971, Saslow & Mills 1969, Bethe & Salpeter 1967). The matrix elements are given by $$<np\parallel \tilde r\parallel 1s> =\left[ {2^{8}n^7 (n-1)^{2n-5}}\over
{3(n+1)^{2n+5}} \right]^{1\over2}$$ for the bound states. For the continuum states, the corresponding values are given by $$<n'p\parallel \tilde r\parallel 1s>
=\left[ {2^{8}(n')^7 e^{-4n'\tan^{-1}(1/n')}}\over
{3[(n')^2+1]^{5}[1-e^{-2\pi n'}]} \right]^{1\over2} .$$ Here, the normalization condition for continuum wavefunctions is $$\int_0^\infty R_{n_1'p}(r) R_{n_2'p} r^2 dr = \delta(n_1'-n_2'),$$ where $\delta(n')$ is the Dirac delta function.
With these matrix elements we may divide the terms involving bound states and continuum states and write the scattering cross section as a sum of two power series of $\omega/\omega_l$ $$\frac{\sigma(\omega)}{\sigma_{T}}=\biggr(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{l}}\biggr)^{4}
\left[
\sum^{\infty}_{p=0}a_{p} \biggr(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{l}}\biggr)^{2p}
+ \sum^{\infty}_{p=0}b_{p}
\biggr(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{l}}\biggr)^{2p} \right]^{2}.$$ Here, the coefficients $a_p, b_p$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{p}&=& \sum^{\infty}_{n=2} \frac{2^{8}n^7 (n-1)^{2n-5}}{3(n+1)^{2n+5}}
\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)^{-2p-1} ~, \nonumber \\
b_{p}&=& \int^{\infty}_{0} dn^{\prime} \frac{2^{8}(n')^7 e^{-4n'\tan^{-1}(1/n')
}}
{3[(n')^2+1]^{5}[1-e^{-2\pi n'}]}
\left(1+\frac{1}{n'^2}\right)^{-2p-1} ~.\end{aligned}$$
We rewrite Eq. (12) as a single power series $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sigma(\omega)}{\sigma_{T}} &=&
\left({\omega\over \omega_l}\right)^4
\left[
c_0+c_1\left({\omega\over\omega_l}\right)^2
+c_2\left({\omega\over\omega_l}\right)^4
+\cdots
\right] \nonumber \\
&=&\biggr(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{l}}\biggr)^{4}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty} c_{p}
\biggr(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{l}}\biggr)^{2p},\end{aligned}$$ which forms a low energy expansion of the Kramers-Heisenberg formula. The coefficients $c_{p}$ are obtained from the coefficients $a_p$ and $b_p$ by the relation $$c_{p}=\sum^{p}_{q=0} (a_{q}+b_{q}) (a_{p-q}+b_{p-q}).$$ In Table 1, we listed the numerical values of the coefficients $a_p, b_p$ and $c_p$ up to $p=9$. It is noted that the continuum contribution represented by $b_p$ is small for high orders, but not negligible for low orders and must be included for accurate calculations.
p $c_p$ $a_p$ $b_p$ p $c_p$ $a_p$ $b_p$
--- --------- --------- --------- --- --------- --------- ---------
0 1.26537 0.9157 0.2092 5 81.1018 13.5826 0.0571
1 3.73766 1.52456 0.1368 6 161.896 23.9 0.04983
2 8.8127 2.58886 0.1015 7 319.001 42.19 0.0442
3 19.1515 4.4587 0.08061 8 622.229 74.641 0.03971
4 39.919 7.75546 0.06685 9 1203.82 132.251 0.03605
Result
======
Low Energy Expansion
--------------------
In Fig. 1, we show our result for the low energy expansion in Eq. (14) up to $p=9$ by a long dashed line. In the figure, we also show the result from the fully quantum mechanical computation, which was numerically obtained by performing the summation and integration appearing in the Kramers-Heisenberg formula. The exact cross section of Rayleigh scattering by atomic hydrogen was presented by Gavrila (1967), who computed the Green function in momentum space and provided the cross section in a tabular form. The crosses in the figure mark the result from the work of Gavrila (1967). It is noted that the cross marks are found on the solid line indicating excellent agreement.
Because the Ly$\alpha$ resonance is located at $\omega/\omega_l=0.75$, the covergence is rather slow for $\omega/\omega_l \simeq 0.6$, which requires a large number of terms in the expansion. This behaviour is natural because the scattering cross section changes too steeply near resonance for any polynomial approximation to be suitable. On the other hand, in the region with $\omega/\omega_l <0.5$ the agreement is almost perfect and the two results are not distinguished in the figure.
For comparison purpose, we make a plot for the polynomial fit to the result of Gavrila (1967) obtained by Ferland (2001). He incorporated it in his photoionization code ‘Cloudy,’ in which the formula is quoted to be useful for radiation with $\lambda >1410 {\rm\ \AA}$, corresponding to $\omega/\omega_l = 0.647$. He used the Lorentzian function instead for $\lambda <1410 {\rm\ \AA}$, where the resonance of Ly$\alpha$ dominates. The polynomial fit to the scattering cross section obtained by Ferland (2001) is $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{Cl}(\omega) &=& \Bigg[8.41 \times 10^{-25}
\left({\omega\over\omega_l}\right)^4 +3.37\times 10^{-24}
\left({\omega\over\omega_l}\right)^6 \nonumber \\
&+&4.71\times 10^{-22}
\left({\omega\over\omega_l}\right)^{14} \Bigg]{\rm\ cm^{2}},\end{aligned}$$ which shows the same $\omega^4$ dependence in the leading term. In Fig. 1, we also show the values obtained from this polynomial fit by a dotted line.
Because the coefficients $a_p, b_p$ and $c_p$ are all positive, any finite expansion of Eq. (14) gives smaller values than the true ones obtained from the full Kramers-Heisenberg formula. Therefore, the long dashed line is always located under the solid line. However, such a behaviour cannot be seen in the case of the polynomial fit given by Eq. (16), for which it crosses the solid line at $\omega/\omega_l \sim 0.54$.
Near-Resonance Behavior
-----------------------
Lee (2003) discussed the deviation of the scattering cross section from the Lorentzian near Ly$\alpha$ resonance. The deviation is attributed to contributions from infinitely many other states than $2p$. According to him, near resonance, the Kramers-Heisenberg formula can be expanded in terms of $\Delta\omega = \omega -\omega_{21}$, where $\omega_{21} = 0.75\omega_l$ is the angular frequency corresponding to the Ly$\alpha$ transition. Explicitly, the expansion can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(\omega) &=& \sigma_T \left( {\omega_{21}\over\Delta\omega} \right)^2
\left|A_0+A_1\left({\Delta\omega\over\omega_{21}}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&+&\left. A_2\left({\Delta\omega\over\omega_{21}}\right)^2
+\cdots \right|^2. \end{aligned}$$ The coefficients up to $A_5$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
A_0 &=& f_{12}/2 = 0.2081 \nonumber \\
A_1/A_0 & = & -0.8961 \nonumber \\
A_2/A_0 & = & -1.222\times 10^1 \nonumber \\
A_3/A_0 & = & -5.252\times 10^1 \nonumber \\
A_4/A_0 & = & -2.438\times 10^2 \nonumber \\
A_5/A_0 & = & -1.210\times 10^3, \end{aligned}$$ where $f_{12}=0.4162$ is the oscillator strength for the Ly$\alpha$ transition.
With these coefficients, the Rayleigh scattering cross section near Ly$\alpha$ can be written explicitly up to the fifth order $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma_{L}(\tilde{\omega})\over \sigma_T}&=& {0.0433056 \over
\tilde{\omega}^{2}} (1-1.792
\tilde{\omega} - 23.637 \tilde{\omega}^{2} \nonumber \\
&-& 83.1393 \tilde{\omega}^{3} - 244.1453 \tilde{\omega}^{4} -
699.473\tilde{\omega}^{5} )\end{aligned}$$ where we define $\tilde{\omega}\equiv(\omega-0.75)/0.75=
\Delta\omega/\omega_{21}$.
In Fig. 2 we make a plot of this expansion up to the fifth order represented by a dotted line. We also compare this result with the results from the full Kramers-Heisenberg formula and approximations with lower order corrections. In this figure, the cross marks from the result of Gavrila (1969) fall on the solid line representing the full Kramers-Heisenberg formula as seen in Fig. 1. The agreement with the fifth order correction to the Lorentzian is excellent.
It is very interesting to note that the approximation of the first order correction to the Lorentzian depicted by a dashed line is poorer than just the Lorentzian without any correction terms in the region $\omega/\omega_l
\sim 0.7$ represented by a dot-dash line. However, the first order approximation is excellent and better than the Lorentzian very near the resonance, i.e., $\frac{\omega}{\omega_{l}} > 0.70$, which is not plotted here (see Lee 2003). This behaviour is explained by the alternating nature of the series given in Eq. (19).
As is done in the photoionization code ‘Cloudy’ by Ferland (2001), the Rayleigh scattering cross section is approximated by the Lorentzian near resonance $\omega/\omega_l >0.647$ and Eq. (16) for $\omega/\omega_l<0.647$, which gives accurate results within errors not exceeding 5 %. In a similar way, the combination of Eq. (14) up to $p=9$ for $\omega/\omega_l<0.6$ and Eq. (19) for $\omega/\omega_l>0.6$ is accurate within errors less than 4 %. In particular, it should be emphasized that significant errors are found only near the boundary region dividing the two expansions.
Discussion and Observational Ramifications
==========================================
In this paper, we obtained an expansion in terms of $\omega/\omega_l$ of the Rayleigh scattering cross section by atomic hydrogen, which is applied in the low energy regime with $\omega/\omega_l<0.6$. By combining this with another expansion of the Kramers-Heisenberg formula around the Ly$\alpha$ resonance in terms of $\Delta\omega=(\omega-\omega_{Ly\alpha})/\omega_{Ly\alpha}$, we may have a wieldy and useful approximate formula for the Rayleigh scattering process redward of Ly$\alpha$ by atomic hydrogen, which can be made arbitrarily accurate by inclusion of higher order terms directly calculated from the Kramers-Heisenberg formula.
Rayleigh scattering by atomic hydrogen is important only in the presence of a scattering region with a very high neutral hydrogen column density $N_{HI}$. Such high column density media may be found in an extended atmosphere of a giant star where the mass loss process is already very important. Isliker et al. (1989) considered the effect of Rayleigh scattering in binary systems containing a giant star. In these systems, for a given inclination and density distribution, the scattering optical depth is dependent on the wavelength, and therefore light curves differ according to the observed wavelength. This information may be quite important to investigate the mass loss process from a giant star.
In their analysis, Isliker et al. (1989) presented the Rayleigh scattering cross section given by $$\sigma(\omega) = \sigma_T \left[\sum_{k=2}^\infty {f_{1k}\over
\left({\omega_{1k}\over \omega}\right)^2-1}\right]^2,$$ where $f_{1k}$ is the oscillator strength between $1s$ and $kp$ states. In their work, they neglected the contribution from the continuum states. However, as is noted in the previous section, the contribution from the continuum states to the low energy regime is not negligible, and hence caution should be exercised.
In more than half of the symbiotic stars, Raman scattered O VI 6827, 7088 features are seen, which are formed via Raman scattering of O VI 1032, 1038 resonance doublet by atomic hydrogen. Being slightly less energetic than Ly$\beta$, O VI 1032, 1038 doublet may excite a hydrogen atom that can subsequently de-excite to excited $2s$ state re-emitting an optical photon redward of H$\alpha$. This process was first identified by Schmid (1989), where the scattering cross section is of similar order to that for Rayleigh scattering (e.g. Lee & Lee 1997, Nussbaumer, Schmid, & Vogel 1989).
A very high column density media may be found in an early universe when the reionization of intergalactic medium initiated by the first objects was not completed. In this partially ionized universe, a significant extinction around Ly$\alpha$ is expected, which will result in a big absorption trough known as the Gunn-Peterson effect (Gunn & Peterson 1965, Scheuer 1965). Thus far several quasars with redshift $z>6.2$ have been idenfied with Gunn-Peterson troughs (Becker et al. 2001, Fan et al. 2003). It appears that the H I column density that is responsible for these Gunn-Peterson troughs are not sufficiently high for applications of our current work, but may be high enough to see the deviation from the Lorentzian approximation of the scattering cross section (see Lee 2003, Miralda-Escudé 1998). Deeper IR search for higher redshifted objects may exhibit extremely high neutral hydrogen column density, where an accurate calculation of the cross section is required.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is a result of research activities of the Astrophysical Research Center for the Structure and Evolution of the Cosmos (ARCSEC) funded by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.
[99]{}
Becker, R. H. et al. 2001, AJ, 122, 2850 Berestetskii,V.B., Lifshitz, E.M., & Pitaevskii, L.P., 1971, Relativistic Quantum Theory, Pergamon Press Bethe, H. A. & Salpeter, E. E. 1967, Quantum Mechanics of One and Two Electron Atoms, Academic Press Inc., New York Fan, X. et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1649 Ferland, G., 2001, [*Hazy, a brief introduction to Cloudy 94.00*]{} Gavrila, M., 1967, Physical Review, 163, 147 Gunn, J. E., Peterson, B. A., 1965, ApJ, 142, 1633 Isliker, H., Nussbaumer, H., & Vogel, M., 1989, A&A, 219, 271 Lee, H. -W. 2003, ApJ, 594, 627 Lee, H. -W., & Ahn, S. -H. 1998, ApJ, 504, L61 Lee, H. -W., & Lee, K. W. 1997, MNRAS, 287, 211 Merzbacher, E. 1970, Quantum Mechanics, Wiley, New York Miralda-Escudé, J., 1998, ApJ, 501, 15 Nussbaumer, H., Schmid, H. M.& Vogel, M.,1989,A&A, 221, L27 Sakurai, J. J., 1967, Advanced Quantum Mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts Saslow, W. M., Mills, D. L. 1969, Physical Review, 187, 1025 Scheuer, P. A. G. 1965, Nature, 207, 963 Schmid, H. M. 1989,A&A, 211, L31
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present the results of a BeppoSAX observation of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} which, for the first time, provides detailed information on the pulsar’s temporal and spectral emission properties in the broad band 1–10 keV. We detected X-ray pulses with a pulsed fraction of 73$\pm$12 %. The pulse profile is characterized by two peaks phase separated by $\Delta\phi=0.47\pm0.05$. The pulsed spectrum is best described by a power–law of photon index 0.61$\pm$0.32 with an unabsorbed (2–10 keV) X-ray flux of 4.1$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ implying a luminosity of $L_x = 1.3\times 10^{32} \,\Theta \; (d/5.7\;{\rm kpc})^2 $ erg s$^{-1}$ and an X-ray efficiency of $L_x/\dot{E}=4.8\times 10^{-4}
\, \Theta \; (d/5.7\;{\rm kpc})^2 $ where $\Theta$ is the solid angle spanned by the emission beam.
author:
- 'T. Mineo'
- 'G. Cusumano'
- 'L. Kuiper'
- 'W. Hermsen'
- 'E. Massaro'
- 'W. Becker'
- 'L. Nicastro'
- 'B. Sacco'
- 'F. Verbunt'
- 'A.G. Lyne'
- 'I.H. Stairs'
- 'S. Shibata'
date: 'Received ....; accepted ....'
title: 'The pulse shape and spectrum of the millisecond pulsar PSR J0218$+$4232 in the energy band 1-10 keV observed with BeppoSAX'
---
Introduction
============
PSR J0218$+$4232 is a 2.3 ms pulsar in a two day orbit around a $\sim$ 0.2 M$_\odot$ white dwarf companion (Navarro et al. 1995) with a period derivative of $\dot{P}=8\times 10^{-20}$ s s$^{-1}$. The pulsar has a spin-down energy of $\dot{E}=2.5\times 10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$, a dipolar magnetic field component at the star surface of $B_\perp=4.3\times 10^8$ G and a spin-down age of $\le 4.6\times 10^8$ years. The pulsar distance inferred from its dispersion measure and from the electron density model of Taylor & Cordes (1993) is $\ge 5.7$ kpc. A detection of the companion star at optical wavelength was reported recently by Van Kerkwijk (1996).
Soft X-ray emission from the pulsar was first detected by Verbunt et al. (1996) using the ROSAT HRI. A follow-up observation confirmed the detection and discovered X-ray pulsation at a significance of about 5 $\sigma$ using 200 HRI counts (Kuiper et al. 1998). The X-ray pulse profile deduced from those data is characterized by a sharp main pulse with an indication of a second peak at a phase separation of $\Delta\phi \sim 0.47$. The pulsed fraction inferred from the ROSAT HRI data is 37$\pm$13 %. Furthermore, Kuiper et al. (1998) show that the measured large DC component is consistent with a $\sim$ 14 diameter compact nebula surrounding the pulsar, but confirmation is required. However, it is interesting to note that also in the radio domain the source exhibits an unusually high DC component of $\sim$ 50 % (Navarro et al. 1995). The HRI provides no spectral information and the number of counts recorded in a serendipitous off–axis PSPC observation does not allow spectral modeling. Also ASCA detected this source, however, the observation was too short: no pulsation could be seen, and a spectral fit with a power–law photon index of 1.6$\pm$0.6 could only be made to the weak total excess (Kawai & Saito 1999). Therefore, no detailed spectral information on the pulsed X-ray emission was available prior to the BeppoSAX observation reported in this paper (see Becker & Trümper 1999 for a review of the X-ray properties of millisecond pulsars).
Noting the spatial coincidence of PSR J0218+4232 with the EGRET source 2EG J0220§+§4228, Verbunt et al. (1996) tentatively identified the pulsar with the high-energy $\gamma$-ray source. Using some additional EGRET observations, and applying a combination of spatial and timing analysis, Kuiper et al. (1999) conclude that 2EG J0220$+$4228 is probably a multiple source: between 0.1 and 1 GeV PSR J0218$+$4232 is the most likely counterpart, and above 1 GeV the bright BL Lac 3C 66A is the best candidate counterpart. The third EGRET catalog (Hartman et al. 1999), which is based on more viewing periods than the 2EG catalog, identifies 3EG J0222$+$4253 (2EG J0220$+$4228) with 3C 66A, rather than with the ms-pulsar. However, in a note on this source, they indicate that the identification with 3C 66A stems from the catalog position based on the $>$ 1 GeV map. Furthermore, they confirm that for lower energies (100-300 MeV) the EGRET map is consistent with all the source flux coming from the pulsar, 3C 66A being statistically excluded.
In this paper we present the results of a BeppoSAX observation of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{}which, for the first time, provides detailed information on the pulsar’s temporal and spectral emission properties across a wide band from 1 to 10 keV.
Observation
===========
[PSR J0218$+$4232]{} was observed on January 1999 14–16 by the Narrow Field Instruments (NFIs) aboard BeppoSAX satellite (Boella et al. 1997a). We report in this paper only results from data collected with the MECS instrument (Boella et al. 1997b), sensitive in the energy range 1-10 keV; the net exposure time was 82795 s. The LECS instrument (0.1–10 keV; Parmar et al. 1997) observed the source for a much shorter time due to the constraint on operating only during spacecraft night. The HPGSPC (4–60 keV; Manzo et al. 1997) was not working during the observation. A signal detected with the PDS (13–200 keV; Frontera et al. 1997) will be shortly discussed in Section 5. No pulsed signals have been detected in the LECS and PDS data.
During the observation only two of the three MECS detectors were operating (MECS2 and MECS3). MECS has a field of view of $56'$ and an angular resolution of about 12 at 6 keV. During the observation of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} the instrument operated in direct mode, transmitting to ground information on each individual photon. Standard procedures and selection criteria were applied on the observation data to avoid the South Atlantic Anomaly, solar, bright Earth and particle contaminations[^1]. Event reduction has been performed using the SAXDAS v.2.0.0 package.
Spatial analysis
================
A 100 ks ROSAT HRI (0.1–2.4 keV) observation of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} (see Kuiper et al. 1998) revealed 7 X-ray sources within a radius of $\sim5^{\prime}$ around our target (see Fig. 1). Given the extended tails of the MECS Point-Spread Function (PSF), accurate spatial analysis is required to separate the signal of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} from that of any neighbouring sources. We used a Maximum Likelihood approach in searching for individual sources on top of a background model, as well as for analyzing simultaneously several sources and a background model.\
The search is applied on various equidistant trial positions within a selected part of the instrument field of view, where it checks for the presence of a source taking into account the Poissonian nature of the data. Maximum Likelihood Ratio (MLR) tests are performed describing in the zero [${\cal{H}}_0$]{} hypothesis the 2-d event distribution in terms of a flat background model only, while in the alternative [${\cal{H}}_1$]{} hypothesis the data is described in terms of a point source at the trial position and a flat background model (see e.g. Kuiper et al. 1998 for a more detailed description).
The improvement in the likelihood [$\cal{L}$]{} between [${\cal{H}}_0$]{} and [${\cal{H}}_1$]{} computed from the quantity $Q=-2\ln({\cal{L}}^{H_0}/{\cal{L}}^{H_1})$ yields simultaneously the detection significance and strength of the source. The probability distribution of $Q$ is that of a $\chi^2$ for ${n_1}-{n_0}$ degree of freedom (d.o.f.) where ${n_0}$ and ${n_1}$ are the d.o.f. for the [${\cal{H}}_0$]{} and [${\cal{H}}_1$]{} hypotheses, respectively. In searching for sources ${n_1}-{n_0}$ = 3, while in a detection test of a known source ${n_1}-{n_0}$ = 1. The distribution of Q as a function of trial position is the MLR–map.
We applied the above approach to the MECS data without energy selection allowing for maximum source statistics. We used an energy averaged PSF assuming a power–law spectral shape of index $1.5$, given by the following expression:
$$PSF(x,y) =$$ $$\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty} E^{-1.5} \cdot (S_{2}(E)+S_{3}(E)) \cdot
PSF(x,y\ \vert\ E) \cdot dE \ } {\int_{0}^{\infty} E^{-1.5} \cdot (S_{2}(E) +
S_{3}(E))
\cdot dE}, \eqno(1)$$ where $S_{2}(E)$ and $S_{3}(E)$ are the sensitive areas of the two operating MECS units. The $PSF(x,y \ \vert \ E)$ is modelled using the parametric form given in Boella et al. (1997b). Furthermore, we investigated the impact of the assumed power–law index on the MLR results and found that this is negligible, as expected by the moderate dependence on energy of the PSF.
The resulting MLR map/image is shown in Fig. 1a. The maximum value in this figure ($ > 21 \,\sigma$) is reached at a position consistent with that determined by the ROSAT HRI for [PSR J0218$+$4232]{}(indicated by a star symbol). It is, however, evident that several of the sources detected by ROSAT below 2.4 keV (indicated by filled triangles) contribute significantly to the extended excess. We can show this better, by repeating the search for sources on top of a flat background model [*and*]{} a point source at the pulsar position (effectively “subtracting” the counts from [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} from Fig. 1a). The remaining extended feature (Fig. 1b) clearly follows the distribution of the nearby sources, reaching detection significances up to about 10 $\sigma$. Figure 1c shows the MLR map resulting from a point source search on top of a flat background and 9 sources fixed at the ROSAT HRI source positions: no significant residual emission remains. The total number of counts assigned by this analysis to [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} is 403$\pm$29.
The position of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} determined from the MLR map shown in Fig. 1a is shifted by $\sim$ 23with respect to the radio position, well within the systematic uncertainty of the accuracy of the BeppoSAX pointing reconstruction [^2].\
The spatial analysis allows also the evaluation of an optimum event extraction radius by computing the Signal-to-Noise ratio as a function of radial distance $r$ from the source position. Taking as source radial profile the PSF, and as noise the [*measured*]{} radial count distribution, we obtained the value $r = 100^{\prime\prime}$. Note that none of the nearby sources fall within this radius. The selected region contains 62 % (250 counts) of the MECS source signal; the number of background events in the same area is 92 with a contribution from the neighbouring sources of 12 counts.
Timing analysis
===============
The arrival times of all selected events were converted to the Solar System Barycentric Frame using BARYCONV[^3], then folded according to the radio ephemeris (see Table 1), correcting for the pulsar binary motion. The pulse phase distribution deviates from a statistically flat distribution at a 6.8 $\sigma$ level applying a $Z^{2}$ test (Buccheri et al. 1983) using the first two harmonics.
The MECS timing resolution is dominated by the precision of the OBT (On Board Time)-UTC conversion: an inspection of the residuals of the OBT-UTC linear fit reveals a systematic scatter with an rms of the order of $\sim$ 0.2 ms that cannot be reduced by fitting higher order polynomials. This effect corresponds to an uncertainty in the photon phases of 0.087.
[ll]{} Parameter & Value\
Right Ascension (J2000) & 02$^{\rm h}$ 18$^{\rm m}$ 6350\
Declination (J2000) & 42$^\circ$ $32'$ 1744\
Epoch validity start/end (MJD) & 49092 – 50900\
Frequency & 430.4610674213 Hz\
Frequency derivative & $-1.4342\times 10^{-14}$ Hz s$^{-1}$\
Epoch of the period (MJD) & 49996.000000023\
Orbital period & 175292.3020 s\
a$_p$sin i & 1.98444 (lt-s)\
Eccentricity & 0\
Longitude of periastron & 0\
Time of ascending node (MJD) & 49996.637640\
The light curve resulting from folding all MECS events (1–10 keV) with a phase resolution of 18 bins ($\sim$ 0.13 ms) is shown in Fig. 2 (top panel): two cycles are plotted for clarity. The MECS background level, indicated with a grey band ($\pm$1 $\sigma$ errors), is determined in the spatial analysis and therefore includes the contributions from the neighbouring sources. In the same figure (bottom panel) the 610 MHz profile as derived by Stairs et al. (1999) is also presented. The phase relation between the two profiles is unknown for the time being: they have been arbitrarily aligned. Notice that, like in the radio light curve, the MECS profile is not simple: it has a prominent double peak structure with a relative phase separation (centre to centre) of 0.47$\pm$0.05, confirming the value derived by Kuiper et al. (1998) from ROSAT data below 2.4 keV.\
The phase histograms for 1.6–4 keV and 4–10 keV are shown respectively in the middle and bottom panels of Fig. 3. The ROSAT (0.1–2.4 keV) profile (Kuiper et al. 1998), shifted in phase to obtain the highest peak coincident with the most significant one in the MECS softer light curve (middle panel), is also shown for comparison in the top panel of Fig. 3. These profiles clearly show a change of the relative peak intensities. The peak at phase 0.8 is stronger in the low energy histograms (top and middle panels), while that at phase 0.3 is more prominent at high energies (bottom panel).
The structure measured in the MECS light curves of two peaks separated by narrow valleys and the uncertainty due to the OBT–UTC conversion residuals make it difficult to establish an unpulsed interval: slightly different values could affect the unpulsed level. Notice, moreover, that while in the ROSAT profile a DC component is apparent above the background level, the same does not hold for the 4–10 keV profile, where the background level is consistent with those measured in the valleys of the light curve. In the intermediate energy profile, at face value, there might be some evidence of a DC component but not as high as in the ROSAT profile. Such effect could be due to the presence of a quite soft unpulsed emission. In an attempt to quantify the evidence for a DC component, we applied the bootstrap method proposed by Swanepoel et al. (1996), which allows to estimate the DC level, and therefore also the pulsed fraction, working directly on the phases of individual photons. However, in the available form, this method is able to find only one unpulsed interval and cannot account for systematic errors. One should therefore realize that the quoted errors on the calculated parameters are only statistical. Using this algorithm we found, for the whole MECS energy band, an unpulsed interval of $0.47$–$0.61$ and a corresponding pulsed fraction of 0.73$\pm$0.12 (1 $\sigma$ error). Notice that the average count level in the interval $-0.08$–$0.15$ is statistically not different from that measured in the former interval. The resulting DC–fractions for the three bands of Fig. 3 are shown in Fig. 4. The decrease with energy is clearly visible, but the error bars are large and the trend deviates only at the 2.4 $\sigma$ level from a flat distribution. Given the large error bars and the systematic uncertainties, we did not derive a detailed spectrum of the DC component.
The relatively high scatter in the residuals of our timing solution (up to $\sim$0.2 ms) does not allow to determine accurately the intrinsic widths of the two pulses. The total scatter in the event arrival times at the SSB might even be consistent with the measured width of P1 in Figure 2.
We defined the phase intervals containing the two pulses as follows: Peak 1 (P1) phase interval 0.61-0.95 and Peak 2 (P2) 0.10-0.47, where P1 is identified with the obvious ROSAT peak and appears to have a softer spectrum than P2. The statistical significance of the suggested change in morphology of the phase histogram with energy can be evaluated by the P2/P1 ratio. This ratio, computed in the energy bands 1.6–4 keV and 4–10 keV after background subtraction, is shown in Fig. 5. The ROSAT point derived from the data of Kuiper et al. (1998), indicated by a filled circle, is evaluated using the same phase definitions. Including the ROSAT point, a correlation of P2/P1 with energy is evident, but the statistical significance is only 2 $\sigma$, and confirmation is needed.
Spectral analysis
=================
Spectral fits were performed on the background subtracted MECS data binned logarithmically after checking that each single energy channel contains at least 20 photons. The N$_H$ was fixed to the value of 5$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ (see Verbunt et al. 1996). We fitted the total pulsed spectrum, i.e. the excess counts above the unpulsed level in the phase histogram, with a power–law model, taking into account the energy dependent interstellar absorption. The resulting photon index is $\alpha$ = 0.61$\pm$0.32, with a 2–10 keV flux $F=4.1\times 10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, and a reduced $\chi^2_r$ of 0.7 (3 dof). A fit with a black body spectral distribution gives $kT=2.3 \pm 0.5$ keV, with a $\chi^2_r=1.4$ (3 dof). Both the $\chi^2$ values are acceptable, the black body temperature $T=2.6\times 10^7$ K, however, is quite higher than the values measured for the thermal components of other pulsars that typically does not exceed $\sim 5
\times 10^{6}$ K (Greiveldinger et al. 1996, Becker & Trümper 1997, 1999). Fig. 6 also shows the spectra for the pulses P1 and P2 separately, using the same energy bins as for the total pulsed spectrum. We fitted again power-law models for each of the spectra, but the low statistics result in large errors in the estimated parameters. The measured spectral indices of P1 and P2 are $0.84\pm 0.35$ and $0.42\pm0.36$ respectively, in agreement with the trend seen in the P2/P1 ratio.
Finally, we determined the total spectrum (pulsed plus DC) applying the Maximum Likelihood approach to the spatial distributions in smaller energy intervals (see also Fig. 6). The fit with a power–law gives a photon spectral index $\alpha=0.94 \pm 0.22$ with a 2–10 keV flux $F=4.3\times 10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, about 10 % higher than the pulsed value given above, and a reduced $\chi^2_r$ of 0.56 (8 dof).\
Given the hard spectra found above, we also analysed the PDS data to investigate whether there was any signal from [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} at higher energies, even though an extrapolation of the total spectrum measured in the MECS to the PDS range predicts a flux well below the PDS sensitivity threshold. Indeed, no pulsed signal was found, but in the 17-25 keV band a DC signal was detected at the $\sim$4 $\sigma$ level. Moreover the fit of MECS+PDS spectra with a power–law plus a constant factor to take into account the intercalibration uncertainties between the two instruments leads to a spectral index of 1.4 and to a value for the constant $\sim$8, well above the expected range of variability (0.7-1, Cusumano et al. 2000). Furthermore, the PDS light curve shows that most of the source counts are concentrated in the first half of the observation. Therefore, it is likely that we observed a variable source in the large field of view of the PDS collimators ($1\fdg3\times1\fdg3$ FWHM). Note that there are several sources within a $3^\circ$ region in the soft X-ray catalogs, but none in the hard X-ray ones.
Discussion
==========
The BeppoSAX observation of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{} provided the first detection of pulsed emission from this millisecond pulsar for energies up to 10 keV. The source shows a double peaked pulse shape with a remarkably flat (photon index $\sim$0.6) spectral distribution and indications that the peak intensity ratio depends on photon energy. In particular, the P2 peak, which is not prominent in the ROSAT low energy phase histogram, becomes the dominant feature above 5 keV.
Our fit for a black body spectrum gives the quite high value of 2.6 $\times$ 10$^7$ K for the temperature of the emitting region. If we assume that the radiation comes from the pulsar polar cap, heated, for instance, by the interactions with starward moving high energy particles, we can compute the expected luminosity. The polar cap area of [PSR J0218$+$4232]{}, defined as usual by the open field lines, is of the order of $ A \simeq 2 \pi \, R^2 [1 - \sqrt{(1-R \,\Omega/c)}] $ = 2.9 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ cm$^2$, where $R$ is the stellar radius; from the Stefan’s law we obtain a bolometric luminosity of 5 $\times$ 10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$, a value that must be doubled if the other cap is taken into account. Such luminosity is several orders of magnitude higher than that derived from the phase averaged flux $L_x = 1.3\times 10^{32} \,\Theta \; (d/5.7\;{\rm kpc})^2 $ erg s$^{-1}$ (corresponding to an X-ray efficiency of $L_x/\dot{E}=4.8\times 10^{-4}
\, \Theta \; (d/5.7\;{\rm kpc})^2 $) where $\Theta$ is the solid angle spanned by the emission beam. It is moreover significantly greater than the spin-down energy loss rate. This inconsistency could be solved with the assumption that the emission spot covers a very small fraction, of the order of about 10$^{-4}$ or even less, of the whole cap. The flux of heating particles should be then collimated within a very narrow angle of $\sim$ 0$^0$.2 or smaller. Furthermore, the heating flux into the two polar caps must be different to explain the spectral difference of the two peaks. A non–thermal origin of the X-ray emission seems therefore more convincing.
The variation of the peak ratio with energy recalls a similar effect observed for the Crab pulsar (see, for instance, the recent BeppoSAX data described by Mineo et al. 1997). The possibility of detecting such effect could be due to a particular orientation among the rotation and magnetic axes and the line of sight. The Crab has an orthogonal alignment, however, Navarro et al. (1995), on the basis of the radio pulse shape, inferred for PSR J0218$+$4232 a nearly aligned rotator. The same conclusion is reached by Stairs et al. (1999) who analyzed high-precision, coherently-dispersed polarization profiles at the two frequencies of 410 and 610 MHz. Their Rotating Vector Model (RVM) fits support the classification of PSR J0218$+$4232 as a nearly aligned rotator with magnetic inclination consistent with 0$^0$, namely (8$\pm$11) deg at 410 MHz and (8$\pm$15) at 610 MHz. Unfortunately, the impact angle parameters for their RVM fits have large uncertainties and therefore the line-of-sight inclination is unconstrained.
The Crab-like double pulse X-ray profile of PSR J0218+4232 and its hard non-thermal spectrum suggests a common magnetospheric origin of the high-energy emission. The comparison with Crab is additionally enforced by the similar values of the magnetic field at the light cylinder, as already pointed out by Kuiper et al. (1998) and Kawai & Saito (1999). This follows directly from the classical assumption that the pulsar braking is entirely due to the Poynting flux at the light cylinder, independently of the actual structure of the magnetic field in the magnetosphere:
$$B_L \simeq 4 \pi^2 (\frac{I}{c^3})^{\frac{1}{2}} P^{-\frac{5}{2}}
\dot{P}^{\frac{1}{2}}, \eqno(2)$$
where $I$ is the moment of inertia. For the two pulsars we obtain then:
$$B_L = B_{L,Cr} (\frac{I}{I_{Cr}})^{\frac{1}{2}} (\frac{P}{P_{Cr}})^{-\frac{5}{2}}
(\frac{\dot{P}}{\dot{P}_{Cr}})^{\frac{1}{2}}, \eqno(3)$$
where the suffix $Cr$ is referred to Crab. Assuming that the moments of inertia of the two pulsars are equal, we found $B_L \simeq \frac{1}{3}B_{L,Cr}
\simeq 3 \times
10^5$ Gauss.
The nature of the non-thermal mechanism responsible for the X-ray emission is still unclear. A possibility is that X-ray photons are produced by curvature radiation from relativistic electrons moving outwards along the field lines in proximity of the light cylinder. The Lorentz factor of these particles to radiate photons of frequency $\nu$ is given by
$$\gamma = (\frac{4\pi}{3} \frac{\nu \rho}{c})^{\frac{1}{3}}, \eqno(4)$$
where $\rho \simeq c/(3 \Omega)$ is the curvature radius of the last closed line near the light cylinder in a dipole field. For $\nu = 10^{18}$ Hz, corresponding to $\sim$ 4 keV, we have:
$$\gamma \simeq (\frac{2}{9} \nu P)^{\frac{1}{3}} = 8 \times 10^4. \eqno(5)$$
The radiative life time of the electrons is long enough to allow them to reach the light cylinder, namely:
$$\tau_c = \frac{\gamma}{\mid d \gamma/dt \mid} = \frac {9}{8\, \pi}
\frac{\rho}{r_e \, \nu} = 2 \times 10^{21} \frac{P}{\nu}, \eqno(6)$$
where $r_e$ is the classical radius of the electron; for $P=2.3$ ms and $\nu = 10^{18}$ Hz we have $\tau_c \simeq$ 5 s. These electrons could be accelerated either in the outer gaps or above the polar caps. In the latter case, we expect that a copious number of electron-positron pairs will reach, after suffering radiation losses, the light cylinder with energy high enough for X-ray emission.
An origin of the high-energy X-rays in a narrow outer gap can also explain the narrow profile (intrinsically $<$ 0.04 phase; Kuiper et al. 1998) measured in the ROSAT light curve, as well as the double peak profile, e.g. for the wide fan-beam geometry proposed by Romani (1996). However, an additional constraint is needed: the length of the gap over which the hard X-rays are produced should be small. In fact, the very strong curvature of the magnetic field lines would produce a broader pulse profile for a long gap. However, as Ho (1989) pointed out, strongly curved magnetic field lines, as in millisecond pulsars, enhance the production of non-thermal emission, allowing outer gaps shorter than those of normal radio pulsars.
According Kuiper et al. (1999), PSR J0218+4232 is the most likely counterpart of the high-energy EGRET source 2EG J0220+4232 / 3EG J0222+4253 for energies between 100 MeV and 1 GeV. This would suggest a cut-off energy at least four orders of magnitude higher than the maximum energy of 10 keV to which the BeppoSAX data showed evidence for the detection of this source. Further high sensitivity observations at hard X-ray energies up to the high-energy $\gamma$-rays are therefore particularly relevant for the understanding of the physics of this and other millisecond pulsars.
TM acknowledges G.Vizzini for his technical support on data handling.
[ ]{} Becker W., Trümper J., 1997, A&A 326, 682 Becker W., Trümper J., 1999, A&A 341, 803 Boella G., Butler R.C., Perola G.C., et al., 1997a, A&AS 122, 299 Boella G., Chiappetti L., Conti G., et al., 1997b, A&AS 122, 327 Buccheri R., Bennett K., Bignami G., et al., 1983, A&A 128, 367 Cusumano G., Mineo T., Guainazzi M., et al., 2000, in preparation Frontera F., Costa E., Dal Fiume D., et al., 1997, A&AS 122, 357 Greiveldinger C., Camerini U., Fry W., et al., 1996, ApJL 465, 35 Hartman R.C., Bertsch D.L., Bloom S.D., et al., 1999, ApJS, in press Ho C., 1989, ApJ 342, 396 Kawai N., Saito Y., 1999, 3rd INTEGRAL Workshop “The Extreme Universe”, Sept. 1998, Taormina, Italy, in press Kuiper L., Hermsen W., Verbunt F., Belloni T., 1998, A&A 336, 545 Kuiper L., Hermsen W., Verbunt F., et al., 1999, 3rd INTEGRAL Workshop “The Extreme Universe”, Sept. 1998, Taormina, Italy, in press Manzo G., Giarrusso S., Santangelo A., et al., 1997, A&AS 122, 341 Mineo T., Cusumano G., Segreto A., et al., 1997, A&A 327, L21 Navarro J., de Bruyn A.G., Frail D.A., Kulkarni S.R., Lyne A.G., 1995, ApJ 455, L55 Parmar A.N., Martin D.D.E., Bavdaz M., et al., 1997, A&AS 122, 309 Romani R.W., 1996, ApJ 470, 469 Stairs I.H., Thorsett S.E., Camilo F., 1999, ApJS 123, 627 Swanepoel J.W.H., de Beer C.F., Loots H., 1996, ApJ 467, 261 Taylor J.H., Cordes J.M., 1993, ApJ 411, 674 Van Kerkwijk M.H., 1996, Proc. IAU Coll. 160, 489 Verbunt F., Kuiper L., Belloni T., et al., 1996, A&A 311, L9
[^1]: see http://www.sdc.asi.it/software/cookbook as a reference about the data analysis software and reduction procedures.
[^2]: see http://www.sdc.asi.it/software/cookbook/attitude.html
[^3]: see http://www.sdc.asi.it/software/saxdas/baryconv.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A Banach space ${\mathcal}W$ with a Schauder basis is said to be [*$\alpha$-minimal*]{} for some $\alpha<{\omega}_1$ if, for any two block subspaces ${\mathcal}Z, {\mathcal}Y\subseteq {\mathcal}W$, the Bourgain embeddability index of ${\mathcal}Z$ into ${\mathcal}Y$ is at least $\alpha$.
We prove a dichotomy that characterises when a Banach space has an $\alpha$-minimal subspace, which contributes to the ongoing project, initiated by W. T. Gowers, of classifying separable Banach spaces by identifying characteristic subspaces.
address: |
Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science (M/C 249)\
University of Illinois at Chicago\
851 S. Morgan St.\
Chicago, IL 60607-7045\
USA
author:
- Christian Rosendal
title: '$\alpha$-minimal Banach spaces'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Suppose ${\mathcal}W$ is a separable, infinite-dimensional Banach space. We say that ${\mathcal}W$ is [*minimal*]{} if ${\mathcal}W$ isomorphically embeds into any infinite-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal}Y\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ (and write ${\mathcal}W\sqsubseteq {\mathcal}Y$ to denote that ${\mathcal}W$ embeds into ${\mathcal}Y$). The class of Banach spaces without minimal subspaces was studied by V. Ferenczi and the author in [@minimal], extending work of W. T. Gowers [@gowers] and A. M. Pelczar [@anna], in which a dichotomy was proved characterising the presence of minimal subspaces in an arbitrary infinite-dimensional Banach space.
The dichotomy hinges on the notion of [*tightness*]{}, which we can define as follows. Assume that ${\mathcal}W$ has a Schauder basis $(e_n)$ and suppose ${\mathcal}Y\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ is a subspace. We say that ${\mathcal}Y$ is [*tight*]{} in the basis $(e_n)$ for ${\mathcal}W$ if there are successive finite intervals of ${\mathbb N}$, $$I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots\subseteq {\mathbb N},$$ such that for any isomorphic embedding $T\colon {\mathcal}Y{\rightarrow}{\mathcal}W$, if $P_{I_m}$ denotes the canonical projection of ${\mathcal}W$ onto $[e_n]_{n\in I_m}$, then $$\liminf_{m{\rightarrow}\infty}\|P_{I_m}T\|>0.$$ Alternatively, this is equivalent to requiring that whenever $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite, there is no embedding of ${\mathcal}Y$ into $[e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m]$. Also, the basis $(e_n)$ is [*tight*]{} if any infinite-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal}Y\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ is tight in $(e_n)$ and a space is [*tight*]{} in case it has a tight basis. We note that if ${\mathcal}W$ is tight, then so is any shrinking basic sequence in ${\mathcal}W$.
Tightness is easily seen to be an obstruction to minimality, in the sense that a tight space cannot contain a minimal subspace. In [@minimal] the following converse is proved: any infinite-dimensional Banach space contains either a minimal or a tight subspace.
J. Bourgain introduced in [@bourgain] an ordinal index that gives a quantitative measure of how much one Banach space with a basis embeds into another. Namely, suppose ${\mathcal}W$ is a space with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$ and ${\mathcal}Y$ is any Banach space. We let $T((e_n),{\mathcal}Y,K)$ be the tree of all finite sequences $(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k)$ in ${\mathcal}Y$, including the empty sequence ${\emptyset}=(\;)$, such that $$(y_0,\ldots,y_k)\sim_K(e_0,\ldots,e_k).$$ Here, whenever $(x_i)$ and $(y_i)$ are sequences of the same (finite or infinite) length in Banach spaces ${\mathcal}X$ and ${\mathcal}Y$, we write $$(x_i)\sim_K(y_i)$$ if for all $a_{0},\ldots,a_{k}\in {\mathbb R}$ $$\frac 1K\Big\|\sum_{i=0}^ka_{i}x_{i}\Big\|\leqslant \Big\|\sum_{i=0}^ka_{i}y_{i}\Big\|\leqslant K\Big\|\sum_{i=0}^ka_{i}x_{i}\Big\|.$$ We notice that $T((e_n),{\mathcal}Y,K)$ is [*ill-founded*]{}, i.e., admits an infinite branch, if and only if ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ embeds with constant $K$ into ${\mathcal}Y$.
The [*rank function*]{} $\rho_T$ on a [*well-founded*]{} tree $T$, i.e., without infinite branches, is defined by $\rho_T(s)=0$ if $s\in T$ is a terminal node and $$\rho_T(s)=\sup\big\{\rho_T(t)+1{ \; \big| \;}s\prec t, \; t\in T\big\}$$ otherwise. Then, the [*rank*]{} of $T$ is defined by $${\rm rank}(T)=\sup\big\{\rho_T(s)+1{ \; \big| \;}s\in T\big\},$$ whence ${\rm rank}(T)=\rho_T({\emptyset})+1$ if $T$ is non-empty. Moreover, if $T$ is ill-founded, we let ${\rm rank}(T)=\infty$, with the stipulation that $\alpha<\infty$ for all ordinals $\alpha$.
Then, ${\rm rank}\big(T((e_n),{\mathcal}Y,K)\big)$ measures the extent to which ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ $K$-embeds into ${\mathcal}Y$ and we therefore define the [*embeddability rank*]{} of ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ into ${\mathcal}Y$ by $${\rm Emb}((e_n),{\mathcal}Y)=\sup_{K\geqslant 1}{\rm rank}\big(T((e_n),{\mathcal}Y,K)\big).$$ Since $(e_n)$ is a basic sequence, there is for any $K\geqslant 1$ a sequence $\Delta=(\delta_n)$ of positive real numbers, such that if $y_n,z_n\in {\mathcal}Y$, ${\lVerty_n-z_n\rVert}<\delta_n$ and $(y_0,\ldots,y_k)\sim_K(e_0,\ldots,e_k)$, then also $(z_0,\ldots,z_k)\sim_{K+1}(e_0,\ldots,e_k)$. Therefore, to calculate the embeddability rank, ${\rm Emb}((e_n),{\mathcal}Y)$, it suffices to consider the trees of all finite sequences $(y_0,\ldots,y_k)$ with $(y_0,\ldots,y_k)\sim_K(e_0,\ldots,e_k)$, where, moreover, we require the $y_n$ to belong to some fixed dense subset of ${\mathcal}Y$. We shall use this repeatedly later on, where we replace ${\mathcal}Y$ by a dense subset of itself. This comment also implies that ${\rm Emb}((e_n),{\mathcal}Y)$ is either $\infty$, if ${\mathcal}W\sqsubseteq {\mathcal}Y$, or an ordinal $<{\rm density}({\mathcal}Y)^+$, if ${\mathcal}W\not\sqsubseteq {\mathcal}Y$. In particular, if ${\mathcal}Y$ is separable, then ${\rm Emb}((e_n),{\mathcal}Y)$ is either $\infty$ or a countable ordinal. Also, note that the embeddability rank depends not only on the space ${\mathcal}W$, but also on the basis $(e_n)$. However, if ${\mathcal}Y$ is separable and ${\mathcal}W\not\sqsubseteq{\mathcal}Y$, then by the Boundedness Theorem for coanalytic ranks (see [@kechris]), the supremum of ${\rm Emb}((e_n),{\mathcal}Y)$ over all bases $(e_n)$ for ${\mathcal}W$ is a countable ordinal. In case ${\rm Emb}((e_n),{\mathcal}Y)\geqslant \alpha$, we say that ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ [*$\alpha$-embeds*]{} into ${\mathcal}Y$.
Since minimality is explicitly expressed in terms of embeddability, it is natural to combine it with Bourgain’s embeddability index in the following way.
Let $\alpha$ be a countable ordinal. A Banach space ${\mathcal}W$ with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$ is [*$\alpha$-minimal*]{} if any block subspace ${\mathcal}Z=[z_n]\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ $\alpha$-embeds into any infinite-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal}Y\subseteq {\mathcal}W$.
It is easy to check that if ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is a space with a basis and ${\mathcal}X=[x_n]$ and ${\mathcal}Y=[y_n]$ are block subspaces of ${\mathcal}W$ such that $x_n\in {\mathcal}Y$ for all but finitely many $n$, which we denote by ${\mathcal}X\subseteq^*{\mathcal}Y$, then if ${\mathcal}Y$ is $\alpha$-minimal, so is ${\mathcal}X$. In particular, $\alpha$-minimality is preserved by passing to block subspaces.
Similarly, we can combine tightness with the embeddability index.
Let $\alpha$ be a countable ordinal and ${\mathcal}W$ a Banach space with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$. We say that ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is $\alpha$-tight if for any block basis $(y_n)$ in ${\mathcal}W$ there is a sequence of intervals of ${\mathbb N}$, $$I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots\subseteq {\mathbb N}$$ such that for any infinite set $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, $${\rm Emb}\big((y_n),[e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{j\in A}I_j]\big)\leqslant\alpha.$$ In other words, if ${\mathcal}Y=[y_n]$ $(\alpha+1)$-embeds into some subspace ${\mathcal}Z\subseteq {\mathcal}W$, then $$\liminf_{k{\rightarrow}\infty}\|P_{I_k}|_{{\mathcal}Z}\|>0.$$
Again, it is easy to see that if ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is $\alpha$-tight, then so is any block subspace of ${\mathcal}W$. Also, if ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is $\alpha$-tight, then no block subspace, ${\mathcal}Y=[y_n]$, is $\beta$-minimal for $\alpha<\beta$. And, if ${\mathcal}Y=[y_n]$ is minimal, then ${\mathcal}Y=[y_n]$ is $\alpha$-minimal for any $\alpha<{\omega}_1$. It follows from this that if ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is $\alpha$-tight, then ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ admits no minimal block subspaces, and thus, as any infinite-dimensional subspace contains a block subspace up to a small perturbation, ${\mathcal}W$ contains no minimal subspaces either.
Our first result says that tightness can be reinforced to $\alpha$-tightness.
\[tightness\] Let ${\mathcal}W$ be a Banach space with a Schauder basis and having no minimal subspaces. Then there is a block subspace ${\mathcal}X=[x_n]$ that is $\alpha$-tight for some countable ordinal $\alpha$.
Our main results, however, provides us with more detailed structural information.
\[main5\] Let ${\mathcal}W$ be Banach space with a Schauder basis and suppose $\alpha<{\omega}_1$. Then there is a block subspace ${\mathcal}X=[x_n]\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ that is either ${\omega}\alpha$-tight or $(\alpha+1)$-minimal.
Finally, combining Theorems \[tightness\] and \[main5\], we have the following refinement of Theorem \[tightness\].
\[principal\] Let ${\mathcal}W$ be a Banach space with a Schauder basis. Then ${\mathcal}W$ has a minimal subspace or a block subspace ${\mathcal}X=[x_n]\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ that is $\alpha$-minimal and ${\omega}\alpha$-tight for some countable ordinal $\alpha$.
Suppose that ${\mathcal}W$ has no minimal subspace and pick by Theorem \[tightness\] some block subspace ${\mathcal}W_0\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ that is $\beta$-tight for some $\beta<{\omega}_1$. So no block subspace of ${\mathcal}W_0$ is $(\beta+1)$-minimal. Let now $\alpha$ be the supremum of all ordinals $\gamma$ such that ${\mathcal}W_0$ is saturated with $\gamma$-minimal block subspaces and pick a block subspace ${\mathcal}W_1\subseteq {\mathcal}W_0$ not containing any $(\alpha+1)$-minimal subspace.
We claim that ${\mathcal}W_1$ contains a $\alpha$-minimal block subspace ${\mathcal}W_\infty$. If $\alpha$ is a successor ordinal, this is obvious, so suppose instead that $\alpha$ is a limit. Then we can find ordinals $\gamma_2<\gamma_3< \ldots$ with supremum $\alpha$. We then inductively choose block subspaces ${\mathcal}W_1\supseteq {\mathcal}W_2\supseteq {\mathcal}W_3\supseteq \ldots$ such that ${\mathcal}W_n$ is $\gamma_n$-minimal. Letting ${\mathcal}W_\infty\subseteq {\mathcal}W_1$ be a block subspace such that ${\mathcal}W_\infty\subseteq ^*{\mathcal}W_n$ for all $n$, we see that ${\mathcal}W_\infty$ is $\gamma_n$-minimal for all $n$, which means that for any block sequence $(z_m)\subseteq {\mathcal}W_\infty$ and infinite-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal}Y\subseteq {\mathcal}W_\infty$, we have $${\rm Emb}\big((z_m),{\mathcal}Y\big)\geqslant \gamma_n$$ for all $n$, whence ${\rm Emb}\big((z_m),{\mathcal}Y\big)\geqslant \sup_{n}\gamma_n=\alpha$. So ${\mathcal}W_\infty$ is $\alpha$-minimal and so are its subspaces.
Now, ${\mathcal}W_\infty$ has no $(\alpha+1)$-minimal subspace, so, by Theorem \[main5\], ${\mathcal}W_\infty$ contains an ${\omega}\alpha$-tight block subspace ${\mathcal}X$, which simultaneously is $\alpha$-minimal.
Since any two Banach spaces of the same finite dimension are isomorphic, one easily sees that any space ${\mathcal}W$ with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$ is ${\omega}$-minimal. On the other hand, in [@minimal], a space ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is defined to be [*tight with constants*]{} if for any block subspace ${\mathcal}Y=[y_n]$ there are intervals $I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$ such that for any integer constant $K$, $$[y_n]_{n\in I_K}\not\sqsubseteq_K[e_n]_{n\notin I_K}.$$ In this case, it follows that for any infinite set $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ and any $K\in A$, $${\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),[e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{j\in A}I_j], K)\big)\leqslant \max I_K,$$ and hence $${\rm Emb}((y_n),[e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{j\in A}I_j])=\sup_{K\in A}{\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),[e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{j\in A}I_j], K)\big)\leqslant {\omega}.$$ So, if ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is tight with constants, we see that ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is ${\omega}$-tight and ${\omega}$-minimal.
Following [@minimal], we also define a space ${\mathcal}W$ to be [*locally minimal*]{} if there is a constant $K\geqslant 1$ such that ${\mathcal}W$ is $K$-crudely finitely representable in any infinite-dimensional subspace, i.e., if for any finite-dimensional ${\mathcal}F\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ and infinite-dimensional ${\mathcal}Y\subseteq{\mathcal}W$, ${\mathcal}F\sqsubseteq_K{\mathcal}Y$. Let us first see local minimality in terms of $\alpha$-minimality.
Suppose ${\mathcal}W$ is a locally minimal Banach space with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$. Then ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is ${\omega}^2$-minimal.
Let $K$ be the constant of local minimality. For any infinite-dimensional subspace ${\mathcal}Y\subseteq {\mathcal}W$, block sequence $(w_i)\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ and $\alpha<{\omega}^2$, we need to show that ${\rm Emb}((w_i),{\mathcal}Y)>\alpha$. So choose $n$ such that $\alpha<{\omega}\cdot n$ and find some constant $C$ such that if $x_1<\ldots<x_n$ and $y_1<\ldots<y_n$ are finite block sequences of $(e_i)$ such that $\frac 1K\|x_i\|\leqslant \|y_i\|\leqslant K\|x_i\|$, then $(x_i)\sim_C(y_i)$. We claim that $${\rm rank}\big(T((w_i),{\mathcal}Y,2C)\big)\geqslant {\omega}\cdot n.$$ To see this, find some block subspace ${\mathcal}X$ such that ${\mathcal}X\sqsubseteq_2{\mathcal}Y$. It suffices to prove that $${\rm rank}\big(T((w_i),{\mathcal}X,C)\big)\geqslant {\omega}\cdot n.$$
Let $k_1$ be given. We shall see that ${\emptyset}$ has rank $\geqslant {\omega}(n-1)+k_1-1$ in $T((w_i),{\mathcal}X,C)$. So choose by local $K$-minimality some $z_0,\ldots,z_{k_1-1}\in {\mathcal}X$ such that $$(w_0,\ldots,w_{k_1-1})\sim_K(z_0,\ldots,z_{k_1-1}).$$ It then suffices to show that $(z_0,\ldots,z_{k_1-1})$ has rank $\geqslant {\omega}(n-1)$ in $T((w_i),{\mathcal}X,C)$, or, equivalently, that for any $k_2$, it has rank $\geqslant {\omega}(n-2)+k_2-1$. So choose $z_{k_1},\ldots, z_{k_1+k_2-1}$ in ${\mathcal}X$ with support after all of $z_0,\ldots,z_{k_1-1}$ such that $$(w_{k_1},\ldots,w_{k_1+k_2-1})\sim_K(z_{k_1},\ldots,z_{k_1+k_2-1}).$$ Again, it suffices to show that $$(z_0,\ldots, z_{k_1-1},z_{k_1},\ldots,z_{k_1+k_2-1})$$ has rank $\geqslant {\omega}(n-2)$ in $T((w_i),{\mathcal}X,C)$. Et cetera.
Eventually, we will have produced $$z_0,\ldots,z_{k_1-1}<z_{k_1},\ldots,z_{k_1+k_2-1}<\ldots<z_{k_1+\ldots+k_{n-1}},\ldots, z_{k_1+\ldots+k_{n}-1}$$ such that for each $l$, $$(w_{k_1+\ldots+k_{l-1}},\ldots,w_{k_1+\ldots+k_l-1})\sim_K(z_{k_1+\ldots+k_{l-1}},\ldots,z_{k_1+\ldots+k_l-1}).$$ Since we have chosen the successive sections of $(z_i)$ successively on the basis, we have, by the choice of $C$, that $$(w_0,\ldots,w_{k_1+\ldots+k_{n}-1})\sim_C(z_0,\ldots,z_{k_1+\ldots+k_{n}-1}),$$ whereby $(z_0,\ldots,z_{k_1+\ldots+k_{n}-1})\in T((w_i),{\mathcal}X,C)$ and hence has rank $\geqslant 0={\omega}(n-n)$ in $T((w_i),{\mathcal}X,C)$. This finishes the proof.
In [@minimal], another dichotomy was proved stating that any infinite-dimensional Banach space contains a subspace with a basis that is either tight with constants or is locally minimal. In particular, we have the following dichotomy.
Any infinite-dimensional Banach space contains an infinite-dimensional subspace with a basis that is either ${\omega}$-tight or is ${\omega}^2$-minimal.
One problem that remains open is to exhibit spaces that are $\alpha$-minimal and ${\omega}\alpha$-tight for unbounded $\alpha<{\omega}_1$. We are not aware of any construction in the literature that would produce this, but remain firmly convinced that such spaces must exist, since otherwise there would be a universal $\beta<{\omega}_1$ such that any Banach space would either contain a minimal subspace or a $\beta$-tight subspace, which seems unlikely.
Show that there are $\alpha$-minimal, ${\omega}\alpha$-tight spaces for unboundedly many $\alpha<{\omega}_1$.
Out main result, Theorem \[principal\], allows us to refine the classification scheme developed in [@gowers] and [@minimal], by further differentiating the class of tight spaces into $\alpha$-minimal, ${\omega}\alpha$-tight for $\alpha<{\omega}_1$. Currently, the most interesting direction for further results would be to try to distinguish between different classes of minimal spaces, knowing that these pose particular problems for applying Ramsey Theory.
Apart from some basic facts about Schauder bases, the main tools of our paper originate in descriptive set theory for which our general reference is the book by A. S. Kechris [@kechris]. In particular, we follow his presentation of trees and games, except that we separate a game from its winning condition and thus talk about players having a strategy to [*play in a certain set*]{}, rather than having a strategy to win.
Setup {#discrete}
=====
For the proof of Theorem \[main5\], we will need to replace Banach spaces with the more combinatorial setting of normed vector space over countable fields, which we will be using throughout the paper (cf. [@exact]). So suppose ${\mathcal}W$ is a Banach space with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$. By a standard Skolem hull construction, we find a countable subfield ${\mathfrak}F\subseteq {\mathbb R}$ such that for any ${\mathfrak}F$-linear combination $\sum_{n=0}^ma_ne_n$, the norm $\|\sum_{n=0}^ma_ne_n\|$ belongs to ${\mathfrak}F$. Let also $W$ be the countable-dimensional ${\mathfrak}F$-vector space with basis $(e_n)$. In the following, we shall exclusively consider the ${\mathfrak}F$-vector space structure of $W$, and thus subspaces etc. refer to ${\mathfrak}F$-vector subspaces. We equip $W$ with the discrete topology, whereby any subset is open, and equip its countable power $W^{\mathbb N}$ with the product topology. Since $W$ is a countable discrete set, $W^{\mathbb N}$ is a Polish, i.e., separable and completely metrisable, space. Notice that a basis for the topology on $W^{\mathbb N}$ is given by sets of the form $$N(x_0,\ldots,x_k)=\{(y_n)\in W^{\mathbb N}{ \; \big| \;}y_0=x_0\;\&\;\ldots\;\&\;y_k=x_k\},$$ where $x_0,\ldots,x_k\in W$. Henceforth, we let $x,y,z,v$ be variables for [*non-zero*]{} elements of $W$. If $x=\sum a_ne_n\in W$, we define the [*support*]{} of $x$ to be the finite, non-empty set ${\rm supp}(x)=\{n{ \; \big| \;}a_n\neq
0\}$ and set for $x,y\in W$, $$x<y{\Leftrightarrow}{\forall}n\in {\rm supp}(x)\; {\forall}m\in {\rm supp}(y)\;\; n<m.$$ Similarly, if $k$ is a natural number, we set $$k<x{\Leftrightarrow}{\forall}n\in {\rm supp}(x)\;\;k<n.$$ Analogous notation is used for finite subsets of ${\mathbb N}$ and finite-dimensional subspaces of $W$. A finite or infinite sequence $(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,\ldots)$ of vectors is said to be a [*block sequence*]{} if for all $n$, $x_n<x_{n+1}$.
Note that, by elementary linear algebra, for all infinite-dimensional subspaces $X\subseteq W$ there is a subspace $Y\subseteq X$ spanned by an infinite block sequence, called a [*block subspace*]{}. Henceforth, we use variables $X,Y,Z,V$ to denote infinite-dimensional block subspaces of $W$. Also, denote finite sequences of non-zero vectors by variables $\vec x, \vec y, \vec z,\vec v$. Finally, variables $E,F$ are used to denote finite-dimensional subspaces of $W$.
Proof of Theorem \[tightness\]
==============================
We should first recall a natural strengthening of tightness from [@minimal]. Suppose ${\mathcal}W$ is a Banach space with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$ and find ${\mathfrak}F$ and $W$ as in section \[discrete\]. Let also $bb(e_n)\subseteq W^{\mathbb N}$ be the closed set of all block sequences in $W^{\mathbb N}$. Let ${\mathbb I}$ be the countable set of all non-empty finite intervals $\{n,n+1,\ldots, m\}\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ and give ${\mathbb I}^{\mathbb N}$ the product topology, where ${\mathbb I}$ is taken discrete. We say that ${\mathcal}W=[e_n]$ is [*continuously tight*]{} if there is a continuous function $$f\colon bb(e_n){\rightarrow}{\mathbb I}^{\mathbb N}$$ such that for any block sequence $(y_n)\in W^{\mathbb N}$, $f\big((y_n)\big)=(I_n)\in {\mathbb I}^{\mathbb N}$ is a sequence of intervals such that $I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$ and such that whenever $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite, $$[y_n]\not\sqsubseteq [e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{k\in A}I_k].$$ In other words, $f$ continuously chooses the sequence of intervals witnessing tightness.
As in the case of Banach spaces, for any $K\geqslant 1$, block subspace $Y\subseteq W$, and block sequence $(x_n)$ of $(e_n)$, we define $T((x_n),Y,K)$ to be the non-empty tree consisting of all finite sequences $(y_0,\ldots,y_k)$ in $Y$ such that $$(y_0,\ldots,y_k)\sim_K(x_0,\ldots,x_k).$$ Similarly define the embeddability index of $(x_n)$ in $Y$ by $${\rm Emb}((x_n),Y)=\sup_{K\geqslant 1}{\rm rank}\big(T((x_n),Y,K)\big).$$ Then, if ${\mathcal}Y$ denotes the closed ${\mathbb R}$-linear subspace of ${\mathcal}W$ spanned by $Y$, we have, as was observed earlier, that $${\rm Emb}((x_n),{\mathcal}Y)={\rm Emb}((x_n),Y).$$
We recall the statement of Theorem \[tightness\].
Let ${\mathcal}W$ be a Banach space with a Schauder basis $(e_n)$ and having no minimal subspaces. Then there is a block subspace ${\mathcal}X=[x_n]$ that is $\alpha$-tight for some countable ordinal $\alpha$.
By the results of [@minimal], we have that, as ${\mathcal}W$ has no minimal subspaces, there is a block subspace $X=[x_n]$ of $W=[e_n]$ that is continuously tight as witnessed by a function $f$. So it suffices to show that for some $\alpha<{\omega}_1$ and any block sequence $(y_n)$ of $(x_n)$, if $(I_n)=f\big((y_n)\big)$, then $${\rm Emb}\big((y_n),[x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{k\in A}I_k]\big )\leqslant\alpha,$$ for any infinite set $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$.
Note that if $D$ is any countable set, we can equip the power set ${\mathcal}P(D)$ with the compact metric topology obtained from the natural identification with $2^D$. Let $[{\mathbb N}]$ denote the space of infinite subsets of ${\mathbb N}$ equipped with the Polish topology induced from ${\mathcal}P({\mathbb N})$. We define a Borel measurable function between Polish spaces $$T\colon bb(x_n)\times [{\mathbb N}]\times {\mathbb N}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal}P(X^{<{\mathbb N}}),$$ by setting $$T((y_n),A,K)=T((y_n),[x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{j\in A}I_j],K),$$ where $(I_n)=f\big((y_n)\big)$.
By assumption, the image of $T$ is an analytic set of well-founded trees on $X$. So, by the Boundedness Theorem for analytic sets of well-founded trees, there is some $\alpha<{\omega}_1$ such that $$\sup_{((y_n),A,K)\in bb(x_n)\times [{\mathbb N}]\times {\mathbb N}} {\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),[x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{j\in A}I_j],K)\big)\leqslant\alpha,$$ whereby, for any block sequence $(y_n)$ of $(x_n)$ and any infinite subset $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, $${\rm Emb}\big((y_n),[x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{k\in A}I_k]\big )\leqslant\alpha,$$ showing that ${\mathcal}X$ is $\alpha$-tight.
Proof of Theorem \[main5\]
===========================
Generalised $\alpha$-games
--------------------------
Suppose $X\subseteq W$ and $\alpha$ is a countable ordinal number. We define the [*generalised Gowers $\alpha$-game below $X$*]{}, denoted $G^\alpha_X$, between two players I and II as follows: $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & Y_0 & & Y_1 & && & & Y_k & \\
&\xi_0<\alpha& &\xi_1<\xi_0& &&& & \xi_k<\xi_{k-1} & \\
& & & & && \ldots&& & \\
{\bf II} & & F_0\subseteq Y_0 & & F_1\subseteq Y_1&&& & & F_k\subseteq Y_k \\
& & x_0\in F_0 & & x_1\in F_0+F_1 & && & & x_k\in F_0+\ldots+F_k
\end{array}
}$$ Here $\alpha>\xi_0>\xi_1>\ldots>\xi_k=0$ is a strictly decreasing sequence of ordinals, $Y_l\subseteq X$ are block subspaces, the $F_l\subseteq Y_l$ are finite-dimensional subspaces, and $x_l\in F_0+F_1+\ldots+F_l$ non-zero vectors. Since I plays a strictly decreasing sequence of ordinals, the game will end once $\xi_k=0$ has been chosen and II has responded with some $x_k$. We then say that the sequence $(x_0,\ldots,x_k)$ of non-zero vectors is the [*outcome*]{} of the game.
Similarly, we can define the [*asymptotic $\alpha$-game below $X$*]{}, $F_X^\alpha$, as follows $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & n_0 & & n_1 & && & & n_k & \\
&\xi_0<\alpha& &\xi_1<\xi_0& &&& & \xi_k<\xi_{k-1} & \\
& & & & && \ldots&& & \\
{\bf II} & & n_0<F_0 & & n_1<F_1 &&& & & n_k<F_k \\
& & x_0\in F_0 & & x_1\in F_0+F_1 & && & & x_k\in F_0+\ldots+F_k
\end{array}
}$$ Here again, $\alpha>\xi_0>\xi_1>\ldots>\xi_k=0$ is a strictly decreasing sequence of ordinals, $n_l$ natural numbers, the $F_l$ are finite-dimensional subspaces of $[e_i]_{i=n_l+1}^\infty$, and $x_l\in F_0+F_1+\ldots+F_l$ non-zero vectors. The game ends once I has played $\xi_k=0$ and II has responded with some $x_k$. The [*outcome*]{} is the sequence of non-zero vectors $(x_0,\ldots,x_k)$.
If $\vec x$ is a finite sequence of non-zero vectors, we define the games $G^\alpha_X(\vec x)$, $F_X^\alpha(\vec x)$ as above, except that the outcome is now $\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}(z_0,\ldots,z_k)$.
We also define adversarial $\alpha$-games by mixing the games above. For this, suppose $E,F$ are finite-dimensional subspaces of $W$ and $\vec z$ is an [*even-length*]{} sequence of non-zero vectors.
We define $A_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$ by $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&& n_0<E_0 & &n_1<E_1 & & &n_k<E_k & \\
&& x_0 & &x_1 & & & x_k& \\
{\bf I} && Y_0 & & Y_1 & & & Y_k & \\
&&\xi_0& &\xi_1& & & \xi_k & \\
&& & & & & \ldots& & \\
& n_0& & n_1 & & n_2 & & \\
{\bf II} && & F_0\subseteq Y_0 & & F_1\subseteq Y_1 & & & F_k\subseteq Y_k \\
&& & y_0 & & y_1 & & & y_k
\end{array}
}$$ and $B_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$ by: $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&& E_0\subseteq Y_0 & &E_1\subseteq Y_1 & & & &E_k\subseteq Y_k & \\
&& x_0& &x_1& & && x_k& \\
{\bf I} && n_0 & & n_1 & & & & n_k & \\
&&\xi_0& &\xi_1& & & & \xi_k & \\
&& & & & & & \ldots& & \\
& Y_0& & Y_1 & & &Y_2 & & & \\
{\bf II} && &n_0< F_0 & & &n_1<F_1 & & & n_k<F_k \\
&& & y_0 & & & y_1 & & & y_k
\end{array}
}$$ where $$\alpha>\xi_0>\xi_1>\ldots>\xi_k=0$$ is a decreasing sequence of ordinals, $Y_l\subseteq X$ are block subspaces, and $n_l$ natural numbers. Moreover, in $A_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$, $$E_l\subseteq X\cap [e_i]_{i=n_l+1}^\infty\qquad\text{and} \qquad F_l\subseteq Y_l$$ are finite-dimensional subspaces, while in $B_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$, $$F_l\subseteq X\cap [e_i]_{i=n_l+1}^\infty\qquad\text{and} \qquad E_l\subseteq Y_l$$ are finite-dimensional subspaces. Finally, the non-zero vectors $x_l$ and $y_l$ are chosen such that $$x_l\in E+E_0+\ldots+E_l,$$ while $$y_l\in F+F_0+\ldots+F_l.$$ Both games terminate once I has played $\xi_k=0$ and II has responded with some $y_k$. The [*outcome*]{} is then the finite sequence of non-zero vectors $$\vec z{\;\hat{}\;}(x_0,y_0,x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_k,y_k).$$
Now suppose instead that $\vec z$ is an [*odd-length*]{} sequence of non-zero vectors. We then define $A_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$ by $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
& & &n_1<E_1 & & n_2<E_2 & &n_k<E_k & \\
& & &x_1 & & x_2 & & x_k& \\
{\bf I} & Y_0 & & Y_1 & &Y_2 & & Y_k & \\
&& &\xi_1& & \xi_2 & & \xi_k & \\
& & & && & \ldots& & \\
& & n_1 & & n_2 & & & \\
{\bf II} & & F_0\subseteq Y_0 & & F_1\subseteq Y_1 & & & & F_k\subseteq Y_k \\
& & y_0 & & y_1 & & & & y_k
\end{array}
}$$ and $B_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$ by: $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
& & &E_1\subseteq Y_1 & &E_2\subseteq Y_2 && &E_k\subseteq Y_k & \\
&& &x_1& &x_2 &&& x_k& \\
{\bf I} & n_0 & & n_1 &&n_2 & & & n_k & \\
&& &\xi_1& & \xi_2 & & &\xi_k \\
& & & & & && \ldots& & \\
& & Y_1 & &Y_2 & & \\
{\bf II} & &n_0< F_0 & &n_1<F_1 & & & & & n_k<F_k \\
& & y_0 & & y_1 & & & & & y_k
\end{array}
}$$ where $$\alpha>\xi_1>\ldots>\xi_k=0$$ is a decreasing sequence of ordinals, $$x_l\in E+E_1+\ldots+E_l,$$ $$y_l\in F+F_0+\ldots+F_l,$$ and otherwise the games are identical to those above. The [*outcome*]{} is now the finite sequence $\vec z{\;\hat{}\;}(y_0,x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_k,y_k)$.
If $\vec z={\emptyset}$ and $E=F=\{0\}$, we shall write $A^\alpha_X$ and $B^\alpha_X$ instead of $A_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$, respectively $B_X^\alpha(\vec z,E,F)$. Thus, in both games $A^\alpha_X$ and $B^\alpha_X$, one should remember that I is the [*first*]{} to play a vector. And in $A^\alpha_X$, I plays block subspaces and II plays integers, while in $B^\alpha_X$, II takes the role of playing block subspaces and I plays integers.
We should also mention the degenerate case when $\alpha=0$. The games $G^\alpha_X(\vec z)$ and $F^\alpha_X(\vec z)$ then terminate immediately with outcome $\vec z$ and, if $\vec z$ is of even length, the same holds for the games $A^\alpha_X(\vec z,E,F)$ and $B^\alpha_X(\vec z,E,F)$. On the other hand, if $\vec z$ is of odd length, in $A^\alpha_X(\vec z,E,F)$ and $B^\alpha_X(\vec z,E,F)$, I will play respectively $Y_0$ and $n_0$ and II respond with a single $y_0$ according to the rules, whereby the outcome is now $\vec z{\;\hat{}\;}y_0$.
If $X$ and $Y$ are subspaces, where $Y$ is spanned by an infinite block sequence $(y_0,y_1,y_2,\ldots)$, we write $Y\subseteq^* X$ if there is $n$ such that $y_m\in X$ for all $m\geqslant n$. A simple diagonalisation argument shows that if $X_0\supseteq X_1\supseteq X_2\supseteq \ldots$ is a decreasing sequence of block subspaces, then there is some $Y\subseteq X_0$ such that $Y\subseteq^* X_n$ for all $n$.
The aim of the games above is for each of the players to ensure that the outcome lies in some predetermined set depending on the player. By the asymptotic nature of the game, it is easily seen that if $T\subseteq
W^{<{\mathbb N}}$ and $Y\subseteq^* X$, then if II has a strategy in $G^\alpha_X$ or $A^\alpha_X(\vec z,E,F)$ to play in $T$, i.e., to ensure that the outcome is in $T$, then II will have a strategy in $G^\alpha_Y$, respectively $A^\alpha_Y(\vec z,E,F)$, to play in $T$ too. Similarly, if I has a strategy in $F^\alpha_X$ or $B^\alpha_X(\vec z,E,F)$ to play in $T$, then I also has a strategy in $F^\alpha_Y$, respectively in $B^\alpha_X(\vec z,E,F)$, to play in $T$.
Ramsey determinacy of adversarial $\alpha$-games
------------------------------------------------
We are now ready to prove the basic determinacy theorem for adversarial $\alpha$-games, which can be seen as a refinement of the determinacy theorem for open adversarial games (see Theorem 12 in [@exact]).
\[relational\] Suppose $\alpha<{\omega}_1$ and $T\subseteq W^{<{\mathbb N}}$. Then for any $X\subseteq W$ there is $Y\subseteq X$ such that either
1. II has a strategy in $A^\alpha_Y$ to play in $T$, or
2. I has a strategy in $B^\alpha_Y$ to play in $\sim\!T$.
We say that
- $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,X)$ is [*good*]{} if II has a strategy in $A^\beta_X(\vec x,E,F)$ to play in $T$.
- $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,X)$ is [*bad*]{} if ${\forall}Y\subseteq X$, $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,Y)$ is not good.
- $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,X)$ is [*worse*]{} if it is bad and either
1. $|\vec x|$ is even and $\beta=0$, or
2. $|\vec x|$ is even, $\beta>0$, and $${\forall}Y\subseteq X\;{\exists}E_0\subseteq Y\; {\exists}x_0\in E+E_0\;{\exists}\gamma<\beta\;(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}x_0,E+E_0,F,\gamma,X) \textrm{ is bad},$$ or
3. $|\vec x|$ is odd and $${\exists}n\;{\forall}n<F_0\subseteq X\;{\forall}y_0\in F+F_0\;(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}y_0,E,F+F_0,\beta,X) \textrm{ is
bad},$$
- $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,X)$ is [*wicked*]{} if ${\forall}y_0\in F\;(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}y_0,E,F,\beta,X)$ is bad.
One checks that good, bad and wicked are all $\subseteq^*$-hereditary in the last coordinate, that is, if $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,X)$ is good and $Y\subseteq^*X$, then also $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,Y)$ is good, etc. So, by diagonalising over the countably many tuples of $\vec x$, $E$, $F$, and $\beta\leqslant \alpha$, we can find some $Y\subseteq X$ such that for all $\vec x$, $E$, $F$, and $\beta\leqslant \alpha$,
- $(\vec x, E, F,\beta,Y)$ is either good or bad, and
- if there is some $Y_0\subseteq Y$ such that for all $F_0\subseteq Y_0$, $(\vec x, E, F+F_0,\beta,Y)$ is wicked, then there is some $n$ such that for all $n<F_0\subseteq Y$, $(\vec x, E, F+F_0,\beta,Y)$ is wicked.
If $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,Y)$ is bad, then it is worse.
Assume first that $|\vec x|$ is even. The case when $\beta=0$ is trivial, so assume also $\beta>0$. Since $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,Y)$ is bad, we have $$\begin{split}
{\forall}V\subseteq Y \text{ II has no strategy in $A^\beta_V(\vec x,E,F)$ to play in }T.
\end{split}$$ Referring to the definition of the game $A^\beta_V(\vec x,E,F)$, this implies that $$\begin{split}
{\forall}V\subseteq Y\;& {\exists}E_0\subseteq V\; {\exists}x_0\in E+E_0\; {\exists}\gamma<\beta\; \\
&\text{ II has no strategy in $A^\gamma_V(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}x_0,E+E_0,F)$ to play in }T,
\end{split}$$ (note that the subspace $Y_0\subseteq V$ also played by I becomes the first play of I in the game $A^\gamma_V(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}x_0,E+E_0,F)$). But if $V\subseteq Y$ and II has no strategy in $A^\gamma_V(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}x_0,E+E_0,F)$ to play in $T$, then $(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}x_0,E+E_0,F,\gamma,V)$ is not good and hence must be bad. Thus, $$\begin{split}
{\forall}V\subseteq Y\;{\exists}E_0\subseteq V\; &{\exists}x_0\in E+E_0\; {\exists}\gamma<\beta\; (\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}x_0,E+E_0,F,\gamma,V) \text{ is bad,}
\end{split}$$ which is just to say that $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,Y)$ is worse.
Now suppose instead that $|\vec x|$ is odd. As $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,Y)$ is bad, it is not good and so II has no strategy in $A^\beta_{Y}(\vec x, E,F)$ to play in $T$. Therefore, for some $Y_0\subseteq Y$, we have $${\forall}F_0\subseteq Y_0\; {\forall}y_0\in F+F_0 \text{ II has no strategy in $A^\beta_Y(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}y_0,E,F+F_0)$ to play in }T.$$ i.e., $${\forall}F_0\subseteq Y_0\; {\forall}y_0\in F+F_0 \;(\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}y_0,E,F+F_0, \beta,Y)\text{ is not good and hence is bad.}$$ In other words, $${\forall}F_0\subseteq Y_0\; (\vec x,E,F+F_0,\beta,Y) \text{ is wicked.}$$ So by (ii) we have $${\exists}n\; {\forall}n<F_0\subseteq Y\;(\vec x,E,F+F_0,\beta,Y) \text{ is wicked},$$ that is $${\exists}n\; {\forall}n<F_0\subseteq Y\;{\forall}y_0\in F+F_0\; (\vec x{\;\hat{}\;}y_0,E,F+F_0,\beta,Y) \text{ is bad,}$$ showing that $(\vec x,E,F,\beta,Y)$ is worse.
If $({\emptyset}, \{0\},\{0\},\alpha,Y)$ is good, the first possibility of the statement of the theorem holds. So suppose instead $({\emptyset}, \{0\},\{0\},\alpha,Y)$ is bad and hence worse. Then, using the lemma and unraveling the definition of worse, we see that I has a strategy to play the game $B^\alpha_Y$ such that at any point in the game, if $$\begin{aligned}
&\vec x=(x_0,y_0,x_1,y_1,\ldots,x_l,y_l)\\
&E_0,F_0,E_1,F_1,\ldots,E_l,F_l\\
&\alpha>\xi_0>\xi_1>\ldots>\xi_l,\end{aligned}$$ respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
&\vec y=(x_0,y_0,x_1,y_1,\ldots,y_{l-1},x_l)\\
&E_0,F_0,E_1,F_1,\ldots,F_{l-1},E_l\\
&\alpha>\xi_0>\xi_1>\ldots>\xi_l,\end{aligned}$$ have been played, then $$(\vec x,E_0+\ldots+E_l,F_0+\ldots+F_l,\xi_l,Y),$$ respectively $$(\vec y,E_0+\ldots+E_l,F_0+\ldots+F_{l-1},\xi_l,Y),$$ is worse. Since $\alpha>\xi_0>\xi_1\ldots$, we eventually have $\xi_k=0$, that is, the game terminates with some worse $$(\vec z,E_0+\ldots+E_k,F_0+\ldots+F_k,0,Y),$$ whereby the outcome $\vec z$ lies in $\sim\!T$.
A game theoretic dichotomy
--------------------------
We first need a lemma ensuring us a certain uniformity.
\[uniformity\] Let $\beta<{\omega}_1$ and suppose that for every $X\subseteq W$ there are $K\geqslant 1$ and a block sequence $(y_n)\subseteq X$ such that II has a strategy in $F^\beta_X$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ satisfying $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ Then there are $K\geqslant 1$ and $Y\subseteq W$ such that for all $X\subseteq Y$ there is a block sequence $(y_n)\subseteq X$ such that II has a strategy in $F^\beta_X$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ satisfying $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ In other words, $K\geqslant 1$ can be chosen uniformly for all $X\subseteq Y$.
Assume toward a contradiction that the conclusion fails. Then, as the games $F^\beta_X$ to play in any set $T\subseteq W^{<{\mathbb N}}$ are determined, i.e., either I or II has a winning strategy, we can inductively define $W\supseteq Y_0\supseteq Y_1\supseteq \ldots$ such that for any block sequence $(y_n)$ in $Y_K$, I has a strategy in $F^\beta_{Y_K}$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ satisfying $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\not\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ For each $N\in {\mathbb N}$, let $c(N)$ be a constant such that if $(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_{N-1},v_{N},v_{N+1},\ldots)$ and $(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_{N-1},v_{N},v_{N+1},\ldots)$ are two normalised block sequences of $(e_n)$, then $$(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_{N-1},v_{N},v_{N+1},\ldots)\sim_{c(N)}(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_{N-1},v_{N},v_{N+1},\ldots).$$ Now choose a block sequence $(x_0,x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ such that for every $N$ there are normalised $v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_{N-1}\in Y_{N\cdot c(N)}$ with $$v_0<v_1<\ldots<v_{N-1}<x_N<x_{N+1}<\ldots$$ and, moreover, such that $x_N,x_{N+1},\ldots\in Y_{N\cdot c(N)}$. Set also $X=[x_n]$.
By the assumptions of the lemma, we can find some constant $N\in {\mathbb N}$ and a normalised block sequence $(y_0,y_1,\ldots)$ in $X$ such that II has a strategy in $F^\beta_X$ to play $(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)$ with $$(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)\sim_N(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ Since $\min {\rm supp}(x_N)\leqslant\min{\rm supp}(y_N)$, it follows by the choice of $(x_n)$ that there are normalised $v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_{N-1}\in Y_{N\cdot c(N)}$ such that $$v_0<v_1<\ldots<v_{N-1}<y_N<y_{N+1}<\ldots.$$ Moreover, by the definition of $c(N)$, we have $$(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_{N-1},y_{N},y_{N+1},\ldots)\sim_{c(N)}(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_{N-1},y_{N},y_{N+1},\ldots).$$ Thus, if we let $v_n=y_n$ for all $n\geqslant N$, we see that II has a strategy in $F_X^\beta$ to play $(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)$ with $$(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)\sim_N(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k)\sim_{c(N)}(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k).$$ But $X\subseteq^*Y_{N\cdot c(N)}$, so II has a strategy in $F^\beta_{Y_{N\cdot c(N)}}$ to play $(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)$ with $$(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)\sim_{N\cdot c(N)}(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k).$$ On the other hand, $(v_n)\subseteq Y_{N\cdot c(N)}$ and so I has a strategy in $F^\beta_{Y_{N\cdot c(N)}}$ to play $(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)$ such that $$(w_0,w_1,\ldots,w_k)\not\sim_{N\cdot c(N)}(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k),$$ which is absurd. This contradiction proves the lemma.
\[going to adversarial\] Suppose $X\subseteq W$, $(y_0,y_1,y_2,\ldots)$ is a sequence of vectors in $W$, $\alpha<{\omega}_1$ and $K\geqslant 1$. Assume that II has a strategy in $F_X^{{\omega}\cdot \alpha}$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ such that $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ Then II has a strategy in $B^{\alpha}_X$ to play $(u_0,v_0,u_1,v_1,\ldots,u_k,v_k)$ such that $$(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_k)\sim_K(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k).$$
We shall describe the strategy for II in the game $B^\alpha_X$, the idea being that, when playing the game $B_X^\alpha$, II will keep track of an auxiliary run of $F^{{\omega}\cdot\alpha}_X$, using his strategy there to compute his moves in $B^\alpha_X$.
Now, in $B^\alpha_X$, II will play subspaces $Y_0,Y_1, \ldots$ all equal to $Y=[y_n]$, whereby the subspaces $Y_0,Y_1,\ldots$ and $E_0,E_1,\ldots$ lose their relevance and we can eliminate them from the game for simplicity of notation. We thus have the following presentation of the game $B_X^\alpha$. $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&& u_0\in Y& &u_1\in Y& & & u_k\in Y& \\
{\bf I} && n_0 & & n_1 & & & n_k & \\
&&\xi_0<\alpha& &\xi_1<\xi_0& & & \xi_k<\xi_{k-1} & \\
&& & & & & \ldots& & \\
{\bf II} && &n_0< F_0 & & n_1<F_1 & & & n_k<F_k \\
&& & v_0\in F_0 & & v_1\in F_0+F_1 & & & v_k\in F_0+\ldots+F_k
\end{array}
}$$ So suppose $u_0,u_1,\ldots$ is being played by I in $B^\alpha_X$. To compute the answer $v_0,v_1,\ldots$, II follows his strategy in $F^{{\omega}\cdot\alpha}_X$ to play $(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k)\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k)$ as follows. First, as $u_0,u_1,\ldots\in Y=[y_n]$, we can write each $u_i$ as $$u_i=\sum_{j=0}^{m_i-1}\lambda^i_jy_j,$$ where we, by adding dummy variables, can assume that $m_0<m_1<m_2<\ldots$. So to compute $v_0$ and $F_0$ given $u_0$, $n_0$ and $\xi_0$, II first runs an initial part of $F^{{\omega}\cdot\alpha}_X$ as follows $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & n_0 & & n_0 & & & n_0 & \\
&{\omega}\xi_0\!+\!m_0\!-\!1& &{\omega}\xi_0\!+\!m_0\!-\!2& & & {\omega}\xi_0& \\
& & & & & \ldots& & \\
{\bf II} & & n_0<F^0_1 & & n_0<F^0_2&& & n_0<F^0_{m_0} \\
& & x_0\in F^0_1 & & x_1\in F^0_1\!+\!F^0_2 & & & x_{m_0\!-\!1}\in F^0_1\!+\ldots+\!F^0_{m_0}
\end{array}
}$$ He then plays $F_0=F^0_1+\ldots+F^0_{m_0}$ and $$v_0=\sum_{j=0}^{m_0-1}\lambda^0_jx_j\in F_0$$ in $B^\alpha_X$.
Next, I will play some $u_1$, $n_1$ and $\xi_1$, and, to compute $v_1$ and $F_1$, II will continue the above run of $F^{{\omega}\cdot\alpha}_X$ with $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & n_1 & & & & n_1 & \\
&{\omega}\xi_1+m_1-1& & & & {\omega}\xi_1& \\
& & & & \ldots& & \\
{\bf II} & & n_1<F^1_1 & && & n_1<F^1_{m_1} \\
& & x_{m_0}\in F_0+F^0_1 & & & & x_{m_1-1}\in F_0+ F^1_1+\ldots+F^1_{m_1}
\end{array}
}$$ He then plays $F_1=F^1_1+\ldots+F^{1}_{m_1}$ and $$v_1=\sum_{j=0}^{m_1-1}\lambda^1_jx_j\in F_0+F_1$$ in $B^\alpha_X$.
So at each stage, II will continue his run of $F^{{\omega}\cdot\alpha}_X$ a bit further until eventually I has played some $\xi_k=0$. Thus, in the game $F_X^{{\omega}\cdot\alpha}$, I will play ordinals $$\alpha>{\omega}\xi_0+m_0-1>{\omega}\xi_0+m_0-2>\ldots>{\omega}\xi_0>{\omega}\xi_1+m_1-1>\ldots>{\omega}\xi_k=0$$ and integers $n_0\geqslant n_0\geqslant\ldots\geqslant n_0\geqslant n_1\geqslant \ldots\geqslant n_k$, while II will use his strategy to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{m_k-1})$ such that $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{m_k-1})\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_{m_k-1}).$$ Since the $v_i$ and $u_i$ have the same coefficients over respectively $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$, it follows that $$(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_k)\sim_K(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k).$$
By a similar argument, we have the following lemma.
\[passing to block sequences\] Suppose $X\subseteq W$, $(y_0,y_1,y_2,\ldots)$ is a block sequence in $W$, $\alpha<{\omega}_1$ and $K\geqslant 1$. Assume that II has a strategy in $F_X^{{\omega}\cdot \alpha}$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ such that $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ Then for any block sequence $(z_n)$ in $[y_n]$, II has a strategy in $F^{\alpha}_X$ to play $(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k)$ such that $$(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k)\sim_K(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k).$$
First, as $(z_n)$ is a block sequence in $[y_n]$, we can write each $z_i$ as $$z_i=\sum_{j=m_{i-1}}^{m_i-1}\lambda_jy_j,$$ where $m_{-1}=0<m_0<m_1<m_2<\ldots$.
As before, when playing $F_X^\alpha$, II will keep track of an auxiliary run of $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$, using his strategy there to compute his moves in $F^\alpha_X$. So the game $F^\alpha_X$ runs as follows: $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
{\bf I} && n_0 & & n_1 & & & n_k & \\
&&\xi_0& &\xi_1& & & \xi_k & \\
&& & & & & \ldots& & \\
{\bf II} && &n_0< F_0 & & n_1<F_1 & & & n_k<F_k \\
&& & v_0\in F_0 & & v_1\in F_0+F_1 & & & v_k\in F_0+\ldots+F_k
\end{array}
}$$ To compute $v_0$, II first runs an initial part of $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$ as follows $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & n_0 & & n_0 & & & n_0 & \\
&{\omega}\xi_0\!+\!m_0\!-\!1& &{\omega}\xi_0\!+\!m_0\!-\!2& & & {\omega}\xi_0& \\
& & & & & \ldots& & \\
{\bf II} & & n_0<F^0_1 & & n_0<F^0_2&& & n_0<F^0_{m_0} \\
& & x_0\in F^0_1 & & x_1\in F^0_1\!+\!F^0_2 & & & x_{m_0\!-\!1}\in F^0_1\!+\ldots+\!F^0_{m_0}
\end{array}
}$$ He then plays $F_0=F^0_1+\ldots+F^0_{m_0}$ and $$v_0=\sum_{j=m_{-1}}^{m_0-1}\lambda_jx_j\in F_0$$ in $F^\alpha_X$.
Next, I will play some $\xi_1$ and $n_1$ and to compute $v_1$ and $F_1$, II will continue the above run of $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$ with $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & n_1 & & & & n_1 & \\
&{\omega}\xi_1+m_1-m_0-1& & & & {\omega}\xi_1& \\
& & & & \ldots& & \\
{\bf II} & & n_1<F^1_1 & && & n_1<F^1_{m_1-m_0} \\
& & x_{m_0}\in F_0+F^0_1 & & & & x_{m_1-1}\in F_0+ F^1_1+\ldots+F^1_{m_1-m_0}
\end{array}
}$$ He then plays $F_1=F^1_1+\ldots+F^{1}_{m_1-m_0}$ and $$v_1=\sum_{j=m_0}^{m_1-1}\lambda_jx_j\in F_0+F_1$$ in $F^\alpha_X$.
So at each stage, II will continue his run of $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$ a bit further until eventually I has played some $\xi_k=0$. Thus, in the game $F_X^{{\omega}\alpha}$, I will play ordinals $$\alpha>{\omega}\xi_0+m_0-1>{\omega}\xi_0+m_0-2>\ldots>{\omega}\xi_0>{\omega}\xi_1+m_1-m_0-1>\ldots>{\omega}\xi_k=0$$ and integers $n_0\geqslant n_0\geqslant\ldots\geqslant n_0\geqslant n_1\geqslant \ldots\geqslant n_k$, while II will use his strategy to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{m_k-1})$ such that $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_{m_k-1})\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_{m_k-1}).$$ Since the $v_i$ and $z_i$ have the same coefficients over respectively $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$, it follows that $$(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k)\sim_K(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k).$$
\[gowers game\] Suppose $X\subseteq W$, $(y_n)$ is a block sequence in $W$, $\alpha<{\omega}_1$, and $K,C\geqslant 1$. Assume that
- II has a strategy in $F^\alpha_X$ to play $(x_0,\ldots,x_k)$ such that $$(x_0,x_{1},\ldots,x_{k})\sim_K(y_0,y_{1},\ldots,y_{k}),$$ and
- II has a strategy in $A_X^\alpha$ to play $(u_0,v_0,\ldots,u_k,v_k)$ such that $$(u_0,u_{1},\ldots,u_{k})\sim_C(v_0,v_{1},\ldots,v_{k}),$$
Then II has a strategy in $G_X^\alpha$ to play $(v_0,\ldots,v_k)$ such that $$(v_0,v_{1},\ldots,v_{k})\sim_{KC}(y_0,y_{1},\ldots,y_{k}).$$
To compute his strategy in $G_X^\alpha$, II will play auxiliary runs of the games $A_X^\alpha$ and $F^\alpha_X$ in which he is using the strategies described above. Information is then copied between the games as indicated in the diagrams below.
The game $G^\alpha_X$: $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & Y_0 & & Y_1 & && &&Y_k \\
&\xi_0 & & \xi_1 & && & &\xi_k \\
& & & & &&\ldots & & \\
{\bf II} & &F_0\subseteq Y_0 & &F_1\subseteq Y_1 && & & & F_k\subseteq Y_k \\
& & v_0\in F_0 & &v_{1}\in F_0+F_{1} && & & &v_{k}\in F_0+\ldots+F_k
\end{array}
}$$ The game $F_X^\alpha$: $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & n_0 & & n_1 & && &&n_k \\
&\xi_0 & & \xi_1 & && & &\xi_k \\
& & & & &&\ldots & & \\
{\bf II} & &n_0<E_0 & &n_1<E_1 && & & & n_k<E_k \\
& & x_0\in E_0 & &x_{1}\in E_0+E_{1} && & & &x_{k}\in E_0+\ldots+E_k
\end{array}
}$$ The game $A_X^\alpha$: $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}
&& n_0<E_0 & &n_1<E_1 & &n_k<E_k & \\
&& x_0\in E_0 & &x_1\in E_0\!+\!E_1& & x_k\in E_0\!+\!\ldots\!+\!E_k& \\
{\bf I} && Y_0 & & Y_1 & & Y_k & \\
&&\xi_0 & &\xi_1 & & \xi_k & \\
&& & & & \ldots& & \\
&n_0& & n_1 & & & & \\
{\bf II} && & F_0\subseteq Y_0 & & & & F_k\subseteq Y_k \\
&& & v_0\in F_0 & & & & v_k\in F_0\!+\!\ldots\!+\!F_k
\end{array}
}$$
By chasing the diagrams, one sees that this fully determines how II is to play in $G^\alpha_X$. Moreover, since II follows his strategy in $F_X^\alpha$, we have $$(x_0,x_{1},\ldots,x_{k})\sim_K(y_0,y_{1},\ldots,y_{k}),$$ while the strategy in $A_X^\alpha$ ensures that $$(x_0,x_{1},\ldots,x_{k})\sim_C(v_0,v_{1},\ldots,v_{k}),$$ from which the conclusion follows.
\[main1\] Suppose $\alpha<{\omega}_1$. Then there is $X\subseteq W$ such that one of the following holds
1. For every block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ and $K\geqslant 1$, I has a strategy in $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ satisfying $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\not\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$
2. For some $K\geqslant 1$ and every block sequence $(z_n)\subseteq X$, II has a strategy in $G^\alpha_X$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ satisfying $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\sim_K(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k).$$
Suppose that there is no $X\subseteq W$ for which (1) holds. Then, using that the game $F_X^{{\omega}\alpha}$ is determined, for every $X\subseteq W$ there is a block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ and some $K\geqslant 1$ such that II has a strategy in $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$ to play $(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)$ satisfying $$(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_k)\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ So, by Lemma \[uniformity\], there is some $K\geqslant 1$ and $Y\subseteq W$ such that for all $X\subseteq Y$ there is some block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ such that II has a strategy in $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$ to play $(x_0 , x_1 , \ldots, x_k )$ satisfying $$(x_0 , x_1 , \ldots, x_k )\sim_K(y_0 , y_1 , \ldots, y_k ).$$
If thus follows from Lemma \[going to adversarial\] that for all $X\subseteq Y$, II has a strategy in $B^{\alpha}_X$ to play $(u_0,v_0,u_1,v_1,\ldots,u_k,v_k)$ such that $$(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_k)\sim_K(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k).$$ Therefore, there is no $X\subseteq Y$ such that I has a strategy in $B^{\alpha}_X$ to play a sequence $(u_0,v_0,u_1,v_1,\ldots,u_k,v_k)$ satisfying $$(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_k)\not\sim_K(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k),$$ and thus, by Theorem \[relational\], we can find some $X\subseteq Y$ such that II has a strategy in $A^\alpha_X$ to play $(u_0,v_0,u_1,v_1,\ldots,u_k,v_k)$ satisfying $$(u_0,u_1,\ldots,u_k)\sim_K(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_k).$$
Let $(y_n)$ be the block sequence in $X$ such that II has a strategy in $F^{{\omega}\alpha}_X$ to play $(x_0 , x_1 , \ldots, x_k )$ satisfying $$(x_0 , x_1 , \ldots, x_k )\sim_K(y_0 , y_1 , \ldots, y_k ).$$ Then, using Lemma \[passing to block sequences\], we see that for any block sequence $(z_n)\subseteq [y_n]$, II has a strategy in $F^{\alpha}_X$ to play $(x_0 , x_1 ,\ldots , x_k )$ such that $$(x_0 , x_1 , \ldots, x_k )\sim_K(z_0 , z_1 , \ldots , z_k ).$$
In other words, there is some block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ such that for any block sequence $(z_n)\subseteq [y_n]$
- II has a strategy in $F^\alpha_X$ to play $(x_0,\ldots,x_k)$ satisfying $$(x_0,x_{1},\ldots,x_{k})\sim_K(z_0,z_{1},\ldots,z_{k}),$$ and
- II has a strategy in $A_X^\alpha$ to play $(u_0,v_0,\ldots,u_k,v_k)$ satisfying $$(u_0,u_{1},\ldots,u_{k})\sim_K(v_0,v_{1},\ldots,v_{k}),$$
So finally, by Lemma \[gowers game\], for any block sequence $(z_n)\subseteq [y_n]$, II has a strategy in $G_X^\alpha$ to play $(v_0,\ldots,v_k)$ such that $$(v_0,v_{1},\ldots,v_{k})\sim_{K^2}(z_0,z_{1},\ldots,z_{k}).$$ Replacing $X$ by the block subspace $[y_n]\subseteq X$ and $K$ by $K^2$, we get (2).
The embeddability index
-----------------------
\[loose\] Suppose $\alpha<{\omega}_1$, $K\geqslant 1$, $X\subseteq W$ and $(z_n)\subseteq W$ is a block sequence such that II has a strategy in $G^\alpha_X$ to play $(y_0,\ldots,y_k)$ satisfying $$(y_0,\ldots,y_k)\sim_K(z_0,\ldots,z_k).$$ Then for any subspace $Y\subseteq X$, ${\rm rank}\big(T((z_n),Y,K)\big)>\alpha$.
Let $Y\subseteq X$ and suppose toward a contradiction that ${\rm rank}\big(T((z_n),Y,K)\big)=\xi_0+1\leqslant\alpha$, where $\xi_0$ is the rank of the root ${\emptyset}$ in $T((z_n),Y,K)$. Now, let I play $Y,\xi_0$ in $G^\alpha_X$ and let II respond using his strategy $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & & Y & & \\
&&\xi_0 & & \\
&& & & \\
{\bf II} & & &E_0\subseteq Y & \\
& & & y_0\in E_0 &
\end{array}
}$$ Then the rank of $(y_0)\in T((z_n),Y,K)$ is some ordinal $\xi_1<\xi_0$, so in $G^\alpha_X$, I continues by playing $Y,\xi_1$ and II responds according to his strategy $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & & Y & & Y \\
&&\xi_0 & & \xi_1 \\
&& & & & \\
{\bf II} & & &E_0\subseteq Y & & E_1\subseteq Y \\
& & & y_0\in E_0 & & y_1\in E_0+E_1
\end{array}
}$$ Again, the rank of $(y_0,y_1)\in T((x_n),Y,K)$ is some ordinal $\xi_2<\xi_1$, so in $G^\alpha_X$, I continues by playing $Y,\xi_2$ and II responds according to his strategy $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & & Y & & Y && Y \\
&&\xi_0 & & \xi_1 && \xi_2 \\
&& & & & \\
{\bf II} & & &E_0\subseteq Y & & E_1\subseteq Y &&E_2\subseteq Y \\
& & & y_0\in E_0 & & y_1\in E_0+E_1&& y_2\in E_0+E_1+E_2
\end{array}
}$$ Etc.
Eventually, we will have constructed some $(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_{k-1})$ whose $T((z_n),Y,K)$-rank is $\xi_{k}=0$, while $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & Y & & & &&Y \\
&\xi_0 & & & && \xi_{k-1} \\
& & & &\ldots \\
{\bf II} & &E_0\subseteq Y & & &&&E_{k-1}\subseteq Y \\
& & y_0\in E_0 & & & &&y_{k-1}\in E_0+\ldots+E_{k-1}
\end{array}
}$$ has been played according to the strategy of II.
It follows that if I continues the game by playing $Y,\xi_k=0$, $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & Y & & & &&Y&&Y \\
&\xi_0 & & & && \xi_{k-1} &&\xi_k=0 \\
& & & &\ldots && \\
{\bf II} & &E_0\subseteq Y & & &&&E_{k-1}\subseteq Y && \\
& & y_0\in E_0 & & & &&y_{k-1}\in E_0+\ldots+E_{k-1}&&
\end{array}
}$$ using his strategy, II must be able to respond with some $E_k$ and $y_k\in E_0+\ldots+E_k$ $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & Y & &&Y&&Y \\
&\xi_0 & & & \xi_{k-1} &&\xi_k=0 \\
& & &\ldots & \\
{\bf II} & &E_0\subseteq Y & &&E_{k-1}\subseteq Y && E_{k}\subseteq Y \\
& & y_0\in E_0 & & &y_{k-1}\in E_0+\ldots+E_{k-1}&&y_{k}\in E_0+\ldots+E_{k}
\end{array}
}$$ Since II played according to his strategy, we have $(y_0,y_1,\ldots, y_{k})\sim_K(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k)$ and thus $(y_0,y_1,\ldots, y_{k})\in T\big((z_n),Y,K\big)$, contradicting that $(y_0,\ldots,y_{k-1})$ has $T\big((z_n),Y,K\big)$-rank $0$ and hence is a terminal node.
\[tight\] Suppose $(x_n)\subseteq W$ is a block sequence, $\beta<{\omega}_1$, and that for every normalised block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X=[x_n]$ and $K\geqslant 1$, I has a strategy in $F^{\beta}_X$ to play $(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k)$ such that $$(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k)\not\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ Then, for every normalised block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ and $K\geqslant 1$, there is a sequence $(J_m)$ of intervals of ${\mathbb N}$ with $\min J_m{\rightarrow}\infty$, such that if $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite, contains $0$ and $Z=[x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}J_m]$, then $${\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Z,K)\big)\leqslant \beta.$$
We relativise the notions of support of vectors et cetera to the basis $(x_n)$ for $X$. So the reader can assume that $(x_n)$ is the original basis $(e_n)$ and $X=W$.
Assume $(y_n)$ is a normalised block sequence in $X$ and $K\geqslant 1$. Let also $\Delta=(\delta_j)$ be a sequence of positive real numbers such that whenever $z_j,v_j\in X$, $\|z_j-v_j\|<\delta_j$, and $$(v_0,\ldots,v_k)\sim_K(y_0,\ldots,y_k),$$ then $$(z_0,\ldots,z_k)\sim_{2K}(y_0,\ldots,y_k).$$ We choose sets ${\mathbb D}_i\subseteq X$ such that for each finite set $d\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, the number of $z\in {\mathbb D}_i$ such that ${\rm supp}(z)=d$ is finite, and for every $v\in
X$ with $\|v\|\leqslant K$ there is some $z\in {\mathbb D}_i$ with ${\rm supp}(z)={\rm supp}(v)$ and ${\lVertz-v\rVert}<\delta_i$. This is possible since the $K$-ball in $[x_j]_{j\in d}$ is totally bounded for all finite $d\subseteq{\mathbb N}$.
The strategy for I in $F^\beta_X$ in the game for $(y_n)$ with constant $2K$ can be seen as a pair of functions $\xi$ and $n$ that to each legal position $(z_0,E_0,\ldots,z_j,E_j)$ of II in $F^\beta_X$ provide the next play $\xi(z_0,E_0,\ldots,z_j,E_j)\in {\rm Ord}$ and $n(z_0,E_0,\ldots,z_j,E_j)\in {\mathbb N}$ by I.
We define a function $p\colon {\mathbb N}{\rightarrow}{\mathbb N}$ by letting $p(m)$ be the maximum of $m$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\max\big(n(z_0,[x_l]_{l\in d_0},\ldots,z_i,[x_l]_{l\in d_i}){ \; \big| \;}d_j\subseteq [0,m-1]\;&\: z_j\in [x_l]_{l\in d_0\cup\ldots\cup d_j}\cap {\mathbb D}_j\big).\end{aligned}$$ By assumption on the sets ${\mathbb D}_j$, $p$ is well-defined and so we can set $J_m=[m,p(m)]\subseteq {\mathbb N}$.
We claim that if $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is an infinite set containing $0$ and $$Z=[x_n\;|\;n\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}J_m],$$ then $${\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Z,K)\big)\leqslant \beta.$$ To see this, we define a monotone function $\phi$, i.e., $\vec v\prec \vec w{\Rightarrow}\phi(\vec v)\prec \phi(\vec w)$, associating to each $\vec v=(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_{i})\in T((y_n),Z,K)$ some $$\phi(\vec v)=(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_{i})\in {\mathbb D}_0\times {\mathbb D}_1\times\ldots\times {\mathbb D}_{i}$$ such that for all $j\leqslant i$, $\|z_j-v_j\|<\delta_j$ and ${\rm supp}(z_j)={\rm supp}(v_j)$, whereby, in particular, $z_j\in Z$. Also set $T=\phi\big[T((y_n),Z,K)\big]$ and note that $T$ is a subtree of $Z^{<{\mathbb N}}$ with $${\rm rank}(T)\geqslant {\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Z,K)\big).$$
Suppose toward a contradiction that ${\rm rank}(T)>\beta$, whereby the rank of ${\emptyset}$ in $T$ is $\geqslant \beta$. We describe how II can play against the strategy for I in $F^\beta_X$ to play $(z_0,\ldots,z_k)$ such that $$(z_0,\ldots,z_k)\sim_{2K}(y_0,\ldots,y_k),$$ which will contradict the assumption on the strategy for I. The case $\beta=0$ is trivial, so we assume that $\beta>0$.
First, I plays $\xi({\emptyset})<\beta$ and $n({\emptyset})$. Since, $a_0=0\in A$, we have $n({\emptyset})\leqslant p(a_0)=\max J_{a_0}<Z$ and thus there is some $n({\emptyset})<z_0\in T$ whose rank in $T$ is $\geqslant \xi({\emptyset})$. Find also $a_1\in A$ such that $z_0<J_{a_1}$ and let $E_0=[x_j{ \; \big| \;}J_{a_0}<x_j<J_{a_1}]$. So let II respond by $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & & n({\emptyset}) & & \\
&&\xi({\emptyset}) & & \\
&& & & \\
{\bf II} & & &n({\emptyset})<E_0 & \\
& & & z_0\in E_0 &
\end{array}
}$$ Now, by his strategy, I will play some $\xi(z_0,E_0)<\xi({\emptyset})$ and $n(z_0,E_0)\leqslant p(a_1)=\max J_{a_1}$. So find some $z_1$ such that $(z_0,z_1)\in T$ and has rank $\geqslant \xi(z_0,E_0)$ in $T$. Find also $a_2\in A$ such that $z_1<J_{a_2}$. Then, as $a_0,a_1\in A$, if we set $E_1=[x_j{ \; \big| \;}J_{a_1}<x_j<J_{a_2}]$, we have $z_1\in E_0+E_1$, so we let II respond by $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & & n({\emptyset}) & & n(z_0,E_0) \\
&&\xi({\emptyset}) & & \xi(z_0,E_0) \\
&& & & \\
{\bf II} & & &n({\emptyset})<E_0 & &n(z_0,E_0)<E_1 \\
& & & z_0\in E_0 & &z_1\in E_0+E_1
\end{array}
}$$ Et cetera. It follows that at the end of the game, $${\footnotesize
\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & n({\emptyset}) & & & n(z_0,E_0, \ldots, z_{k-1},E_{k-1}) \\
&\xi({\emptyset}) & & & \xi(z_0,E_0, \ldots, z_{k-1},E_{k-1})=0 \\
& & & \ldots & & \\
{\bf II} & &n({\emptyset})<E_0 && &n(z_0,E_0, \ldots, z_{k-1},E_{k-1}) <E_k \\
& & z_0\in E_0 & & &z_k\in E_0+\ldots+E_k
\end{array}
}$$ II will have constructed a sequence $(z_0,\ldots,z_k)\in T$. So, by the definition of $T$, there is some $(v_0,\ldots,v_k)\in T((y_n),Z,K)$ such that $\phi(v_0,\ldots,v_k)=(z_0,\ldots,z_k)$ and hence $\|z_j-v_j\|<\delta_j$ for all $j$. Thus, $$(v_0,\ldots,v_k)\sim_K(y_0,\ldots,y_k),$$ and hence $$(z_0,\ldots,z_k)\sim_{2K}(y_0,\ldots,y_k).$$ Since II cannot have such a strategy, it follows instead that $${\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Z,K)\big)\leqslant {\rm rank}(T)\leqslant \beta,$$ which proves the lemma.
\[tight1\] Suppose $(x_n)\subseteq W$ is a normalised block sequence, $\beta<{\omega}_1$, and that for every normalised block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X=[x_n]$ and $K\geqslant 1$, I has a strategy in $F^{\beta}_X$ to play $(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k)$ such that $$(z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_k)\not\sim_K(y_0,y_1,\ldots,y_k).$$ Then, for every normalised block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ there is a sequence $$I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$$ of intervals of ${\mathbb N}$, such that if $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite and $Z=[x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m]$, then $${\rm Emb}\big((y_n),Z\big)\leqslant \beta.$$
Fix a normalised block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ and relativise again all notions of support et cetera to the block basis $(x_n)$. By Lemma \[tight\], we can for every $K$ find a sequence $(J_n^K)$ of intervals of ${\mathbb N}$ with $\min J_n^K{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{n{\rightarrow}\infty}} \infty$ such that for any infinite set $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ containing $0$, we have $${\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),[x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin\bigcup_{n\in A}J^K_n],K)\big)\leqslant \beta.$$ Also, for every $N$, we let $c(N)\in {\mathbb N}$ be a constant such that any two subsequences of $(x_j)$ differing in at most $N$ terms are $c(N)$-equivalent.
We construct intervals $I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$ such that each $I_n$ contains an interval from each of the families $(J^1_i),\ldots,(J^n_i)$ and, moreover, $$\min I_n<\max I_n-\max J^{n\cdot c(\min I_n)}_0.$$
We claim that if $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite and $Z=[x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m]$, then $${\rm Emb}\big((y_n),Z\big)\leqslant \beta.$$ Suppose towards a contradiction that this fails for some $A$ and pick some $N$ such that ${\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Z,N)\big)>\beta$. Choose $a\in A$ such that $a\geqslant N$ and note that $$\min I_a<\max I_a-\max J^{a\cdot c(\min I_a)}_0.$$ Thus, by changing only the terms $x_j$ for $j<\min I_a$ of the sequence $$\begin{split}
(x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}&I_m)=\\
& (x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m\;\&\; j<\min I_a)\cup (x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m\;\&\; j>\max I_a),
\end{split}$$ we find a subsequence of $$\begin{split}
(x_j{ \; \big| \;}\max J_0^{a\cdot c(\min I_a)}<j\leqslant \max I_a)\cup
(x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m\;\&\; j>\max I_a)\end{split}$$ that is $c(\min I_a)$-equivalent with $$(x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m).$$ Since $N\cdot c(\min I_a)\leqslant a\cdot c(\min I_a)$, it follows that if $$Y= [x_j{ \; \big| \;}\max J_0^{a\cdot c(\min I_a)}<j\leqslant \max I_a]+[x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m\;\&\; j>\max I_a],$$ then $Z\sqsubseteq_{c(\min I_a)}Y$, and so $$\beta<{\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Z,N)\big)\leqslant {\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Y,a\cdot c(\min I_a))\big).$$ But, by the choice of the $I_n$, we see that there is an infinite subset $B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ containing $0$ such that $Y$ is outright a subspace of $[x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in B}J^{a\cdot c(\min I_a)}_m]$, whereby, by choice of the intervals $J^{a\cdot c(\min I_a)}_m$, we have $${\rm rank}\big(T((y_n),Y,a\cdot c(\min I_a))\big)\leqslant \beta,$$ which is absurd. This contradiction shows that the intervals $I_n$ fulfill the conclusion of the lemma.
By combining Theorem \[main1\] and Lemmas \[loose\] and \[tight1\], we obtain
\[main3\] Suppose $\alpha<{\omega}_1$. Then there is a block subspace $X=[x_n]\subseteq W$ such that one of the following holds
1. For every normalised block sequence $(y_n)$ in $X$ there is a sequence $$I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$$ of intervals of ${\mathbb N}$, such that if $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite, then $${\rm Emb}\big((y_n),[x_j{ \; \big| \;}j\notin \bigcup_{m\in A}I_m]\big)\leqslant {\omega}\alpha.$$
2. For any subspace $Y\subseteq X$ and any block sequence $(z_n)\subseteq X$, $${\rm Emb}\big((z_n),Y\big)> \alpha.$$
And by replacing the normed ${\mathfrak}F$-vector subspaces $X$ and $Y$ in Theorem \[main3\] by their closures ${\mathcal}X$ and ${\mathcal}Y$ in ${\mathcal}W$, we obtain Theorem \[main5\].
Let ${\mathcal}W$ be Banach space with a Schauder basis and suppose $\alpha<{\omega}_1$. Then there is a block subspace ${\mathcal}X=[x_n]\subseteq {\mathcal}W$ that is either ${\omega}\alpha$-tight or $(\alpha+1)$-minimal.
[99]{}
J. Bourgain, [*On separable Banach spaces, universal for all separable reflexive spaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1980), no. 2, 241–246.
V. Ferenczi and C. Rosendal, [*Banach spaces without minimal subspaces*]{}, Journal of Functional Analysis, Volume 257, Issue 1, 1 July 2009, 149–193.
W. T. Gowers, [*An infinite Ramsey theorem and some Banach-space dichotomies*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**156**]{} (2002), no. 3, 797–833.
A. S. Kechris, [*Classical descriptive set theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
A. M. Pelczar, [*Subsymmetric sequences and minimal spaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 (2003) 3, 765–771.
C. Rosendal, [*An exact Ramsey principle for block sequences*]{}, Collectanea Mathematica, Vol. 61, no. 10 (2010) 25–36.
[^1]: The initial research for this article was done while the author was visiting V. Ferenczi at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, with the support of FAPESP. The author’s research was likewise supported by NSF grants DMS 0901405 and DMS 0919700
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Chisa Hotta [^1], Nobuo Furukawa, Akihiko Nakagawa, Kenn Kubo'
title: 'Phase Diagram of Spinless Fermions on an Anisotropic Triangular Lattice at Half-filling'
---
Charge degrees of freedom provide particular orders and disorders under geometrical frustration, as has been discussed from the time of the Verwey transitions[@verway]. Many recent topics are related to those on the anisotropic triangular lattice(ATL). They are experimentally explored in the organic solids as a possible “non-magnetic” Mott insulator[@shimizu] and organic thyristor[@terasaki]. Theoretically, the phase diagram of the half-filled Hubbard model on ATL seems to suggest the particular “spin liquid” insulator[@imada], which has been searched for from the past as a nonmagnetic state free from any kind of ordering[@anderson].
Quarter-filling is characterized by the charge ordering(CO) phenomenon, as studied by the extended Hubbard model(EHM) in the context of organic solids[@chemrev; @chisa]. The interplay of CO and frustration is investigated in the phase diagrams based on ATL[@merino; @hwata]. However, the two dimensional systems under geometrical frustration requires a delicate and difficult numerical treatment, thus a clear answer is still not obtained. In the present letter, we simplify the problem and deal with the spinless fermions at half-filling to extract the intrinsic character of the charge degrees of freedom. We obtain a convincing phase diagram which retains a strong coupling nature even in a rather weak coupling region. In addition to the pinball liquid reported in Ref.\[10\], another unconventional strongly correlated CO state with fluctuating stripes is found in the finite size cluster. Its transport character is sensitive to the geometry of quantum dynamics which is discussed in terms of the organic solid $\theta$-ET$_2X$.
The spinless fermion Hamiltonian in the present study is given as, $$\begin{split}
{\cal H} = \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle} &\Big(
-t_{ij}c^\dagger_i c_j + {\rm h.c.} + V_{ij} n_i n_j\Big).
\label{tvham}
\end{split}$$ Here, $c_j$ and $n_j$ denote the annihilation and number operator of fermions. The triangular lattice has anisotropy in one of three directions as reflected in the transfer integrals, $t_{ij}$=$t,t'$, and the inter-site Coulomb interactions, $V_{ij}=V,V'$, between nearest neighbor sites whose corresponding bond directions are defined in Fig.\[f1\]. The phenomena realized in EHM in the temperature range of $J\!\sim \!\frac{t^2}{U}\! < T\! \ll \!V$ are suitably described by the $t$-$V$ model.
We perform the exact diagonalization on $N=4 \times 6=24$ cluster in eq.(\[tvham\]). Figure \[f1\] shows the phase diagram on the plane of $V/t$ and $V'/t$ at several fixed values of $t'/t$ with periodic boundaries. The diagram is classified into three different regions, whose boundaries are estimated from the discontinuity in charge structural factor, the gradient of energy by $V$ and $V'$, and Drude-like component as we see shortly. The phases (I) and (III) are the two-fold periodic striped CO states whereas the phase (II) has a three fold periodicity and is denoted as “a pinball liquid” which is studied in Ref.\[10\]. The $t'/t$-dependence of the phase boundaries is very small. This phase diagram describes well the strong coupling physics at around $V,V'>2t$ below which the phase transition begins to smear.
We first present the structural factor, $C_k=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{lm} \langle (n_l\!-\!1/2)(n_m\!-\!1/2)\rangle
{\rm e}^{{\rm i}(r_l-r_m)k}$, in Fig. \[f2\]. Each phase is characterized by its own wave numbers, (I)$(\frac{\pi}{2}n,\pi)$ with integer $n$, (II)$(\pi,\pm\frac{2}{3}\pi),(0,\pm\frac{4}{3}\pi)$, and (III)$(\pi,0)$. The peak amplitudes vary discontinuously from one to another at the phase transitions, which confirm their first order character. We mention that the structural factors over the entire Brillouin zone beside each characteristic ones are almost completely suppressed, which means that there is little possibility of the coexistence phase. The amplitudes in (I) and (II) are significantly smaller than the one in (III). As we see shortly, the disorder exists in the classical limit of phases (I) and (II), which still influences the states at $t \ne 0$ and suppresses the two-body correlation.
![ Ground state phase diagram of eq.(\[tvham\]) on the plane of $V/t$ and $V'/t$ obtained numerically at $N$=24. It is classified into three regions, (I) chain stripe, (II) pinball liquid and (III) vertical stripe. The phase boundary is given at $t'/t$=1, 0.5 and 0. Broken lines with square symbols indicate the upper bound of the insulating state in (I) for $t/t'=0.5,1$. Shaded region includes the possible location of $\theta$-ET$_2X$. Representative configuration of the classical limit of the three phases are schematically shown together. The arrows with $V,t$ and $V',t'$ at the top indicate the directions of interacting bonds in eq.(1). []{data-label="f1"}](fig1.eps){width="7cm"}
![Amplitude of charge structural factors along $V\!+\!V'\!=\!2V_o=\!12$ with characteristic wave numbers. Rectangle represents the Brillouin zone and the circles are the location of wave numbers with peaks. []{data-label="f2"}](fig2.eps){width="5.5cm"}
![Ground state energy of eq.(\[tvham\]), $E_Q$, (a) at fixed $V+V'=2V_o=18$ with $t\!=\!t'=\!1$ under several cluster size. Broken lines give the classical binding energy per site, where $E_1,E_2$ are the energy gain per site due to $t,t'$. The $4 \times 6$ cluster shown together on the right. (b) $V'$-dependence of $E_Q$ at $V$=0. for several choices of $t'=0,0.5,1$ ($t=1$). Arrows indicate the phase transitions between (I) and (II). (c) Energy correction, $(E_Q-E_C)/N$, due to $t=t'$ and $t=2t'$ at $V_o$=20 in three phases, $V$=8(I), 10(II), and 12(III), which are assigned $E_2$, $E_1$, and $E_2$, respectively. []{data-label="f3"}](fig3.eps){width="8cm"}
![(a) Three-body charge correlation function, $P_3(j)$, along the second chain($i=7-12$) at $t=t'=1$ for several choices of $V$ with $V_o=6$, with $i$ denotes the site index. Those in broken lines are the cases of striped states. (b) Fourth order process that lifts the degeneracy of the chain state. The cyclic permutation of three charges on the rectangle gives $\epsilon_4$. The energy spectrum becomes equally spaced by $\epsilon_4N_y$, with bottom and top as the horizontal and diagonal CO, respectively. The number kinks including $N_y$-rectangles in bold lines determines the energy. []{data-label="f4"}](fig4.eps){width="7cm"}
Figure\[f3\](a) shows the ground state energy, $E_{Q}$, which behaves almost linearly with $V$ at the fixed value of $V+V'\equiv 2V_0$, while its gradient changes discontinuously at the phase transition. It is also seen in Fig.\[f3\](b). Therefore the phase transitions are of first order. Note that the present phase diagram is almost free from finite size effect. Figure \[f3\](a) reveals that $E_Q$ of the smaller cluster size, $4\times 4$ and $4\times 3$, reproduces within 0.3$\%$ the ones of $4\times 6$ in (I), (III) and (II), (III), respectively, i.e. as long as the periodicity of each state is commensurate with the shape of the cluster.
The difference between three phases can be clearly understood by the strong coupling theory[@pinball]. In the classical limit $t=t'=0$, the ratio of $V$ and $V'$ determines the phase diagram. The system has a semimacroscopically ($\sim 2^{\sqrt{N}}$-fold) degenerate chain CO state and a non-degenerate vertical stripe CO state at $V<V'$ and $V>V'$, respectively[@pinball], and the phases (I) and (III) are their extensions. Their lowest order energy gain per site by $t,t'$ ($\ll V,V'$) is estimated as, $E_2=-t'^2/V'-t^2/(2V'-V)$ (I), $-2t^2/(3V-2V')$ (II), which is presented numerically in Fig. \[f3\](a) as $(E_Q-E_C)/N$. Since this effect is small at $V,V'\gg t,t'$, the stripes are quite robust even though the charge localization length is somewhat extended.
When $V=V'$ the three sublattice state with a macroscopic degeneracy joins the ground state besides these two stripes in the classical limit. The quantum dynamics of $t$ by first order lifts the degeneracy of part of the three sublattice states and the pinball liquid (II) appears. The estimated kinetic energy gain ($(E_Q-E_C)/N$ in Fig. \[f3\](a)) is of first order ($t$-linear) which behaves as $E_1 \propto c_1t + c_2t^2$ ($c_1,c_2$ are constants) in contrast to $E_2 \propto t^2$ as shown in Fig. \[f3\](c) regardless of the anisotropy in $t'/t$. Since $E_Q$= $V/2\!+\!E_2$, $(2V'+V)/6\!+\!E_1$, and $V/2\!+\!E_2$ for (I)-(III), respectively, the phase (II) appears at around $6(E_1-E_2) \leq V-V'\leq -3(E_1-E_2)$.
To fully figure out the nature of the pinball liquid (II) out of disorder, we should consider the three-body correlation, $P_3(j)\!\equiv \!\langle n_1 (1-n_2) n_j \rangle$ which is the population of the $j$-th site when the [*1*]{}-st and the [*2*]{}-nd site is present and absent, respectively. Figure \[f4\](a) shows that the $n_A+n_B\! \sim \!2n_C$ type of three-fold structure is present only in (II). This is in contrast to the $n_A \neq n_B\sim n_C$ type ones based on mean field wave functions[@hwata].
The phase (I) is another ordered state out of disorder. Its classical limit has a CO along every chain ($y$-direction). Regular stacking of the CO chains give the diagonal striped structure shown in Fig. \[f4\](b). Starting from this we can introduce a kink one by one, and finally we obtain the horizontal stripe with the full number of kinks. All these structures have the same energy and are semi-macroscopically degenerate. We call this gapless and disordered state a chain CO[@pinball]. The energy correction by $t$ starts from the second order, but the degeneracy is not lifted until the fourth order; the degree of lifting per rectangular unit with three charges is $\epsilon_4 \!= \!-2t^4/(2V'-V)^2V'$ as shown in Fig. \[f4\](b). The energy gain from the diagonal stripe is given as $\epsilon_4 N_y N_{\rm kink}$, where $N_{\rm kink}$ denotes the number of kinks. Therefore the horizontal stripe becomes a unique ground state in the bulk limit, and the reduction of $N_{\rm kink}$ corresponds to the gapful domain wall excitation which requires energy larger than the single particle excitation($\epsilon_4 N_y \!\gg \!V'$) except in the vicinity of the strong coupling limit. In finite clusters, however, these kinked chain states easily mix with the horizontal stripe. The energy gain here is, $\epsilon_{\rm ch} \sim N_y t'^{\frac{N_y}{2}}/V'^{\frac{N_y}{2}-1}$, which is far smaller than $E_1$ and $E_2$ at $V' \gg t'$ so that its correction to the phase boundary in Fig. \[f1\] is negligibly small. In this way, the degeneracy lifted ground state in the bulk limit should have only a single peak of $C_k$ within the Brillouin zone at $(0,\pi)$.
![ Amplitude of energy, $D_\alpha$, under the twisted boundary condition in $\alpha=x,y$, directions along (a)$V$=0 and (b)$V'$=0. Solid lines show the exponential fit, $D_\alpha \propto {\rm e}^{-\Delta_c/C_{\xi_\alpha}}$. Arrows indicate the phase transitions (those in (a) are the possible metal-insulator transition points). The corresponding fitting constants, $C_{\xi_\alpha}$, are given in (c) as functions of $t'/t$. []{data-label="f5"}](fig5.eps){width="7.5cm"}
![(a) Schematic ground state phase diagram on the planes of $V/t$ and $V'/t$ at each $t'/t$. The COI denote the insulating striped phases. Filled and open circles are the possible locations of the Rb and Cs-salts of $\theta$-ET$_2X$. (b) Schematic phase diagram at finite temperature. The colored regions denote the quantum phases, (I)-(III), which are replaced by the classical disordered phase at higher temperatures. The crossover is possibly realized in the Cs-salt at $T_{\rm cr}$ as indicated in arrows. []{data-label="f6"}](fig6.eps){width="7cm"}
Next, we twist the boundary condition in $x$ and $y$ directions by the phase factor of e$^{{\rm i} \psi_\alpha}$ ($\alpha=x,y$), where $\psi_\alpha$=0 and $\pi$ correspond to the periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions, respectively. Then, $D_\alpha\!=\!E_Q(\psi_\alpha\!=\!\pi)\!-\!E_Q(\psi_\alpha\!=\!0)$, is approximately proportional to the Drude weight of the finite system size. The discontinuity of $D_\alpha$ detects the first order phase transitions among (I) (II) and (III). The pinball liquid is possibly a metal in the bulk limit with $D_\alpha \!\neq \!0$ as previously reported in Ref.\[10\][@pinball]. In contrast, the coherence of the gapful localized commensurate stripes is expected to decay exponentially with distance $l$ as, $\propto {\rm e}^{-l/\xi}$, where $\xi$ denotes the coherence length. Then we except, $\xi_\alpha=C_{\xi_\alpha}/\Delta_c$ with $C_{\xi_\alpha}$ as $V,V'$-independent but $t',t$-dependent values and $\Delta_c$ the value of charge gap in the classical limit, i.e. $V'$ in (II) and $2V-V'$ in (III). By anticipating $D_\alpha \propto {\rm e}^{-N_\alpha C_{\xi_\alpha}/\Delta_c}$ ($N_\alpha$ is the system length), the fitting is well performed as the solid lines in Figs. \[f5\](a) and \[f5\](b) whose $C_{\xi_\alpha}$’s are plotted against $t'/t$ in Fig. \[f5\](c). The fitting breaks down simultaneously at the transition from (III) to (II), which indicates that phase (III) is a localized ($\xi_\alpha < N_\alpha$) insulator. In this phase both $D_\alpha$ and $C_{\xi_\alpha}$ are $t'/t$-independent which is also the case with $E_Q$ in Fig. \[f3\](b). In contrast, $E_Q$ of (I) in Fig. \[f3\](d) together with $D_\alpha$ actually has large $t'/t$-dependence. There is a possible phase boundary within phase (I) estimated by the discontinuity in $\partial D_\alpha/\partial V'$ which is given in Fig. \[f1\] with broken lines. The strong coupling large $V'$-region is an insulator in its bulk limit. However, in the rather weak coupling region, $\xi_\alpha$ develops and exceeds $N_\alpha$, which corresponds to the above phase boundary. Notice that it depends much on $t'/t$. At present, we cannot discriminate whether this new intermediate region in (I) is gapful or not in the bulk case, nor whether there is a finite size effect in this boundary. Nevertheless, the estimated boundary gives an upper bound of the metal insulator transition line.
The previous theoretical attempts to clarify the phase diagram suffers from problems. Those based on mean-field wave function[@hwata] failed to describe fully the extremely correlated chain(horizontal) and pinball states. Their phase diagram has ambiguous “competition” region between states of different symmetry breaking due to large size-dependence, which is an artifact of adopting a plane wave based wave function on such correlated and highly localized system. Exact diagonalization on EHM in 4$\times$4 finite clusters overestimates their “frustration induced metal” as well as underestimates the pinball liquid[@merino], as clarified explicitly in Figs. \[f1\] and \[f3\](a). Our phase diagram presents a clear view to these problems and describes the intrinsic nature of $U\!=\!\infty$ EHM at quarter-filling since the basic character of three phases are free from statistics[@pinball].
The ground state phase diagram is summarized in Fig. \[f6\](a). The anisotropy of $t'/t$ only affects the coherence of phase (I) in a relatively weakly coupled region. We show schematically in Fig. \[f6\](b) the finite temperature effect, $k_BT\! \neq \!0$, where the classical disordered state becomes prosperous as a result of the macroscopic entropy. The free energy of the classical three-sublattice state is, $F_{\rm 3sub} \!\sim \!\frac {2V+V'}{6}N\!-\!k_BT \ln (0.5\times 2^N)$, while those of the nondegenerate quantum states are $F\!=\!E_Q \! \sim E_C+\delta E_Q N$ with $\delta E_Q \sim \!E_2+\epsilon_4$, $E_1$, and $E_2$ for (I), (II) and (III), respectively. The crossover lines from quantum to classical states with increasing $k_BT$ are estimated by the crossing points of these free energies as, $T_{\rm cr} \sim \frac{V'-V}{6}-E_2$, $|E_1|$ and $\frac{V-V'}{3}-E_2$, respectively. The chain type of disorder does not appear in the bulk case since the entropy gain remains of order $\sim O(\sqrt{N}\ln \sqrt{N})$.
Now we examine the relevance of the present results to the CO materials, $\theta$-ET$_2X$. The nature of this family at low temperatures is classified on the experimental phase diagram along the dihedral angle, $\phi$[@hatsumi]; when $\phi>110^\circ$, the system becomes a CO insulator accompanied by the structural transition at $T_{\rm CO}\sim 200$K. At $\phi <110^\circ $ it is a bad metal down to low temperatures with the resistivity minimum at $T_\rho \sim $ 20-70K. Recent X-ray analysis reports the existence of a short range diffuse spot of two-fold and three-fold type in the Cs-salt ($X$=Cs$M$(SCN)$_4$, $M$=Co,Zn, $\phi < 110^\circ$) at $\sim T_\rho$[@wat1] and also in Rb-salts($\phi \sim 110^\circ$) above $T_{\rm CO}$[@wat2], which have $(|t'|/t,V'/V) \sim$ (0,0.9) and (0.5,0.85), respectively[@tmori].
It is obvious that there is a characteristic crossover temperature of order $T_\rho$ at $\phi<110^\circ$ which increases with $\phi$. Actually, at around $V'>V$, we can estimate the crossover temperature as $T_{\rm cr} \sim \frac{V'-V}{6} \sim 0.1V$. Since we consider $V\!\sim \!T_{\rm CO}$, the experimental crossover at $\sim T_\rho$ is reasonably understood. An observed bad metallic nature with almost $T$-independent resistivity at $T>T_\rho$[@hatsumi] supports the existence of disorder. Also the up going of resistivity at $T<T_\rho$ is consistent with the insulating character of the possible horizontal stripe[@hatsumi]. The coexistence of states with different periodicity in the ground state is ruled out in the present study. However, at finite temperature, the disordered state which includes both the three-sublattice and the striped local patterns might appear around the crossover temperature, which were excluded in Fig. \[f6\](b) for simplicity. The study on this complicated matter is still underway.
Somehow, the ground state of this family is placed amidst the pinball liquid state as shown in Fig. \[f1\], which is inconsistent with the above experimental findings. In the present stage we did not consider the effect of phonons. The three-fold state is found to be quite easily replaced by the horizontal stripe long range order(LRO) under that effect[@kaneko], which might be valid in our case as well.
It is frequently argued that $\phi$ can be regarded as $V/t$. Contrarily, one of the authors successfully reclassified the experimental phase diagram by $|t'|/t$, on the basis of EHM[@chisa] which is recently pursued experimentally[@kondo] and also in the weak coupling theory[@hwata]. In our phase diagram, however, $|t'|/t$ only rules the coherence length of the system at the relatively weak coupling region. To figure this out, we should examine the extra effect such as electron-phonon coupling in the disordered region.
In conclusion, the strong coupling phase diagram of the charges on the anisotropic triangular lattice is presented. A metallic pinball liquid phase appears in between an insulating vertical and the horizontal stripe CO’s. The first order transitions take place in the phase boundaries which are almost solely determined by the geometry of the inter-site Coulomb interactions. The present phase diagram provides two different types of order-from-disorder due to quantum dynamics; the extremely correlated pinball liquid out of disordered three sublattice classical state, and the horizontal state which has a domain-wall like excitation to the disordered chain striped classical states. Both of these states provide good test cases for the disorder-embedded phenomena. The disorder once gave path to quantum states recovers at finite temperature with the aid of its macroscopic entropy.
We thank R. Kondo, M. Watanabe, I. Terasaki, and R. Chiba for many useful experimental informations.
[9]{} E. J. W. Verwey, Nature [**144**]{} 327 (1939). Y. Shimizu, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M Maesato and G. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003)107001. F. Sawano, I. Terasaki, H. Mori, T. Mori, M. Watanabe, N. Ikeda, Y. Nogami, Y. Noda, Nature [**437**]{} (2005) 522. H. Morita, S. Watanabe and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**71**]{} (2002) 2109. P. W. Anderson, Mater. Res. Bull. [**8**]{} (1973) 153; P. Fazekas and P. W. Anderson, Philos. Mag. [**30**]{} (1974) 423. H. Seo, C. Hotta, H. Fukuyama, Chem. Rev. [**104**]{} (2004) 8558, and the references therein. C. Hotta, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**72**]{} (2003) 840. H. Watanabe, M. Ogata, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**75**]{} (2006) 063702. J. Merino, H. Seo, M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{} (2005) 125111. C. Hotta, N. Furukawa, condmat/0605045/. G. H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. [**79**]{} (1950) 357; K. Husimi, I. Shoji, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**5**]{} (1995) 341, and so on. H. Mori, S. Tanaka, and T. Mori, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{} (1998) 12023. M. Watanabe,Y. Nogami, K. Oshima, H. Mori, S. Tanaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**68**]{} (1999) 2654. M. Watanabe, Y. Noda, Y. Nogami, H. Mori, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**73**]{} (2004) 116; M. Watanabe, Y. Noda, Y. Nogami, H. Mori, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**74**]{} (2005) 2011. T. Mori, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. [**73**]{} (2000) 2243. R. Kondo, M. Higa, S. Kagoshima, H. Hoshino, T. Mori, H. Mori, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**75**]{} (2006) 044716. M. Kaneko, M. Ogata, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**75**]{}(2006) 014710.
[^1]: E-mail address:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Victor Chernozhukov
- Mert Demirer
- Esther Duflo
- 'Iván Fernández-Val'
bibliography:
- '../Literature/mybibVOLUME.bib'
title: Generic Machine Learning Inference on Heterogenous Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments
---
[^1]
**Abstract.** We propose strategies to estimate and make inference on key features of heterogeneous effects in randomized experiments. These key features include *best linear predictors of the effects* using machine learning proxies, *average effects sorted by impact groups*, and *average characteristics of most and least impacted units*. The approach is valid in high dimensional settings, where the effects are proxied by machine learning methods. We post-process these proxies into the estimates of the key features. Our approach is generic, it can be used in conjunction with penalized methods, deep and shallow neural networks, canonical and new random forests, boosted trees, and ensemble methods. It does not rely on strong assumptions. In particular, we don’t require conditions for consistency of the machine learning methods. Estimation and inference relies on repeated data splitting to avoid overfitting and achieve validity. For inference, we take medians of p-values and medians of confidence intervals, resulting from many different data splits, and then adjust their nominal level to guarantee uniform validity. This variational inference method is shown to be uniformly valid and quantifies the uncertainty coming from both parameter estimation and data splitting. We illustrate the use of the approach with two randomized experiments in development on the effects of microcredit and nudges to stimulate immunization demand.
**Key words:** Agnostic Inference, Machine Learning, Confidence Intervals, Causal Effects, Variational P-values and Confidence Intervals, Uniformly Valid Inference, Quantification of Uncertainty, Sample Splitting, Multiple Splitting, Assumption-Freeness, Microcredit, Immunization Incentives
**JEL:** C18, C21, D14, G21, O16\
Introduction
============
Randomized experiments play an important role in the evaluation of social and economic programs and medical treatments (e.g., @imbens2015causal [@duflo2007using]). Researchers and policy makers are often interested in features of the impact of the treatment that go beyond the simple average treatment effects. In particular, very often, they want to know whether treatment effect depends on covariates, such as gender, age, etc. It is essential to assess if the impact of the program would generalize to a different population with different characteristics, and for economists, to better understand the driving mechanism behind the effects of a particular program. In a review of 189 RCT published in top economic journals since 2006, we found that 76 (40%) report at least one subgroup analysis, wherein they report treatment effects in subgroups formed by baseline covariates.[^2]
One issue with reporting treatment effects split by subgroups, however, is that there are often a large number of potential sample splits: choosing subgroups ex-post opens the possibility of overfitting. To solve this problem, medical journals and the FDA require pre-registering the sub-sample of interest in medical trials *in advance*. In economics, this approach has gained some traction, with the adoption of pre-analysis plans (which can be filed in the AEA registry for randomized experiments). Restricting heterogeneity analysis to pre-registered subgroups, however, amounts to throwing away a large amount of potentially valuable information, especially now that many researchers collect large baseline data sets. It should be possible to use the data to discover *ex post* whether there is any relevant heterogeneity in treatment effect by covariates.
To do this in a disciplined fashion and avoid the risk of overfitting, scholars have recently proposed using machine learning (ML) tools (see e.g. [@AIEconometrics] and below for a review). Indeed, ML tools seem to be ideal to explore heterogeneity of treatment effects, when researchers have access to a potentially large array of baseline variables to form subgroups, and little guiding principles on which of those are likely to be relevant. Several recent papers, which we review below, develop methods for detecting heterogeneity in treatment effects. Empirical researchers have taken notice.[^3]
This paper develops a generic approach to use any of the ML tools to predict and make inference on heterogeneous treatment or policy effects. A core difficulty of applying ML tools to the estimation of heterogenous causal effects is that, while they are successful in prediction empirically, it is much more difficult to obtain uniformly valid inference. In fact, in high dimensional settings, absent strong assumptions, generic ML tools may not even produce consistent estimates of the *conditional average treatment effect* (CATE), the difference in the expected potential outcomes between treated and control groups conditional on covariates.
Previous attempts to solve this problem focus either on specific tools (for example the method proposed by [@athey:trees], which has become popular with applied researchers, and uses trees), or on situations where those assumptions might be satisfied. Our approach to resolve the fundamental impossibilities in non-parametric inference is different. Motivated by [@wasserman:adaptive], instead of attempting to get consistent estimation and uniformly valid inference on the CATE itself, we focus on providing valid estimation and inference on *features* of CATE. We start by building a ML proxy predictor of CATE, and then develop valid inference on features of the CATE based on this proxy predictor. In particular, we develop valid inference on three objects, which are likely to be of interest to applied researchers and policy makers: First, the **Best Linear Predictor** (BLP) of the CATE based on the ML proxy predictor; second, the **Sorted Group Average Treatment Effects** (GATES) or average treatment effect by heterogeneity groups induced by the ML proxy predictor; and third, the **Classification Analysis** (CLAN) or the average characteristics of the most and least affected units defined in terms of the ML proxy predictor. Thus, we can find out if there is detectable heterogeneity in the treatment effect based on observables, and if there is any, what is the treatment effect for different bins. And finally we can describe which of the covariates is correlated with this heterogeneity.
There is a trade-off between more restrictive assumptions or tools and a more ambitious estimation. We chose a different approach to address this trade-off than previous papers: focus on coarser objects of the function rather than the function itself, but make as little assumptions as possible. This seems to be a worthwhile sacrifice: the objects for which we have developed inference appear to us at this point to be the most relevant, but in the future, one could easily use the same approach to develop methods to estimate other objects of interest.
The Model and Key Causal Functions. {#the-model-and-key-causal-functions. .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
Let $Y(1)$ and $Y(0)$ be the potential outcomes in the treatment state 1 and the non-treatment state 0; see [@neyman1923applications] and [@rubin74]. Let $Z$ be a vector of covariates that characterize the observational units. The main causal functions are the baseline conditional average (BCA): $$\label{BCA}
b_0(Z):= {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y(0) \mid Z],$$ and the conditional average treatment effect (CATE): $$\label{CATE}
s_0(Z): = {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y(1) \mid Z] - {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y(0) \mid Z].$$
Suppose the binary treatment variable $D$ is randomly assigned conditional on $Z$, with probability of assignment depending only on a subvector of stratifying variables $Z_1 \subseteq Z$, namely $$\label{indep}D {\perp\!\!\!\perp}(Y(1), Y(0)) \mid Z,$$ and the propensity score is known and is given by $$p(Z) := {{\mathrm{P}}}[D =1 \mid Z] = {{\mathrm{P}}}[D=1 \mid Z_1],$$ which we assume is bounded away from zero or one: $$p(Z) \in [p_0, p_1] \subset (0,1).$$
The observed outcome is $Y = DY(1) + (1-D) Y(0)$. Under the stated assumption, the causal functions are identified by the components of the regression function of $Y$ given $D, Z$: $$\label{eq: HetPL1}
Y = b_0 (Z) + D s_0(Z) + U, \ \ {{\mathrm{E}}}[U\mid Z, D]= 0,$$ that is, $$\label{BCAid}
b_0(Z) = {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y \mid D=0, Z],$$ and $$\label{CATEid}
s_0(Z) = {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y \mid D=1, Z] - {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y \mid D=0, Z].$$
We observe $\mathrm{Data} = (Y_i, Z_i, D_i)_{i=1}^N$, consisting of i.i.d. copies of the random vector $(Y,Z,D)$ having probability law $P$. The expectation with respect to $P$ is denoted by ${{\mathrm{E}}}= {{\mathrm{E}}}_P$. The probability law of the entire data is denoted by $\Bbb{P} = \Bbb{P}_P$ and the corresponding expectation is denoted by $\Bbb{E} = \Bbb{E}_P$.
Properties of Machine Learning Estimators of $s_0(Z)$ Motivating the Agnostic Approach {#properties-of-machine-learning-estimators-of-s_0z-motivating-the-agnostic-approach .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machine learning (ML) is a name attached to a variety of new, constantly evolving statistical learning methods: Random Forest, Boosted Trees, Neural Networks, Penalized Regression, Ensembles, and Hybrids (see, e.g., [@wasserman:ML] for a recent review, and [@ESL] for a prominent textbook treatment). In modern high-dimensional settings, ML methods effectively explore the various forms of nonlinear structured sparsity to yield “good" approximations to $s_0(z)$ whenever such assumptions are valid, based on equations (\[BCAid\]) and (\[CATEid\]). As a result these methods often work much better than classical methods in high-dimensional settings, and have found widespread uses in industrial and academic applications.
Motivated by their practical predictive success, it is really tempting to apply ML methods directly to try to learn the CATE function $z \mapsto s_0(z)$ (by learning the two regression functions for treated and untreated and taking the difference). However, it is hard, if not impossible, to obtain uniformly valid inference on $z \mapsto s_0(z)$ using generic ML methods, under credible assumptions and practical tuning parameter choices. There are several fundamental reasons as well as huge gaps between theory and practice that are responsible for this.
One fundamental reason is that the ML methods might not even produce consistent estimators of $z \mapsto s_0(z)$ in high dimensional settings. For example, if $z$ has dimension $d$ and the target function $z \mapsto s_0(z)$ is assumed to have $p$ continuous and bounded derivatives, then the worst case (minimax) lower bound on the rate of learning this function from a random sample of size $N$ cannot be better than $N^{-p/(2p + d)}$ as $N \to \infty$, as shown by Stone [@stone82]. Hence if $p$ is fixed and $d$ is also small, but slowly increasing with $N$, such as $d {\geqslant}\log N$, then there exists no consistent estimator of $z \mapsto s_0(z)$ generally.
Hence, generic ML estimators cannot be regarded as consistent, unless further very strong assumptions are made. Examples of such assumptions include structured forms of linear and non-linear sparsity and super-smoothness. While these (sometime believable and yet untestable) assumptions make consistent adaptive estimation possible (e.g.,[@BickelRitovTsybakov2009]), inference remains a more difficult problem, as adaptive confidence sets do not exist even for low-dimensional nonparametric problems ([@low1997; @wasserman:adaptive]). Indeed, adaptive estimators (including modern ML methods) have biases of comparable or dominating order as compared to sampling error. Further assumptions such as “self-similarity” are needed to bound the biases and expand the confidence bands by the size of bias (see [@ginenickl2010; @CCKanti]) to produce partly adaptive confidence bands. For more traditional statistical methods there are constructions in this vein that make use of either undersmoothing or bias-bounding arguments ([@ginenickl2010; @CCKanti]). These methods, however, are not yet available for ML methods in high dimensions (see, however, [@hansen:kobzur] for a promising approach called “targeted undersmoothing” in sparse linear models).
Suppose we did decide to be optimistic (or panglossian) and imposed the strong assumptions, that made the theoretical versions of the ML methods provide us with high-quality consistent estimators of $ z \mapsto s_0(z)$ and valid confidence bands based on them. This would still not give us a practical construction we would want for our applications. The reason is that there is often a gap between theoretical versions of the ML methods appearing in various theoretical papers and the practical versions (with the actual, data-driven tuning parameters) coded up in statistical computing packages used by practitioners.[^4] The use of ML, for example, involves many tuning parameters with practical rules for choosing them, while theoretical work provides little guidance or backing for such practical rules; see e.g., the influential book [@ESL] for many examples of such rules. Unfortunately, theoretical work often only provides existence results: there exist theoretical ranges of the tuning parameters that make the simple versions of the methods work for predictive purposes (under very strong assumptions), leaving no satisfactory guide to practice.
In this paper we take an agnostic view. We neither rely on any structured assumptions, which might be difficult to verify or believe in practice, nor impose conditions that make the ML estimators consistent. We simply treat ML as providing proxy predictors for the objects of interest.
Our Agnostic Approach {#our-agnostic-approach .unnumbered}
---------------------
Here, we propose strategies for estimation and inference on $$\text{ \textit{ key features of } $s_0(Z)$ rather than $s_0(Z)$ itself. }$$ Because of this difference in focus we can avoid making strong assumptions about the properties of the ML estimators.
Let $(M,A)$ denote a random partition of the set of indices $\{1, \ldots, N\}$. The strategies that we consider rely on random splitting of $$\mathrm{Data} = (Y_i, D_i, Z_i)_{i=1}^N$$ into a main sample, denoted by $\mathrm{Data}_M$ $=$ $(Y_i, D_i, Z_i)_{i \in M}$, and an auxiliary sample, denoted by $\mathrm{Data}_A = (Y_i, D_i, Z_i)_{i \in A}$. We will sometimes refer to these samples as $M$ and $A$. We assume that the main and auxiliary samples are approximately equal in size, though this is not required theoretically.
From the auxiliary sample $A$, we obtain ML estimators of the baseline and treatment effects, which we call the proxy predictors, $$z \mapsto B(z) = B(z; \mathrm{Data}_A) \text{ and } z \mapsto S(z)= S(z; \mathrm{Data}_A).$$ These are possibly biased and noisy predictors of $b_0(z)$ and $s_0(z)$, and in principle, we do not even require that they are consistent for $b_0(z)$ and $s_0(z)$. We simply treat these estimates as proxies, which we post-process to estimate and make inference on the features of the CATE $z \mapsto s_0(z)$. We condition on the auxiliary sample $\mathrm{Data}_A$, so we consider these maps as frozen, when working with the main sample.
Using the main sample and the proxies, we shall target and develop valid inference about *key features of* $s_0(Z)$ rather than $s_0(Z)$, which include
- **Best Linear Predictor** (BLP) of the CATE $s_0(Z)$ based on the ML proxy predictor $S(Z)$;
- **Sorted Group Average Treatment Effects** (GATES): average of $s_0(Z)$ (ATE) by heterogeneity groups induced by the ML proxy predictor $S(Z)$;
- **Classification Analysis** (CLAN): average characteristics of the most and least affected units defined in terms of the ML proxy predictor $S(Z)$.
Our approach is *generic* with respect to the ML method being used, and is *agnostic* about its formal properties.
We will make use of many splits of the data into main and auxiliary samples to produce robust estimates. Our estimation and inference will systematically account for two sources of uncertainty:
- **Estimation uncertainty** conditional on the auxiliary sample.\
- **Splitting uncertainty** induced by random partitioning of the data into the main and auxiliary samples.
Because we account for the second source, we call the resulting collection of methods as variational estimation and inference methods (VEINs). For point estimates we report the median of the estimated key features over different random splits of the data. For the confidence intervals we take the medians of many random conditional confidence sets and we adjust their nominal confidence level to reflect the splitting uncertainty. We construct p-values by taking medians of many random conditional p-values and adjust the nominal levels to reflect the splitting uncertainty. Note that considering many different splits and accounting for variability caused by splitting is very important. Indeed, with a single splitting practice, empiricists may unintentionally look for a “good” data split, which supports their prior beliefs about the likely results, thereby invalidating inference.[^5]
Relationship to the Literature. {#relationship-to-the-literature. .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
We focus the review strictly on the literatures about estimation and inference on heterogeneous effects and inference using sample splitting.
We first mention work that uses linear and semiparametric regression methods. A semiparametric inference method for characterizing heterogeneity, called the sorted effects method, was given in [@CFL2014]. This approach does provide a full set of inference tools, including simultaneous bands for percentiles of the CATE, but is strictly limited to the traditional semiparametric estimators for the regression and causal functions. [@hansen:kobzur] proposed a sparsity based method called “targeted undersmoothing” to perform inference on heterogeneous effects. This approach does allow for high-dimensional settings, but makes strong assumptions on sparsity as well as additional assumptions that enable the targeted undersmoothing. A related approach, which allows for simultaneous inference on many coefficients (for example, inference on the coefficients corresponding to the interaction of the treatment with other variables) was first given in [@BCK-LAD] using a Z-estimation framework, where the number of interactions can be very large; see also [@dezeure2016high] for a more recent effort in this direction, focusing on de-biased lasso in mean regression problems. This approach, however, still relies on a strong form of sparsity assumptions. [@zhao2017selective] proposed a post-selection inference framework within the high-dimensional linear sparse models for the heterogeneous effects. The approach is attractive because it allows for some misspecification of the model.
Next we discuss the use of tree-based and other methods. [@Imai:stuff] discussed the use of a heuristic support-vector-machine method with lasso penalization for classification of heterogeneous treatments into positive and negative ones. They used the Horvitz-Thompson transformation of the outcome (e.g., as in [@hirano:imbens:ridder; @abadieDD]) such that the new outcome becomes an unbiased, noisy version of CATE. [@athey:trees] made use of the Horvitz-Thompson transformation of the outcome variable to inform the process of building causal trees, with the main goal of predicting CATE. They also provide a valid inference result on average treatment effects for groups defined by the tree leaves, conditional on the data split in two subsamples: one used to build the tree leaves and the one to estimate the predicted values given the leaves. Like our methods, this approach is essentially assumption-free. The difference with our generic approach is that it is limited to trees and does not account for splitting uncertainty, which is important in practical settings. [@wager:athey] provided a subsampling-based construction of a causal random forest, providing valid pointwise inference for CATE (see also the review in [@wager:athey] on prior uses of random forests in causal settings) for the case when covariates are very low-dimensional (and essentially uniformly distributed).[^6] Unfortunately, this condition rules out the typical high-dimensional settings that arise in many empirical problems, including the ones considered in this paper. Our approach is different from these existing approaches, in that we are changing the target, and instead of hunting for CATE $z \mapsto s_0(z)$, we focus on key features of $z \mapsto s_0(z)$. We simply treat the ML methods as providing a proxy predictor $z \mapsto S(z)$, which we post-process to estimate and make inference on the key features of the CATE $z \mapsto s_0(z)$. Some of our strategies rely on Horvitz-Thompson transformations of outcome and some do not. The inspiration for our approach draws upon an observation in [@wasserman:adaptive], namely that some fundamental impossibilities in non-parametric inference could be avoided if we focus inference on coarser features of the non-parametric functions rather than the functions themselves.
Our inference approach is also of independent interest, and could be applied to many problems, where sample splitting is used to produce ML predictions, e.g. [@abadie2013endogenous]. Related references include [@wasserman2009high; @meinshausen2009p], where the ideas are related but quite different in details, which we shall explain below. The premise is the same, however, as in [@meinshausen2009p; @rinaldo2016bootstrapping] – we should not rely on a single random split of the data and should adjust inference in some way. Our approach takes the medians of many conditional confidence intervals as the confidence interval and the median of many conditional p-values as the p-value, and adjusts their nominal levels to account for the splitting uncertainty. Our construction of p-values builds upon ideas in [@BH; @meinshausen2009p], though what we propose is radically simpler, and our confidence intervals appear to be brand new. Of course sample splitting ideas are classical, going back to [@hartigan1969using; @kish1974inference; @barnard; @cox1975note; @mosteller:tukey], though having been mostly underdeveloped and overlooked for inference, as characterized by [@rinaldo2016bootstrapping].
Main Identification Results and Estimation Strategies
=====================================================
BLP of CATE
-----------
We consider two strategies for identifying and estimating the best linear predictor of $s_0(Z)$ using $S(Z)$: $${\mathsf{BLP}}_{}[s_0(Z) \mid S(Z)] := \arg\min_{ f(Z) \in \mathrm{Span} (1, S(Z))} {{\mathrm{E}}}[ s_0(Z) - f(Z)]^2,$$ which, if exists, is defined by projecting $s_0(Z)$ on the linear span of $1$ and $S(Z)$ in the space $L^2(P)$.
BLP of CATE: The First Strategy {#blp-of-cate-the-first-strategy .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
Here we shall identify the coefficients of the BLP from the weighted linear projection: $$\label{equation: wreg}
Y = \alpha'X_1 + \beta_1 (D - p(Z)) + \beta_2 (D- p(Z)) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) + \epsilon, \ \ {{\mathrm{E}}}_{}[ w(Z) \epsilon
X ] = 0,$$ where $S:=S(Z)$, $$\quad w(Z) = \{p(Z)(1-p(Z))\}^{-1}, \quad X :=(X_1, X_2)$$ $$X_1:= X_1(Z), \quad \text{ e.g., } \quad X_1 = [1, B(Z)],$$ $$X_2 :=[D- p(Z), (D- p(Z))(S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) ].$$ Note that the above equation uniquely pins down $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ under weak assumptions.
The interaction $(D- p(Z)) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S)$ is [orthogonal]{} to $D- p(Z)$ under the weight $w(Z)$ and to all other regressors that are functions of $Z$ under any $Z$-dependent weight.[^7]
A consequence is our first main identification result, namely that $${\beta_1} + {\beta_2} (S(Z)- {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) = {\mathsf{BLP}}_{}[s_0(Z) \mid S(Z)],$$ in particular $\beta_1 = {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} s_0(Z)$ and $\beta_2 = \mathrm{Cov}_{}(s_0(Z), S(Z))/\operatorname{Var}_{}(S(Z))$.
\[theorem: BLP1\] *Consider $z \mapsto S(z)$ and $z \mapsto B(z)$ as fixed maps. Assume that $Y$ and $X$ have finite second moments, ${{\mathrm{E}}}X X'$ is full rank, and $\operatorname{Var}_{}(S(Z)) > 0$. Then, $(\beta_1,\beta_2)$ defined in also solves the best linear predictor/approximation problem for the target $s_0(Z)$: $$(\beta_1, \beta_2)' = \arg\min_{b_1, b_2} {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} [s_0(Z) - b_1 - b_2 S(Z)]^2,$$ in particular $\beta_1 = {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S_0(Z)$ and $\beta_2 = \mathrm{Cov}_{}(s_0(Z), S(Z))/\operatorname{Var}_{}(S(Z))$.*
The identification result is constructive. We can base the corresponding estimation strategy on the empirical analog: $$Y_i = {\widehat}\alpha'X_{1i} + {\widehat}\beta_1 (D_i - p(Z_i)) + {\widehat}\beta_2 (D_i- p(Z_i)) (S_i - \Bbb{E}_{N,M} S_i) + {\widehat}\epsilon_i, \quad i \in M,$$ $$\ \ \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) {\widehat}\epsilon_i
X_i] = 0,$$ where $\Bbb{E}_{N,M}$ denotes the empirical expectation with respect to the main sample, i.e. $$\Bbb{E}_{N,M} g(Y_i, D_i, Z_i) := |M|^{-1}\sum_{i \in M} g(Y_i, D_i, Z_i) .$$ The properties of this estimator, conditional on the auxilliary data, are well known and follow as a special case of Lemma \[lemma: estimation\] in the Appendix.
If $S(Z)$ is a perfect proxy for $s_0(Z)$, then $\beta_2 =1.$ In general, $\beta_2 \neq 1$, correcting for noise in $S(Z)$. If $S(Z)$ is complete noise, uncorrelated to $s_0(Z)$, then $\beta_2 =0$. Furthermore, if there is no heterogeneity, that is $s_0(Z) = s$, then $
\beta_2 = 0.
$ Rejecting the hypothesis $\beta_2 = 0$ therefore means that there is both heterogeneity and $S(Z)$ is its relevant predictor.
Figure \[fig:examples\] provides two examples. The left panel shows a case without heterogeneity in the CATE where $s_0(Z) = 0$, whereas there right panel shows a case with strong heterogeneity in the CATE where $s_0(Z) =Z$. In both cases we evenly split 1000 observations between the auxiliary and main samples, $Z$ is uniformly distributed in $(-1,1)$, and the proxy predictor $S(Z)$ is estimated by random forest in the auxiliary sample following the standard implementation, see e.g. [@ESL]. When there is no heterogeneity, post-processing the ML estimates helps reducing sampling noise bringing the estimated BLP close to the true BLP; whereas under strong heterogeneity the signal in the ML estimates dominates the sampling noise and the post-processing has little effect.
![Example. In the left panel we have a homogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =0$; in the right panel we have heterogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =Z$. The proxy predictor $S(Z)$ is produced by the Random Forest, shown by green line, the true BLP of CATE is shown by black line, and the estimated BLP of CATE is shown by blue line. The true and estimated BLP of CATE are more attenuated towards zero than the proxy predictor. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](ExampleBLPNoise "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth" height=".5\textwidth"}![Example. In the left panel we have a homogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =0$; in the right panel we have heterogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =Z$. The proxy predictor $S(Z)$ is produced by the Random Forest, shown by green line, the true BLP of CATE is shown by black line, and the estimated BLP of CATE is shown by blue line. The true and estimated BLP of CATE are more attenuated towards zero than the proxy predictor. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](ExampleBLPSmallNoise "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth" height=".5\textwidth"}
It is tempting and “more natural" to estimate $$Y = \tilde \alpha_1 + \tilde \alpha_2 B + \tilde \beta_1 D + \tilde \beta_2 D (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) + \epsilon, \quad {{\mathrm{E}}}[\epsilon \tilde X] = 0,$$ where $\tilde X = (1, B, D, D(S-{{\mathrm{E}}}S))$. This is a good strategy for predicting the conditional expectation of $Y$ given $Z$ and $D$. But, $\tilde \beta_2 \neq \beta_2$, and $\tilde \beta_1 + \tilde \beta_2 (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S)$ is not the best linear predictor of $s_0(Z)$.
BLP of CATE: The Second Strategy {#blp-of-cate-the-second-strategy .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
The second strategy makes use of the Horvitz-Thompson transformation: $$H = H(D,Z) = \frac{D- p(Z)}{p(Z)(1-p(Z))}.$$ It is well known that the transformed response $YH$ provides an unbiased signal about CATE: $${{\mathrm{E}}}[Y H \mid Z ] = s_0(Z)$$ and it follows that $${\mathsf{BLP}}_{}[s_0(Z) \mid S(Z)] = {\mathsf{BLP}}_{} [YH \mid S(Z)].$$ This simple strategy is completely fine for identification purposes, but can severely underperform in estimation and inference due to lack of precision. We can repair the deficiencies by considering, instead, the linear projection: $$\label{equation_HTreg}
YH = \mu' X_1 H + \beta_1 + \beta_2 (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) + \tilde \epsilon, \quad {{\mathrm{E}}}\tilde \epsilon \tilde X =0,$$ where $B := B(Z)$, $S := S(Z)$, $\tilde X := (X_1' H, \tilde X_2 ')'$, $ \tilde X_2 = (1, (S- {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S)')'$, and $X_1 = X_1(Z)$, e.g. $X_1 = B(Z)$ or $X_1 = (B(Z),S(Z),p(Z))'$. The terms $X_1$ are present in order to *reduce noise*.
We show that, as a complementary main identification result, $$\beta_1 + \beta_2 (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) = {\mathsf{BLP}}_{}[s_0(Z) \mid S(Z)].$$
\[theorem: BLP2\] *Consider $z \mapsto S(z)$ and $z \mapsto B(z)$ as fixed maps. Assume that $Y$ has finite second moments, $\tilde X =(X_1 H, 1, (S- {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S))$ is such that ${{\mathrm{E}}}\tilde X \tilde X'$ is finite and full rank, and $\operatorname{Var}(S(Z)) > 0$. Then, $(\beta_1, \beta_2)$ defined in solves the best linear predictor/approximation problem for the target $s_0(Z)$: $$(\beta_1, \beta_2)' = \arg\min_{b_1, b_2} {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} [s_0(Z) - b_1 - b_2 S(Z)]^2,$$ in particular $\beta_1 = {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} s_0(Z)$ and $\beta_2 = \mathrm{Cov}(s_0(Z), S(Z))/\operatorname{Var}(S(Z))$.*
The corresponding estimator is defined through the empirical analog: $$\label{equation: HTreg}
Y_iH_i = {\widehat}\mu' X_{1i} H_i + {\widehat}\beta_1 + {\widehat}\beta_2 (S_i - \Bbb{E}_{N,M} S_i) + {\widehat}\epsilon_i, \quad \Bbb{E}_{N,M} {\widehat}\epsilon_i \tilde X_i =0,$$ and the properties of this estimator, conditional on the auxiliary data, are well known and given in Lemma \[lemma: estimation\].
A natural question that may arise is whether the two estimation strategies proposed can be ranked in terms of asymptotic efficiency. The answer is negative. We show in Appendix \[app:comparison\] that they produce estimators that have the same distribution in large samples.
The Sorted Group ATE
--------------------
The target parameters are $${{\mathrm{E}}}_{} [ s_0(Z) \mid G ],$$ where $G$ is an indicator of group membership.
There are many possibilities for creating groups based upon ML tools applied to the auxiliary data. For example, one can group or cluster based upon predicted baseline response as in the “endogenous stratification" analysis [@abadie2013endogenous], or based upon actual predicted treatment effect $S$. We focus on the latter approach for defining groups, although our identification and inference ideas immediately apply to other ways of defining groups, and could be helpful in these contexts.
We build the groups to explain as much variation in $s_0(Z)$ as possible $$G_k := \{ S \in I_k\}, \quad k = 1, ..., K,$$ where $I_k=[\ell_{k-1}, \ell_{k})$ are non-overlaping intervals that divide the support of $S$ into regions $[\ell_{k-1}, \ell_{k})$ with equal or unequal masses: $$-\infty = \ell_0 < \ell_1 < \ldots < \ell_K= + \infty.$$ The parameters of interest are the Sorted Group Average Treatment Effects (GATES): $${{\mathrm{E}}}_{}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_k ], \quad k=1, \ldots, K.$$
Given the definition of groups, it is natural for us to impose the monotonicity restriction $${{\mathrm{E}}}_{}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_1 ] {\leqslant}... {\leqslant}{{\mathrm{E}}}_{}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_K],$$ which holds asymptotically if $S(Z)$ is consistent for $s_0(Z)$ and the latter has an absolutely continuous distribution. Under the monotonicity condition, the estimates could be rearranged to obey the weak monotonicity condition, improving the precision of the estimator. The joint confidence intervals could also be improved by intersecting them with the set of monotone functions. Furthermore, as before, we can test for homogeneous effects, $s_0(Z) = s$, by testing whether, $${{\mathrm{E}}}_{}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_1 ] = ... = {{\mathrm{E}}}_{}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_K].$$
GATES: The First Strategy {#gates-the-first-strategy .unnumbered}
-------------------------
Here we shall recover the GATES parameters from the weighted linear projection equation: $$\label{equation: group reg}
Y = \alpha'X_1 + \sum_{k=1}^K \gamma_k \cdot (D-p(Z)) \cdot 1(G_k) + \nu,
\quad {{\mathrm{E}}}[ w(Z) \nu W] = 0,$$ for $B := B(Z)$, $S := S(Z)$, $ W = (X_1', W_2')'$, $$W_2 = (\{ (D-p(Z)) 1(G_k)\}_{k=1}^K )'.$$
The presence of $D-p(Z)$ in the interaction $(D- p(Z)) 1(G_k) $ *orthogonalizes* this regressor relative to all other regressors that are functions of $Z$. The controls $X_1$, e.g. $B$, can be included to improve precision.
The second main identification result is that the projection coefficients $\gamma_k$ are the GATES parameters: $$\gamma = (\gamma_{k})_{k=1}^K = ({{\mathrm{E}}}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_k ])_{k=1}^K.$$
Given the identification strategy, we can base the corresponding estimation strategy on the following empirical analog: $$\label{equation: estimate GATES}
Y_i = {\widehat}\alpha'X_{1i} + {\widehat}\gamma' W_{2i} + {\widehat}\nu_i, \quad i \in M, \ \ \ \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) {\widehat}\nu_i W_i] = 0.$$ The properties of this estimator, conditional on the auxilliary data, are well known and stated as a special case of Lemma \[lemma: estimation\].
A formal statement appears below, together with a complementary result.
Figure \[fig:examples2\] provides two examples using the same designs as in fig. \[fig:examples\]. Post-processing the ML estimates again has stronger effect when there is no heterogeneity, but in both cases help bring the estimated GATES close to the true GATES.
![In the left panel we have the homogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =0$; in the right panel we have heterogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =Z$. The proxy predictor $S(Z)$ for CATE is produced by the random forest, whose sorted averages by groups are shown as red dots, exhibiting large biases. These are the naive estimates. The true sorted group average treatment effects (GATES) ${{\mathrm{E}}}[s_0(Z) \mid G_k]$ are shown by black dots, and estimated GATES are shown by blue dots. The true and estimated GATES correct for the biases relative to the naive strategy shown in red. The estimated GATES shown by blue dots are always closer to the true GATEs shown by black dots than the naive estimates shown in red. []{data-label="fig:examples2"}](ExampleGroupNoise "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth" height=".5\textwidth"}![In the left panel we have the homogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =0$; in the right panel we have heterogeneous CATE $s_0(Z) =Z$. The proxy predictor $S(Z)$ for CATE is produced by the random forest, whose sorted averages by groups are shown as red dots, exhibiting large biases. These are the naive estimates. The true sorted group average treatment effects (GATES) ${{\mathrm{E}}}[s_0(Z) \mid G_k]$ are shown by black dots, and estimated GATES are shown by blue dots. The true and estimated GATES correct for the biases relative to the naive strategy shown in red. The estimated GATES shown by blue dots are always closer to the true GATEs shown by black dots than the naive estimates shown in red. []{data-label="fig:examples2"}](ExampleGroupLowNoise "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth" height=".5\textwidth"}
GATES: The Second Strategy {#gates-the-second-strategy .unnumbered}
--------------------------
Here we employ linear projections on Horvitz-Thompson transformed variables: $$\label{equation: group HT reg}
YH = \mu ' X_1H + \sum_{k=1}^K \gamma_k \cdot 1(G_k) + \nu, \quad {{\mathrm{E}}}[\nu \tilde W] = 0,$$ for $B := B(Z)$, $S := S(Z)$, $ \tilde W= ( X_1' H, \tilde W_2')$, $\tilde W_2' = (\{1(G_k)\}_{k=1}^K ).$
Again, we show that the projection parameters are GATES: $$\gamma = (\gamma_{k})_{k=1}^K = ({{\mathrm{E}}}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_k ])_{k=1}^K.$$
Given the identification strategy, we can base the corresponding estimation strategy on the following empirical analog: $$\label{equation: estimate GATES}
Y_i H_i = {\widehat}\mu'X_{1i} H_i + {\widehat}\gamma' \tilde W_{2i} + {\widehat}\nu_i, \quad i \in M, \ \ \ \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ {\widehat}\nu_i \tilde W_i] = 0.$$ The properties of this estimator, conditional on the auxiliary data, are well known and given in Lemma \[lemma: estimation\]. The resulting estimator has similar performance to the previous estimator, and under some conditions their first-order properties coincide.
The following is the formal statement of the identification result.
\[theorem: GATES\] *Consider $z \mapsto S(z)$ and $z \mapsto B(z)$ as fixed maps. Assume that $Y$ has finite second moments and the $W$’s and $\tilde W$ defined above are such that ${{\mathrm{E}}}WW'$ and ${{\mathrm{E}}}\tilde W \tilde W'$ are finite and have full rank. Consider $\gamma = (\gamma_k)_{k=1}^K$ defined by the weighted regression equation (\[equation: group reg\]) or by the regression equation (\[equation: group HT reg\]). These parameters defined in two different ways are equivalent and are equal to the expectation of $s_0(Z)$ conditional on the proxy group $\{S \in I_k\}$: $$\gamma_k = {{\mathrm{E}}}[s_0(Z) \mid G_k].$$*
Classification Analysis (CLAN)
------------------------------
When the BLP and GATES analyses reveal substantial heterogeneity, it is interesting to know the properties of the subpopulations that are most and least affected. Here we focus on the “least affected group" $G_1$ and “most affect group" $G_K$. Under the monotonicity assumption, it is reasonable that the first and the last groups are the most and least affected, where the labels “most" and “least" can be swapped depending on the context.
Let $g(Y,Z)$ be a vector of characteristics of an observational unit. The parameters of interest are the average characteristics of the most and least affected groups: $$\delta_1 = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ g(Y,Z) \mid G_1 ] \quad \text{ and } \quad \delta_K = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ g(Y, Z) \mid G_K ].$$ The parameters $\delta_K$ and $\delta_1$ are identified because they are averages of variables that are directly observed. We can compare $\delta_K$ and $\delta_1$ to quantify differences between the most and least affected groups. We call this type of comparisons as classification analysis or CLAN.
“Variational” Estimation and Inference Methods {#sec:inference}
==============================================
Estimation and Inference: The Generic Targets
---------------------------------------------
Let $\theta$ denote a generic target parameter or functional, for example,
- $\theta = \beta_2 $ is the heterogeneity predictor loading parameter;
- $\theta = \beta_1 + \beta_2 (S(z) - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S)$ is the “personalized" prediction of $s_0(z)$;
- $\theta = \gamma_k$ is the expectation of $s_0(Z)$ for the group $G_k$;
- $\theta = \gamma_K - \gamma_1$ is the difference in the expectation of $s_0(Z)$ between the most and least affected groups;
- $\theta = \delta_K-\delta_1$ is the difference in the expectation of the characteristics of the most and least impacted groups.
Quantification of Uncertainty: Two Sources
------------------------------------------
There are two principal sources of sampling uncertainty:
1. Estimation uncertainty regarding the parameter $\theta$, conditional on the data split;
2. Uncertainty or “variation” induced by the data splitting.
Conditional on the data split, quantification of estimation uncertainty is standard. To account for uncertainty with respect to the data splitting, it makes sense to examine the robustness and variability of the estimates/confidence intervals with respect to different random splits. One of our goals is to develop methods, which we call “variational estimation and inference” (VEIN) methods, for quantifying this uncertainty. These methods can be of independent interest in many settings where the sample splitting is used.
Quantifying Source (I): Conditional Inference {#quantifying-source-i-conditional-inference .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------
We first recognize that the parameters implicitly depend on $$\mathrm{Data}_A := \{ (Y_i, D_i, X_i)\}_{i\in A},$$ the auxiliary sample, used to create the ML proxies $B= B_A$ and $S= S_A$. Here we make the dependence explicit: $\theta = \theta_A$.
All of the examples admit an estimator ${\widehat}\theta_A$ such that under mild assumptions, $${\widehat}\theta_A \mid \mathrm{Data}_A \sim_a N(\theta_A, {\widehat}\sigma^2_A),$$ in the sense that, as $|M| \to \infty$, $${\mathbb{P}}( {\widehat}\sigma_A^{-1}({\widehat}\theta_A - \theta_A) {\leqslant}z\mid \mathrm{Data}_A) \to_P \Phi (z).$$ Implicitly this requires the auxiliary data $\mathrm{Data}_A$ to be “sufficiently regular”, and this should happen with high probability.
As a consequence, the confidence interval (CI) $$[L_A, U_A] := [{\widehat}\theta_A \pm \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) {\widehat}\sigma_A ]$$ covers $\theta_A$ with approximate probability $1-\alpha$: $${\mathbb{P}}[\theta_A \in [L_A, U_A ] \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] = 1-\alpha -o_P(1).$$ This leads to straighforward conditional inference, which does not account for the sample splitting uncertainty.
Quantifying Source (II): “Variational" Inference {#quantifying-source-ii-variational-inference .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------
Different partitions $(A,M)$ of $\{1, ..., N\}$ yield different targets $\theta_A$. Conditional on the data, we treat $\theta_A$ as a random variable, since $(A,M)$ are random sets that form random partitions of $\{1, \ldots, N\}$ into samples of size $|M|$ and $|A| = N - |M|$. Different partitions also yield different estimators ${\widehat}\theta_A$ and approximate distributions for these estimators. Hence we need a systematic way of treating the randomness in these estimators and their distributions.
In cases where the data sets are not large, it may be desirable to restrict attention to balanced partitions $(A,M)$, where the proportion of treated units is equal to the designed propensity score.
We want to quantify the uncertainty induced by the random partitioning. Conditional on Data, the estimated ${\widehat}\theta_A$ is still a random variable, and the confidence band $[L_A, U_A]$ is a random set. For reporting purposes, we instead would like to report an estimator and confidence set, which are non-random conditional on the data.
**Adjusted Point and Interval Estimators.** Our proposal is as follows. As a point estimator, we shall report the median of ${\widehat}\theta_A$ as $(A,M)$ vary (as random partitions): $${\widehat}\theta := \mathrm{Med}[{\widehat}\theta_A\mid \mathrm{Data}].$$ This estimator is more robust than the estimator based on a single split. To account for partition uncertainty, we propose to report the following confidence interval (CI) with the nominal confidence level $1-2\alpha$: $$[l, u] := [\mathrm{\overline{Med}} [L_A \mid \mathrm{Data} ], \mathrm{\underline{Med}} [ U_A\mid \mathrm{Data} ] ].$$ Note that the price of splitting uncertainty is reflected in the discounting of the confidence level from $1-\alpha$ to $1- 2 \alpha$. Alternatively, we can report the confidence interval based on inversion of a test based upon p-values, constructed below.
The above estimator and confidence set are non-random conditional on the data. The confidence set reflects the uncertainty created by the random partitioning of the data into the main and auxilliary data.
For a random variable $X$ with law ${{\mathrm{P}}}_X$ we define $$\mathrm{\underline{Med}}(X) := \inf\{ x \in \Bbb{R}: {{\mathrm{P}}}_X(X {\leqslant}x) {\geqslant}1/2\},$$$$\mathrm{\overline{Med}}(X) : = \sup\{ x \in \Bbb{R}: {{\mathrm{P}}}_X(X {\geqslant}x) {\geqslant}1/2\},$$$$\mathrm{{Med}}(X) : = (\mathrm{\underline{Med}}(X) + \mathrm{\overline{Med}}(X))/2.$$ Note that the lower median $\mathrm{\underline{Med}}(X)$ is the usual definition of the median. The upper median $\mathrm{\overline{Med}}(X)$ is the next distinct quantile of the random variable (or it is the usual median after reversing the order on $\Bbb{R}$). For example, when $X$ is uniform on $\{1,2,3,4\}$, then $\mathrm{\underline{Med}}(X) =2$ and $\mathrm{\overline{Med}}(X)=3$; and if $X$ is uniform on $\{1,2,3\}$, then $\mathrm{\overline{Med}}(X) =
\mathrm{\underline{Med}}(X) = 2$. For continuous random variables the upper and lower medians coincide. For discrete random variables they can differ, but the differences will be small for variables that are close to being continuous.
Suppose we are testing $H_0: \theta_A = \theta_0$ against $H_1: \theta_A< \theta_0$, conditional on the auxiliary data, then the p-value is given by $$p_A = \Phi( {\widehat}\sigma_A^{-1} ({\widehat}\theta_A - \theta_0)).$$ The p-value for testing $H_0: \theta_A = \theta_0$ against $H_1: \theta_A> \theta_0$, is given by $p_A = 1- \Phi( {\widehat}\sigma_A^{-1} ({\widehat}\theta_A - \theta_0))$.
Under the null hypothesis $p_A$ is approximately distributed as the uniform variable, $p_A \sim U(0,1)$, conditional on $\mathrm{Data}_A$. Note that, conditional on $\mathrm{Data}$, $p_A$ still has randomness induced by random partitioning of the data, which we need to address.
**Adjusted P-values.** We say that testing the null hypothesis, based on the p-values $p_A$, that are random conditional on data, has significance level $\alpha$ if $$\Bbb{P}( p_A {\leqslant}\alpha/2 \mid \mathrm{Data}) {\geqslant}1/2 \quad \text{or } p_{.5}=\underline{\mathrm{Med}} (p_A \mid \mathrm{Data}) {\leqslant}\alpha/2.$$ That is, for at least $50 \%$ of the random data splits, the realized p-value $p_A$ falls below the level $\alpha/2$. Hence we can call $p = 2 p_{.5}$ the *sample splitting-adjusted p-value*, and consider its small values as providing evidence against the null hypothesis.
Our construction of p-values builds upon the false-discovery-rate type adjustment ideas in [@BH; @meinshausen2009p], though what we propose is much simpler, and is minimalistic for our problem, whereas the idea of our confidence intervals below appears to be new.
The main idea behind this construction is simple: the p-values are distributed as marginal uniform variables $\{U_j\}_{j \in J}$, and hence obey the following property.
\[lemma: cool\] Consider $M$, the (usual, lower) median of a sequence $\{U_j\}_{j \in J}$ of uniformly distributed variables, $U_j \sim U(0,1)$ for each $j \in J$, where variables are not necessarily independent. Then, $$\Bbb{P}( M {\leqslant}\alpha/2) {\leqslant}\alpha.$$
Proof. Let $M$ denote the median of $\{U_j\}_{j \in J}$. Then $M {\leqslant}\alpha/2$ is equivalent to $
|J|^{-1} \sum_{j \in J} [1( U_j {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ) ] -1/2 {\geqslant}0.$ So $$\Bbb{P} [M {\leqslant}\alpha/2] = \mathbb{E} 1\{ |J|^{-1} \sum_{j \in J} [1( U_j {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ) ] {\geqslant}1/2\} .$$ By Markov inequality this is bounded by $$2 \Bbb{E} |J|^{-1} \sum_{j \in J} [1( U_j {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ) ] {\leqslant}2 \Bbb{E} [1( U_j {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ) ] {\leqslant}2 \alpha/2 = \alpha.$$ where the last inequality holds by the marginal uniformity.
Main Inference Result: Variational P-values and Confidence Intervals {#main-inference-result-variational-p-values-and-confidence-intervals .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We present a formal result on adjusted p-values using this condition:
- Suppose that $\mathcal{A}$ is a set of regular auxiliary data configurations such that for all $x \in [0,1]$, under the null hypothesis: $$\sup_{P \in \mathcal{P}}|\Bbb{P}_P [p_A {\leqslant}x \mid \mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A} ] - x | {\leqslant}\delta = o(1) ,$$ and $\inf_{P \in \mathcal{P} }\Bbb{P}_P[\mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}] =: 1-\gamma= 1- o(1)$. In particular, suppose that this holds for the p-values $$p_A = \Phi( {\widehat}\sigma_A^{-1}( {\widehat}\theta_A - \theta_A)) \ \text{ and } \ p_A = 1-\Phi( {\widehat}\sigma_A^{-1}( {\widehat}\theta_A - \theta_A)) .$$
Lemma \[lemma: estimation\] shows that this condition is plausible for the least squares estimators defined in the previous section under mild conditions.
\[theorem: PV\] Under condition [PV]{} and the null hypothesis holding, $$\Bbb{P}_P (p_{.5}{\leqslant}\alpha/2) {\leqslant}\alpha+2(\delta + \gamma) = \alpha+ o(1),$$ uniformly in $P \in \mathcal{P}$.
In order to establish the properties of the confidence interval $[l,u]$, we first consider the properties of the related confidence interval, which is based on the inversion of the p-value based tests: $$\label{eq: CI}
\mathrm{CI} := \{ \theta \in \Bbb{R}: p_u (\theta) >\alpha/2, \ p_l(\theta)> \alpha/2 \},$$ for $\alpha < .25$ , where, for $ {\widehat}\sigma_A >0$, $$\begin{aligned}
p_l (\theta) & := & \underline{\mathrm{Med}}(1 - \Phi[ {\widehat}\sigma^{-1}_A ({\widehat}\theta_A - \theta)]\mid
\mathrm{Data}), \\
\quad p_u (\theta) &:= &
\underline{\mathrm{Med}}(\Phi [{\widehat}\sigma^{-1}_A ( {\widehat}\theta_A - \theta)] \mid \mathrm{Data}).\end{aligned}$$ The confidence interval $\mathrm{CI}$ has the following representation in terms of the medians of t-statistics implied by the proof Theorem \[theorem: CI\] stated below: $$\label{eq: CI2}
\mathrm{CI} =\left \{\theta \in \Bbb{R}: \begin{array}{l} \overline{\mathrm{Med}} \left [\frac{\theta- {\widehat}\theta_A}{{\widehat}\sigma_A} - {\Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) }\mid \mathrm{Data} \right] < 0 \\\underline{\mathrm{Med}} \left [\frac{\theta- {\widehat}\theta_A}{{\widehat}\sigma_A } + \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) \mid \mathrm{Data} \right] > 0 \end{array} \right \}.$$ This $\mathrm{CI}$ can be (slightly) tighter than $[l,u]$, while the latter is much simpler to construct.
The following theorem establishes that both confidence sets maintain the approximate confidence level $1-2\alpha$.
\[theorem: CI\] $\mathrm{CI}$ can be represented as (\[eq: CI2\]) and $\mathrm{CI} \subseteq [l,u]$, and under condition [PV]{}, $$\Bbb{P}_P( \theta_A \in \mathrm{CI}) {\geqslant}1 - 2\alpha - 2(\delta+\gamma) = 1- 2\alpha - o(1),$$ uniformly in $P \in \mathcal{P}$.
Other Considerations and Extensions {#sec:extensions}
===================================
[**1. Choosing the Best ML Method Targeting CATE in Stage 1**]{}. There are several options. The best ML method can be chosen using the auxiliary sample, based on either (a) the ability to predict $YH$ using $BH$ and $S$ or (b) the ability to predict $Y$ using $B$ and $(D-p(Z))(S- {{\mathrm{E}}}(S))$ under the weight $w(Z)$ (as in the first type of strategies we developed earlier). To be specific, we can solve either of the following problems:
- minimize the errors in the prediction of $YH$ on $BH$ and $S$: $$(B,S) = \arg \min_{B \in \mathcal{B}, S \in \mathcal{S}} \quad \sum_{i \in A} [Y_i H_i - B(Z_i) H_i - S(Z_i)]^2,$$ where $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are parameter spaces for $z \mapsto B(z)$ and $z \mapsto S(z)$; or
- minimize the errors in the weighted prediction of $Y$ on $B$ and $(D-p(Z))(S- {{\mathrm{E}}}(S))$: $$(B,S) = \arg \min_{B \in \mathcal{B}, S \in \mathcal{S}} \quad \sum_{i \in A} w(Z_i) [Y_i - B(Z_i) - (D_i-p(Z_i)) \{S(Z_i)- \bar S(Z_i)\} ]^2,$$ where $\bar S(Z_i) = |A|^{-1} \sum_{i\in A} S(Z_i)$ and $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are parameter spaces for $z \mapsto B(z)$ and $z \mapsto S(z)$.
This idea improves over simple but inefficient strategy of predicting $YH$ just using $S$, which have been suggested before for causal inference. It also improves over the simple strategy that predicts $Y$ using $B$ and $DS$ (which chooses the best predictor for $ {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y \mid D, Z]$ in a given class but not necessarily the best predictor for CATE $s_0(Z)$). Note that this idea is new and is of major independent interest.\
[**2. Choosing the Best ML Method BLP Targeting CATE in Stage 2**]{}. The best ML method can also be chosen in the main sample by maximizing $$\label{define:lambda}
\Lambda := |\beta_2|^2 \mathrm{Var}(S(Z)) = \mathrm{Corr}^2( s_0(Z), S(Z)) \mathrm{Var}(s_0(Z)).$$ Maximizing $\Lambda$ is equivalent to maximizing the correlation between the ML proxy predictor $S(Z)$ and the true score $s_0(Z)$, or equivalent to maximizing the $R^2$ in the regression of $s_0(Z)$ on $S(Z)$.\
[**3. Choosing the Best ML Method GATES Targeting CATE in Stage 2**]{}. Analogously, for GATES the best ML method can also be chosen in the main sample by maximizing $$\label{define:lambda}
\bar \Lambda = {{\mathrm{E}}}{\left(}\sum_{k=1}^K \gamma_k 1(S \in I_k){\right)}^2= \sum_{k=1}^K \gamma^2_k {{\mathrm{P}}}(S \in I_k).$$ This is the part of variation ${{\mathrm{E}}}s^2_0(Z)$ of $s_0(z)$ explained by $\bar S(Z) = \sum_{k=1}^K \gamma_k 1(S(Z) \in I_k)$. Hence choosing the ML proxy $S(Z)$ to maximize $\bar \Lambda$ is equivalent to maximizing the $R^2$ in the regression of $s_0(Z)$ on $\bar S(Z)$ (without a constant). If the groups $G_k = \{S \in I_k\}$ have equal size, namely ${{\mathrm{P}}}(S(Z) \in I_k) = 1/K$ for each $k=1,..., K$, then $$\bar \Lambda = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \gamma^2_k.$$
[**4. Stratified Splitting**]{}. The idea is to balance the proportions of treated and untreated in both $A$ and $M$ samples, so that the proportion of treated is equal to the experiment’s propensity scores across strata. This formally requires us to replace the i.i.d. assumption by the i.n.i.d. assumption (independent but not identically distributed observations) when accounting for estimation uncertainty, conditional on the auxiliary sample. This makes the notation more complicated, but the results in Lemma \[lemma: estimation\] still go through with notational modifications.\
[**5. When Proxies have Little Variation**]{}. The analysis may generate proxy predictors $S$ that have little variation, so we can think of them as “weak", which makes the parameter $\beta_2$ weakly identified. We can either add small noise to the proxies (jittering), so that inference results go through, or we may switch to testing rather than estimation. For practical reasons, we prefer the jittering approach.
Further Potential Applications to Prediction and Causal Inference Problems
==========================================================================
Our inference approach generalizes to any problem of the following sort.
**Generalization.** Suppose we can construct an *unbiased signal* $\tilde Y$ such that$${{\mathrm{E}}}[\tilde Y \mid Z] = s_0(Z),$$ where $s_0(Z)$ is now a generic target function. Let $S(Z)$ denote an ML proxy for $s_0(Z)$. Then, using previous arguments, we immediately can generate the following conclusions:
1. The projection of $\tilde Y$ on the ML proxy $S(Z)$ identifies the BLP of $s_0(Z)$ using $S(Z)$.
2. The grouped average of the target (GAT) ${{\mathrm{E}}}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_k] $ is identified by ${{\mathrm{E}}}[ \tilde Y \mid G_k] $.
3. Using ML tools we can train proxy predictors $S(Z)$ to predict $\tilde Y$ in auxiliary samples.
4. We post-process $S(Z)$ in the main sample, by estimating the BLP and GATs.
5. We apply variational inference on functionals of the BLP and GATs.
The noise reduction strategies, like the ones we used in the context of H-transformed outcomes, can be useful in these cases, but their construction could depend on the context.
**Example 1. Forecasting or Predicting Regression Functions using ML proxies**. This is the most common type of the problem arising in forecasting. Here the target is the best predictor of $Y$ using $Z$, namely $s_0(Z) = {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y \mid Z]$, and $\tilde Y = Y$ trivially serves as the unbiased signal. The interesting part here is the use of variational inference tools developed in this paper for constructing confidence intervals for the predicted values produced by the estimated BLP of $s_0(Z)$ using $S(Z)$.
**Example 2. Predicting Structural Derivatives using ML proxies**. Suppose we are interested in best predicting the conditional average partial derivative $s_0(z) = {{\mathrm{E}}}[g'(X,Z) \mid Z=z]$, where $g'(x,z) = \partial g(x,z)/ \partial x$ and $g(x,z)= {{\mathrm{E}}}[Y \mid X= x, Z=z]$. In the context of demand analysis, $Y$ is the log of individual demand, $X$ is the log-price of a product, and $Z$ includes prices of other products and characteristics of individuals. Then, the unbiased signal is given by $ \tilde Y = - Y [\partial \log p(X \mid Z) /\partial x],$ where $p(\cdot \mid \cdot)$ is the conditional density function of $X$ given $Z$. That is, ${{\mathrm{E}}}[ \tilde Y \mid Z] = s_0(Z)$ under mild conditions on the density using the integration by parts formula.
Empirical Applications and Implementation Algorithms
====================================================
To illustrate the methods developed in this paper, we consider two empirical examples. The first example is an RCT conducted in Morocco, which investigates the effect of microfinance access on several outcomes. The second example analyzes a randomized intervention program in India to improve immunization. We conclude this section by providing the implementation algorithm.
Heterogeneity in the Effect of Microcredit Availability
-------------------------------------------------------
We analyze a randomized experiment designed to evaluate the impact of microcredit availability on borrowing and self-employment activities, which was previously studied in [@crepon2015estimating]. The experiment was conducted in 162 villages in Morocco, divided into 81 pairs of villages with similar observable characteristics (number of households, accessibility to the center of the community, existing infrastructure, type of activities carried out by the households, and type of agriculture activities). One of the villages in each pair was randomly assigned to treatment and the other to control. Between 2006 and 2007 a microfinance institution started operating in the treated villages. Two years after the intervention an endline household survey was conducted with 5,551 households, which constitute our sample. There was no other microcredit penetration in these villages, before and for the duration of the study. Therefore, we interpret the treatment as the availability of microcredit.
Recent randomized evaluations of access to microcredit at the community level have found limited impacts of microcredit.[^8] Despite evidence that access to microfinance leads to an increase in borrowing ([@angelucci2015microcredit], [@banerjee2015miracle], [@tarozzi2015impacts]) and business creation or expansion ([@angelucci2015microcredit], [@attanasio2015impacts], [@banerjee2015miracle], [@tarozzi2015impacts]), most studies have found that this does not translate into an increase in economic outcomes such as profit, income, labor supply and consumption ([@angelucci2015microcredit], [@banerjee2015miracle], [@crepon2015estimating]). Moreover, there is also no evidence of substantial gains in human development outcomes, such as education and health ([@banerjee2015miracle],[@tarozzi2015impacts]). Studies which estimate the impact of microfinance by randomizing microcredit at the individual level confirm these findings ([@augsburg2012microfinance], [@karlan2009expanding], [@karlan2011microcredit]).
One question that remains elusive is whether the lack of evidence on the average effects masks heterogeneity, in which there are potential winners and losers of the microcredit expansion. Understanding this heterogeneity can have important implications for evaluating the welfare effects of microcredit, designing policies and targeting the groups that would benefit from microfinance. Indeed, the idea that there might be heterogeneity in the impact of microcredit has been a common theme among RCTs evaluating microfinance programs. Having found mostly positive but insignificant coefficients, the papers cited above attempt to explore heterogeneous treatment effects, mostly using quantile treatment effects. For profits, most studies seem to find positive impact at the higher quantiles (and in the data set we study here, [@crepon2015estimating] actually find *negative* impacts at lower level). Using Bayesian hierarchical methods to aggregate the evidence across studies, [@meager2017aggregating] cautions that these results on quantiles may not be generalizable: the profit variables seems to have too much noise to lend itself to quantile estimation.
A number of recent papers also consider heterogeneous treatment effects by studying the effect of microfinance on subpopulations. In a follow-up study of [@banerjee2015miracle], [@banerjee2015credit] investigates whether the heterogeneity is persistent six years after the microfinance was introduced. They find that credit has a much bigger impact on the business outcomes of those who started a business before microfinance entered than of those without prior businesses. Using the same dataset as in this application, [@crepon2015estimating] classifies households into three categories in terms of their probability to borrow before the intervention and finds that microcredit access has a significant impact on investment and profit, but still no impact on income and consumption among those who are most likely to borrow. It is worth noting that the original strategy for this study was to construct groups which, *ex ante* had different probability to borrow, in order to separately estimate the direct effect of microcredit on those most likely to borrow, and the indirect effect on those very unlikely to borrow. The researchers initially tried to predict the probability to borrow fitting a model to a first group of villages for which they had collected a short survey. However they ended up predicting the probability to borrow *ex-post* because the model proved to have low predictive power. This ex-post classification may lead to overfitting. One cause for concern in this case is that different variables predict the probability to borrow in different waves, which makes it less likely that those variables reflect true structural relationships.
The strategy developed in this paper provides several advantages in studying heterogeneity in the treatment effects of microfinance. First, contrary to the literature, which relies on ad hoc subgroup analysis across a few baseline characteristics, we are agnostic about the source of heterogeneity. While the variable “had a prior business” has proven to be a robust and generalizable predictor of differences in treatment effect ( [@meager2017aggregating]) and could therefore be pre-specified in future pre-analysis plans, we have little idea about what else predicts heterogeneity. Second, our approach is valid in high dimensional settings, allowing us to include a rich set of characteristics in an unspecified functional form. Finally, using the CLAN estimation we are able to identify the characteristics of the most and least affected subpopulations, which could be an important input for a welfare analysis or targeting households who are likely to benefit from access to microfinance.
We focus on heterogeneity in treatment effects on four household outcome variables, $Y$: the amount of money borrowed, the output from self-employment activities, profit from self-employment activities, and monthly consumption. The treatment variable, $D$, is an indicator for the household residing in a treated village. The covariates, $Z$, include some baseline household characteristics such as number of members, number of adults, head age, indicators for households doing animal husbandry, doing other non-agricultural activity, having an outstanding loan over the past 12 months, household spouse responded to the survey, another household member (excluding the household head) responded to the survey, and 81 village pair fixed effects (these are the variables that are available for all households). We also include indicators for missing observation at baseline as controls. Table \[table:Morocco\_desc\] shows some descriptive statistics for the variables used in the analysis (all monetary variables are expressed in Moroccan Dirams, or MAD). Treated and control households have similar characteristics and the unconditional average treatment effect on loans, output, profit and consumption are respectively 1,128, 5,237, 1,844 and -31.
[lcccc]{}\
\[-3mm\] & Elastic Net & Boosting & Neural Network & Random Forest\
\[1mm\]\
\[-3mm\] **Amount of Loans** & & & &\
\[1mm\] Best BLP ($\Lambda$) & 2,808,960 & 1,919,609 & 2,175,872 & 2,753,511\
Best GATES ($\bar \Lambda$) &875 & 283 & 568 & 1290\
\[1mm\] **Output** & & & &\
\[1mm\] Best BLP ($\Lambda$)& 142,021,759 & 81,927,950 & 72,908,917 & 123,485,223\
Best GATES ($\bar \Lambda$) & 8,677 & 3,625 & 4,986 & 5,123\
\[1mm\] **Profit** & & & &\
\[1mm\] Best BLP ($\Lambda$)& 32,462,874 & 16,674,642 & 13,411,383 & 43,184,732\
Best GATES ($\bar \Lambda$) & 4,595 & 2,167 & 1,447 & 4,344\
\[1mm\] **Consumption** & & & &\
\[1mm\] Best BLP ($\Lambda$) & 45,084 & 26,158 & 38,578 & 37,507\
Best GATES ($\bar \Lambda$) & 101 & 69 & 85 & 109\
\[1mm\]
We implement our methods using the algorithm and ML methods described in Section \[sec:details\]. By design the propensity score $p(Z_i) =1/2$ for all the households. Table \[table:Morocco\_Best\] compares the four ML methods for producing the proxy predictors $S(Z_i)$ considered in Stage 1. We find that the Random Forest and Elastic Net outperform the Boosted Tree and Neural Network across all outcome variables for both metrics. Accordingly, we focus on these two methods for the rest of the analysis.[^9]
[lcccc]{}\
\[-3mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & ATE ($\beta_{1}$) & HET ($\beta_{2}$) & ATE ($\beta_{1}$) & HET ($\beta_{2}$)\
\
\[-3mm\] Amount of Loans & 1,163 & 0.238 & 1,180 & 0.390\
& (545, 1,737) & (0.021,0.448) & (546, 1,770) & (0.037, 0.779)\
& \[0.000\] & \[0.060\] & \[0.001\] & \[0.062\]\
\[1mm\] Output & 5,096 & 0.262 & 4,854 & 0.190\
& (230, 10,027) & (0.084, 0.431) & (-167, 9,982) & (-0.099, 0.498)\
& \[0.079\] & \[0.008\] & \[0.116\] & \[0.385\]\
\[1mm\] Profit & 1,554 & 0.243 & 1,625 & 0.275\
& (-1,344, 4,388) & (0.079, 0.416) & (-1,332, 4,576) & (0.036,0.510)\
& \[0.584\] & \[0.008\] & \[0.577\] & \[0.045\]\
\[1mm\] Consumption & -59.2 & 0.154 & -58.5 & 0.183\
& (-161.4, 43.9) & (-0.054, 0.382) & (-167.0, 45.9) & (-0.177, 0.565)\
& \[0.513\] & \[0.270\] & \[0.494\] & \[0.617\]\
\[1mm\]\
\
Table \[table:Morocco\_BLP\] presents results of the BLP of CATE using the ML proxies $S(Z)$ for the four outcome variables. We report estimates of the coefficients $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$, which correspond to the ATE and heterogeneity loading (HET) parameters in the BLP, respectively. In parentheses, we report confidence intervals adjusted for variability across the sample splits using the median method; and in brackets, we report adjusted p-values for the hypothesis that the parameter is equal to zero. The estimated ATEs of microfinance availability are consistent with the findings of [@crepon2015estimating] and are similar to the unconditional ATE, as expected by virtue of the randomization. The ATE on the amount of loans and output are positive and statistically significant at least at the 10% level with both ML methods. Microfinance availability does not have a significant impact on profit and consumption.
Turning to the heterogeneity results, we reject the hypothesis that HET is zero at the 10% level for the amount of loans, output and profit with the elastic net method, suggesting the presence of heterogeneity in the effect of microfinance availability. The results are consistent across both ML methods except for output, for which HET coefficient on the Random Forest proxy is not significantly different from zero at the 10% level. Finally, the BLP analysis does not reveal any significant heterogeneity in the effect on consumption. Overall, these results suggest that microfinance availability has heterogenous impacts on business-related outcomes that do not seem to translate into a detectable contemporaneous effect on the standard of living as represented by consumption, even for the most positively affected households. One possible explanation is that households that are most likely to borrow and get higher profits from microfinance compensate by reducing their labor supply: this is the finding in [@crepon2015estimating].
[lcccccc]{}\
\[-3mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference\
\[-1mm\] & ($\gamma_5$) & ($\gamma_1$) & ($\gamma_5 - \gamma_1$) & ($\gamma_5$ & ($\gamma_1$) & ($\gamma_5 - \gamma_1$)\
\
\[-2mm\] Amount of Loans & 2,678 & -197 & 2,995 & 2,883 & 70 & 2,942\
& (1,298, 4,076) & (-1,835, 1,308) & (946, 5,104) & (1,141, 4,695) & (-1,630, 1,594) & (551, 5,355)\
& \[0.000\] & \[1.000\] & \[0.008\] & \[0.002\] & \[1.000\] & \[0.034\]\
\[1mm\] Output & 22,070 & -2,882 & 2,531 & 21,551 & 690 & 21,790\
& (7,343, 36,960) & (-12,602, 6,920) & (7,201, 42,649) & (6,764, 37,498) & (-12,457, 13,840) & (-313.6, 42,831)\
&\[0.007\] & \[1.000\] & \[0.012\] & \[0.011\] & \[1.000\] & \[0.108\]\
\[1mm\] Profit & 10,707 & -1,227 & 11,768 & 12,000 & -2,130 & 14,056\
& (1,628, 19,032) & (-7,273, 5,003) & (1,186, 22,485) & (2,911, 20,638) & (-9,135, 4,853) & (2,292, 25,698)\
& \[0.028\] & \[1.000\] & \[0.059\] & \[0.018\] & \[1.000\] & \[0.035\]\
\[1mm\] Consumption & 60 & -342 & 378 & 56 & -309 & 313\
& (-174, 281) & (-686, -0.32) & (-66, 808) & (-252, 360) & (-691, 59) & (-211, 813)\
& \[1.000\] & \[0.100\] & \[0.189\] & \[1.000\] & \[0.222\] & \[0.522\]\
\[1mm\]\
\
We next estimate the GATES. We divide the households into $K=5$ groups based on the quintiles of the ML proxy predictor $S(Z)$ and estimate the average effect for each group. Figures \[figure:fig1\]-\[figure:fig4\] presents the estimated GATES coefficients $\gamma_{1}-\gamma_{5}$ along with joint confidence bands. We also report the ATE and its confidence interval that were obtained in the BLP analysis for comparison. The GATES provide a richer understanding of the heterogeneity. In particular, the figures reveal that there are groups of winners, the most affected groups, for which the GATES on amount of loans, output and profit are significantly different from zero. These groups are likely to drive the heterogeneity in the treatment effect that we find in the BLP analysis. We further investigate the GATES by comparing the most and least affected groups in Table \[table:Morocco\_GATES\]. We find that the difference of GATES of these two groups is significantly different from zero at least at the 10% level on amount of loans, output and profit, whereas we fail to reject the hypothesis that this difference is zero at conventional levels on consumption. The results are robust to the ML method used. Looking at the least affected group, it is reassuring to see that we have no evidence of negative impact on profit and income, mitigating the concerns that there are adversely affected households. However, there is negative and insignificant effect on consumption for the same group. A possible explanation for this result is that investment is lumpy and some households cut back consumption to increase investment.
After presenting evidence on the heterogeneity of treatment effects for three outcomes we examine what drives this heterogeneity in the data using CLAN. We omit the results for consumption as we do not detect significant heterogeneity for this outcome. Remember that in our estimation, we used two sets of covariates to predict heterogeneity: baseline household characteristics and village pair fixed effects. In the original design, similar villages were paired based both on the fact that they were under the catchment area on the same branch, and on some observable characteristics such as the number of households, accessibility to the center of the community, existing infrastructure, type of activities carried out by the households, and type of agriculture activities. However, our dataset does not contain these village-level characteristics. Thus, we can view the village pair fixed effects as a rich set of proxy variables for both village-level characteristics that are unobservables (to us), and also the dynamism of the branch manager in recruiting clients in these new villages. It is important to distinguish whether any heterogeneity appears to be driven mainly by household level covariates or by village level fixed effect for several reasons. First, if the household level covariates account for a significant part of the heterogeneity, we can relate it to household-level decision. Second, the original empirical strategy of [@crepon2015estimating] to estimate any spillover effect on non borrowing households was to identify a set of households that, based on original covariates, was unlikely to borrow, and then to estimate heterogenous effect based on this predicted probability to borrow. This is by definition a *within village strategy* and will only be robust if the heterogeneity in loan take up is related to baseline covariates.
{width="100.00000%" height=".58\textwidth"}
{width="100.00000%" height=".58\textwidth"}
![GATES of Microfinance Availability: Consumption. Point estimates and 90% adjusted confidence intervals uniform across groups based on 100 random splits in half[]{data-label="figure:fig4"}](EL1_plot_best-range-best-2-2-100-profit_total){width="100.00000%" height=".58\textwidth"}
![GATES of Microfinance Availability: Consumption. Point estimates and 90% adjusted confidence intervals uniform across groups based on 100 random splits in half[]{data-label="figure:fig4"}](EL1_plot_best-range-best-2-2-100-consumption){width="100.00000%" height=".58\textwidth"}
[lcc]{}\
\[-3mm\] & &\
\
\[-3mm\] **Pair Fixed Effects**\
Amount of Loans & 0.94 & 0.81\
Output & 0.95 & 0.72\
Profit & 0.98 & 0.73\
\[1mm\] **Baseline Covariates**\
Amount of Loans & 0.35 & 0.28\
Output & 0.26 & 0.15\
Profit & 0.16 & 0.08\
\[1mm\]
In order to quantify the relative importance of the two set of covariates, we look at their predictive power for heterogeneity in treatment effects. For this purpose, we create an indicator variable which equals one if an individual belongs to the most affected group and zero if she belongs to the least affected group, defined by the quintiles of the CATE proxy $S(Z)$. Then we estimate what fraction of the variation in this variable is due to the baseline household characteristic and village pair fixed effects. In particular, we regress this indicator variable on the village and household-level covariates separately and report the R-squares from these regressions.
[lcccccc]{}\
\[-1mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference\
\[0.5mm\] & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$) & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$)\
\[1mm\]\
\[-1mm\] **Amount of Loans** & & & & & &\
\
Head Age & 30.5 & 39.0 & -8.4 & 24.5 & 38.1 & -13.5\
& (28.4, 32.6) & (36.8, 40.9) & (-11.3, -5.4) & (22.4, 26.6) & (36.0, 40.2) & (-16.5, -10.4)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Number of Household Members & 3.26 & 4.54 & -1.17 & 2.64 & 4.47 & -1.85\
& (2.98, 3.55) & (4.27, 4.83) & (-1.56, -0.79) & (2.36, 2.91) & (4.19, 4.75) & (-2.25, -1.45)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Number of Members over 16 & 2.37 & 2.68 & -0.29 & 1.84 & 2.82 & -1.04\
& (2.17, 2.57) & (2.48, 2.88) & (-0.57, -0.01) & (1.65, 2.04) & (2.62, 3.02) & (-1.32, -0.75)\
& - & - & \[0.081\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
**Output** & & & & & &\
\
Non-agricultural self-emp. & 0.277 & 0.051 & 0.228 & 0.249 & 0.098 & 0.150\
& (0.247, 0.306) & (0.021, 0.081) & (0.186, 0.269) & (0.217, 0.281) & (0.067, 0.128) & (0.105, 0.195)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Number of Members over 16 & 2.92 & 2.33 & 0.60 & 2.77 & 2.27 & 0.43\
& (2.72, 3.12) & (2.13, 2.53) & (0.32, 0.88) & (2.55, 2.98) & (2.06, 2.48) & (0.13, 0.74)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.009\]\
Number of Household Members & 4.10 & 3.74 & 0.43 & 3.86 & 3.49 & 0.41\
& (3.82, 4.37) & (3.46, 4.023) & (0.04, 0.81) & (3.56, 4.17) & (3.19, 3.79) & (-0.02, 0.82)\
& - & - & \[0.059\] & - & - & \[0.120\]\
**Profit** & & & & & &\
\
Non-agricultural self-emp. & 0.198 & 0.103 & 0.086 & 0.186 & 0.108 & 0.074\
& (0.169, 0.227) & (0.073, 0.132) & (0.046, 0.127) & (0.156, 0.215) & (0.079, 0.138) & (0.033, 0.115)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.001\]\
Animal Husbandry self-emp. & 0.321 & 0.570 & -0.243 & 0.378 & 0.483 & -0.113\
& (0.280, 0.361) & (0.529, 0.610) & (-0.300, -0.186) & (0.336, 0.419) & (0.442, 0.525) & (-0.171, -0.054)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Head Age & 34.11 & 39.99 & -6.08 & 31.83 & 35.77 & -4.20\
& (32.06, 36.18) & (37.90, 42.06) & (-9.05, -3.10) & (29.56, 34.14) & (33.52, 37.99) & (-7.29, -1.10)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.017\]\
\
\
The results presented in Table \[table:R-squares\] suggest that village pair fixed effects have much more predictive power for treatment effect heterogeneity than the baseline household covariates. When we use elastic net to estimate the most/least affected groups, the village pair fixed effects explain close to 100% of the variation in heterogeneity in all outcomes, whereas individual-level covariates explain only between 16-35% of the variation. With the random forest proxy, results are similar but R-squares are slightly lower for both set of covariates. From this analysis, we conclude that village-level covariates explain a significant part of the heterogeneity in treatment effects. Potential explanations for this observation include unobserved manager quality, heterogeneity in spillovers, and general equilibrium effects that occur within a village. While it is not possible to learn what causes heterogeneity from the CLAN, this evidence can still be useful. On a negative level, it suggests that it is not possible to use the heterogeneity in microfinance take up to say much about spillover effects, since any apparent individual-level heterogeneity seems to be a result of overfitting. It also suggest that it is very difficult to predict individually who will take up or benefit from microfinance. On a more positive level, it suggests that more work can be done in identifying village-level driver in the success of microfinance.
We conclude by looking at the average baseline characteristics of the most and least affected groups. This is illustrative, since the previous analysis suggests that they do not have as much predictive power as the village pair fixed effects. Still, they account for some part of the heterogeneity. Furthermore, unlike the village pair fixed effects, they can be interpreted. We focus on three characteristics for each outcome that are most correlated with the heterogeneity score $S(Z)$, after dropping ones with a correlation less than 0.01 in absolute value. For the selected characteristics, Table \[table:Morocco\_CLAN\] reports the CLAN for the 20% least and most affected groups defined by the quintiles of the CATE proxy $S(Z)$ as well as the difference between the two. We find that households with young heads, fewer number of households members and fewer adults are more likely to borrow more from the microfinance institution. For output and profits, the main finding is that households with non-agricultural self employment at baseline are much more likely to be in the group with the large impact (for example, 28% of the households in the top quintile of impact for output had a prior non agricultural business, versus 5% in the bottom quintile). This is a very interesting finding, because the majority of studies on microfinance report larger positive effect on outputs and profits for households that already had a non-agricultural business before microfinance. [@meager2017aggregating] finds this differential effect to be robust and generalizable across studies. [@banerjee2015credit] shows that the long term effects of microfinance are radically different for people who had a prior business and those who did not. It is reassuring that the one individual variable that is robustly discovered to empirically drive heterogeneity in the CLAN is precisely the one that empirical researchers had identified as relevant.
Heterogeneity in the Effect of Immunization Incentives
------------------------------------------------------
In the Morocco microcredit example, most of the heterogeneity we detected was not easily interpretable because it was dominated by the village pair fixed effects. We worked out other examples, omitted for brevity, where there was “apparent” heterogeneity when splitting the sample by covariates, but we ultimately found out no detectable heterogeneity using the strategy in this paper. In these instances, the naive approach of reporting some *ad hoc* split likely led to spurious findings. This underscores the importance of a systematic approach.
We now discuss an interesting example where we discover heterogeneity associated with baseline village-level variables, which leads to actionable policy recommendations. It is based on an RCT aimed at increasing demand for vaccines in India (The interventions are described and analyzed in [@banerjee2019leveraging] and [@banerjee2019improving]). The experiment was conducted in 2017 in collaboration with the government of the state of Haryana, where the immunization baseline levels were particularly low. The government health system rolled out an e-health platform designed by a research team, in which nurses collected data on which child was given which shot at each immunization camp. The platform was implemented in over 2,000 villages in seven districts, and provides excellent quality administrative data on immunization coverage.[^10] Prior to the launch of the interventions, survey data were collected in 912 of those villages using a sample of 15 households with children aged 1-3 per village. The baseline data covers demographic and socio-economic variables as well as immunization history of these children, who were too old to be included in the intervention. In these 912 villages, three different interventions (and their variants) were cross-randomized:
1. Small incentives for immunization: parents/caregivers receive mobile phone credit upon bringing children for vaccinations.
2. Social network intervention: information about immunization camps was diffused through key members of a social network.
3. Reminders: a fraction of parents/caregivers who had come at least one time received phone reminders for pending vaccinations of the children.
For each of these interventions, there were several possible variants: incentives were either low or high, and either flat or increasing with each shot; the key members of the social network were identified to be either information central using the “gossip” methodology developed by [@banerjeeusing], a trusted person, or both; and reminders were sent to either 33% or 66% of the people concerned. Moreover, each of the interventions were cross-cut, generating a large number of cells of possible treatment combination. [@banerjee2019leveraging] use the method developed by [@andrews2019inference] to identify the most effective policy to increase the number of children completing the full course of immunization at the village level, and estimate its effects. They find that the combination of a information-central seed (“gossip”), the presence of reminders (we pool 33% and 66% reminders cells for simplicity), and increasing incentives (regardless of levels) is the most effective policy. This is also the most expensive package, so the government was interested in prioritizing villages: where should they scale up the full package?
For this illustration, we focus on evaluating the heterogeneity of the effect of the most effective policy. In particular, we compare 25 villages where the policy was implemented (treatment group) with 78 villages that received neither sloped incentives, nor any social network intervention, nor reminder (control group). Our data constitute an approximately balanced monthly panel of the 103 treated and control villages for 12 months (the duration of the intervention). The outcome variable, $Y$, is the number of children in a given month in a given village that receive the measles shot (the last vaccine in the sequence, and thus the completion of the course). The treatment variable, $D$, is an indicator of the household being in a village that receives the policy. The covariates, $Z$, include 36 baseline village-level characteristics, including religion, caste, financial status, marriage and family status, education, and baseline immunization. The propensity score is constant. Table \[table:Haryana\_desc\] shows sample averages in the control and treated groups for some of the variables used in the analysis weighted by village population, as the rest of the analysis. Treatment and control villages have similar baseline characteristics (in particular, the immunization status of the older cohort was similar). During the course of the intervention, on average 6.64 children completed the immunization sequence in control villages, and 9.09 did in treatment villages. This is a raw difference of 2.49, or 37% of the baseline mean.[^11] The combined treatment was very effective on average.
[lcccc]{}\
\[-3mm\] & Elastic Net & Boosting & Neural Network & Random Forest\
\[1mm\]\
\[-3mm\] Best BLP ($\Lambda$) & 55.830 & 24.860 & 35.670 & 15.830\
Best GATES ($\bar \Lambda$) & 7.164 & 4.634 & 5.276 & 3.767\
[lcccc]{}\
\[-3mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & ATE ($\beta_{1}$) & HET ($\beta_{2}$) & ATE ($\beta_{1}$) & HET ($\beta_{2}$)\
\
\[-3mm\] & 3.069 & 1.085 & 1.903 & 0.916\
& (1.789, 4.303) & (0.872, 1.293) & (0.750, 3.016) & (0.732, 1.111)\
& \[0.000\] & \[0.000\] & \[0.003\] & \[0.000\]\
\[1mm\]\
\
The implementation details for the heterogeneity analysis are the same as in the microfinance example, with three differences due to the design: we weight village-level estimations by village population, include district–time fixed effects, and cluster standard errors at the village level. Table \[table:Haryana\_Best\] compares the ML methods based on Stage 1 proxy predictors. We find that elastic net, as in the previous example, outperforms the other methods, but the second best method is neural network, differently from the previous example. Table \[table:Haryana\_BLP\] presents results of the BLP of CATE using the ML proxies. The ATE estimates in column 1 and 3 indicate that the package treatment increases the number of immunized children by 3 based on elastic net and by 2 based on neural network. Reassuringly these estimates are on either side of the raw difference in means (2.49). Focusing on the HET estimates, we find strong heterogeneity in treatment effects, as indicated by the statistically significant estimates. Moreover, the estimates are close to 1, suggesting that the ML proxies are good predictors of the CATE.
Next, we estimate the GATES by quintiles of the ML proxies. Figure \[figure:Haryana\_GATES\] present the estimated GATES coefficients $\gamma_{1}-\gamma_{5}$ along with joint confidence bands and the ATE estimates. In Table \[table:Haryana\_GATES\] we present the result from the hypothesis test that the difference of the ATE for the most and least affected groups is statistically significant. We find that this difference is 20.3 and 15 based on elastic net and neural network methods, respectively, and statistically significant. Given that the ATE estimates in the whole population are between 2 and 3, these results suggest a large and potentially policy-relevant heterogeneity. Importantly, the impact is an increase by at least 12 in the number of fully immunized children in the most affected group, and a *negative* and significant effect in the least affected group. In some context, it looks like the combined package of small incentives, reminder, and persuasion by members of the social network actually put people off immunization.
The government of Haryana was interested in scaling up this program, but faced a budget constraint. Understandably, they might want to carry out the expansion in the villages with the lowest immunization rate. A natural question is whether there exists a trade-off between this desire of equity, and maximizing the effectiveness of the dollars spent on the policy. To answer this question, we can explore what variables are associated with the heterogeneity detected in BLP and GATES via CLAN. Table \[table:Haryana\_CLAN\_C1\] reports the CLAN estimates for a selected set of covariates and Tables \[table:Haryana\_CLAN1\]–\[table:Haryana\_CLAN2\] in the appendix for the rest of covariates. Regardless of the method used, the estimates of differences in means between most and least affected groups for the number of vaccines to pregnant mother, number of vaccines to kids since birth, and kids receiving immunization card YN are negative and statistically significant. These results suggest that the villages with low levels of pretreatment immunization are the most affected by the incentives. These are in fact the only variables that consistently pop up. Thus, in this instance, the policy that is preferred ex-ante by the government also happens to be the most effective.
While the heterogeneity associated with the baseline immunization rates cannot be causally interpreted (it could always be proxying for other things), it still sheds interesting light on the negative effect we find for the least affected group. In these villages, immunization rates were higher to start with. Perhaps villagers were intrinsically motivated to get immunized. The nudging with small incentives and mild social pressure may have backfired, by crowding out intrinsic motivation without providing a strong enough extrinsic motivation to act as in [@gneezy2000fine].
[lcccccc]{}\
\[-3mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference\
\[-1mm\] & ($\gamma_5$) & ($\gamma_1$) & ($\gamma_5 - \gamma_1$) & ($\gamma_5$ & ($\gamma_1$) & ($\gamma_5 - \gamma_1$)\
\
\[-2mm\] & 12.310 & -7.962 & 20.320 & 8.718 & -6.342 & 15.040\
& (8.434, 16.00) & (-12.03, -3.756) & (14.08, 26.35) & (6.379, 11.15) & (-9.069, -3.560) & (11.18, 18.73)\
& \[0.000\] & \[0.000\] & \[0.000\] & \[0.000\] & \[0.000\] & \[0.000\]\
\[1mm\]\
\
![GATES of Immunization Incentives. Point estimates and 90% adjusted confidence intervals uniform across groups based on 100 random splits in half[]{data-label="figure:Haryana_GATES"}](EL1_plot_best-range-best-2-2-100-shot_Measles1.pdf){width="100.00000%" height=".58\textwidth"}
[lcccccc]{}\
\[-1mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference\
\[0.5mm\] & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$) & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$)\
\[1mm\]\
\[-1mm\] Number of vaccines to & 2.199 & 2.310 & -0.102 & 2.196 & 2.287 & -0.092\
pregnant mother & (2.154, 2.247) & (2.264, 2.352) & (-0.166, -0.038) & (2.154, 2.237) & (2.248, 2.326) & (-0.149, -0.035)\
& - & - & \[0.003\] & - & - & \[0.003\]\
Number of vaccines to & 4.111 & 4.645 & -0.513 & 4.328 & 4.696 & -0.368\
child since birth & (3.972, 4.251) & (4.524, 4.775) & (-0.698, -0.319) & (4.215, 4.435) & (4.583, 4.813) & (-0.534, -0.215)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction of children received & 0.998 & 1.000 & -0.002 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.000\
polio drops & (0.996, 1.000) & (0.998, 1.002) & (-0.004, 0.001) & (1.000, 1.000) & (1.000, 1.000) & (0.000, 0.000)\
& - & - & \[0.261\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Number of polio drops to & 2.945 & 2.994 & -0.049 & 2.957 & 3.000 & -0.041\
child & (2.932, 2.959) & (2.983, 3.007) & (-0.067, -0.031) & (2.947, 2.967) & (2.989, 3.008) & (-0.055, -0.027)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction of children received & 0.806 & 0.926 & -0.120 & 0.906 & 0.928 & -0.028\
immunized card & (0.776, 0.837) & (0.899, 0.951) & (-0.162, -0.077) & (0.886, 0.922) & (0.910, 0.946) & (-0.053, -0.007)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.019\]\
\
Implementation Algorithm {#sec:details}
------------------------
In this section we describe an algorithm based on the first identification strategy and provide some specific implementation details for the empirical examples.
\[alg:implementation\] The inputs are given by the data on units $i \in [N]= \{1,..., N\}$.
Step 0. Fix the number of splits $S$ and the significance level $\alpha$, e.g. $S=100$ and $\alpha=0.05$.
Step 1. Compute the propensity scores $p(Z_i)$ for $i \in [N]$.
Step 2. Consider $S$ splits in half of the indices $i \in \{1,..., N\}$ into the main sample, $M$, and the auxiliary sample, $A$. Over each split $s=1,.., S$, apply the following steps:
1. Tune and train each ML method separately to learn $ B (\cdot)$ and $ S (\cdot) $ using $A$. For each $i\in M$, compute the predicted baseline effect $B(Z_i)$ and predicted treatment effect $S(Z_{i})$. If there is zero variation in $B(Z_i)$ and $S(Z_i)$ add Gaussian noise with a variance of 0.1 to the proxies.
2. Estimate the BLP parameters by weighted OLS in $M$, i.e., $$Y_i = {\widehat}\alpha'X_{1i} + {\widehat}\beta_1 (D_i - p(Z_i)) + {\widehat}\beta_2 (D_i- p(Z_i)) (S_i - \Bbb{E}_{N,M} S_i) + {\widehat}\epsilon_i, \ \ i \in M$$ such that $\Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) {\widehat}\epsilon_i X_i] = 0$ for $X_i= [X_{1i}^{\prime}, D_i- p(Z_i), (D_i- p(Z_i)) (S_i - \Bbb{E}_{N,M} S_i)]^{\prime}$, where $w(Z_i) = \{p(Z_i)(1-p(Z_i))\}^{-1} $ and $X_{1i}$ includes a constant, $B(Z_i)$ and $S(Z_i)$.
3. Estimate the GATES parameters by weighted OLS in $M$, i.e., $$Y_{i} = {\widehat}\alpha'X_{1i} + \sum_{k=1}^K {\widehat}\gamma_k \cdot (D_{i}-p(Z_{i})) \cdot 1(S_{i} \in I_k) + {\widehat}\nu_i, \ \ i \in M,$$ such that $ \Bbb{E}_{N, M} [ w(Z_{i}) {\widehat}\nu_i W_{i}] = 0$ for $W_i = [X_{i1}^{\prime}, \{ (D_i-p(Z_i)) 1(S_i \in I_k)\}_{k=1}^K ]^{\prime}$, where $w(Z_i) = \{p(Z_i)(1-p(Z_i))\}^{-1} $, $X_{1i}$ includes a constant, $B(Z_i)$ and $S(Z_i)$, $I_k = [\ell_{k-1},\ell_{k})$, and $\ell_k$ is the $(k/K)$-quantile of $\{S_{i}\}_{i\in M}$.
4. Estimate the CLAN parameters in $M$ by $${\widehat}\delta_1 = \Bbb{E}_{N,M} [ g(Y_{i},Z_{i}) \mid S_{i} \in I_{1} ] \quad \text{ and } \quad {\widehat}\delta_K = \Bbb{E}_{N,M} [ g(Y_{i}, Z_{i}) \mid S_{i} \in I_{K}],$$ where $I_k = [\ell_{k-1},\ell_{k})$ and $\ell_k$ is the $(k/K)$-quantile of $\{S_{i}\}_{i\in M}$.
5. Compute the two performance measures for the ML methods $${\widehat}\Lambda = |{\widehat}\beta_2|^2 \widehat{\mathrm{Var}}(S(Z)) \quad \quad \widehat{\bar \Lambda} = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K {\widehat}\gamma^2_k.$$
Step 3: Choose the best ML methods based on the medians of ${\widehat}\Lambda$ and $\widehat {\bar \Lambda}$ over the splits.
Step 4: Compute the estimates, $(1-\alpha)$-level conditional confidence intervals and conditional p-values for all the parameters of interest. Monotonize the confidence intervals if needed. For example, construct a $(1-\alpha)$ joint confidence interval for the GATES as $$\label{eq:cb}
\{\widehat \gamma_k \pm \widehat c(1-\alpha) \widehat \sigma_k, \ \ k = 1, \ldots, K\},$$ where $\widehat c(1-\alpha)$ is a consistent estimator of the $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of $\max_{k \in 1,\ldots, K} | \widehat \gamma_k - \gamma_k|/\widehat \sigma_k$ and $\widehat \sigma_k$ is the standard error of $\widehat \gamma_k$ conditional on the data split. Monotonize the band with respect to $k$ using the rearrangement method of [@cfg-09].
Step 5: Compute the adjusted $(1-2\alpha)$-confidence intervals and adjusted p-values using the VEIN methods described in Section \[sec:inference\].
We consider four ML methods to estimate the proxy predictors: elastic net, boosted trees, neural network with feature extraction, and random forest. The ML methods are implemented in R using the package caret [@kuhn2008caret]. The names of the elastic net, boosted tree, neural network with feature extraction, and random forest methods in caret are glmnet, gbm, pcaNNet and rf, respectively. For each split of the data, we choose the tuning parameters separately for $B(z)$ and $S(z)$ based on mean squared error estimates of repeated 2-fold cross-validation, except for random forest, for which we use the default tuning parameters to reduce the computational time.[^12] In tuning and training the ML methods we use only the auxiliary sample. In all the methods we rescale the outcomes and covariates to be between 0 and 1 before training.
We adopt two strategies to improve precision, and to adapt our strategy to the experimental design. First, since the stratification was conducted within pairs, the linear projections of the BLP and GATES control for village pair fixed effects along with the predicted baseline effect, $B(z)$ and predicted treatment effect, $S(z)$. Second, as suggested in Section \[sec:extensions\], we use stratified sample splitting where the strata are village pairs. We cluster the standard errors at the village level to account for potential correlated shocks within each village. All reported results are medians over $S=100$ splits and $\alpha=0.05$.
Concluding Remarks
==================
We propose to focus inference on key features of heterogeneous effects in randomized experiments, and develop the corresponding methods. These key features include best linear predictors of the effects and average effects sorted by groups, as well as average characteristics of most and least affected units. Our new approach is valid in high dimensional settings, where the effects are estimated by machine learning methods. The main advantage of our approach is its credibility: the approach is agnostic about the properties of the machine learning estimators, and does not rely on incredible or hard-to-verify assumptions. Estimation and inference relies on data splitting, where the latter allows us to avoid overfitting and all kinds of non-regularities. Our inference quantifies uncertainty coming from both parameter estimation and the data splitting, and could be of independent interest. Two empirical applications illustrate the practical uses of the approach.
A researcher might be concerned about the application of our method to detect heterogeneity due to the possible power loss induced by sample splitting. We argue that this power loss is the price to pay when the researcher is not certain or willing to fully specify the form of the heterogeneity prior to conducting the experiment. Thus, if the researcher has a well-defined pre-analysis plan that spells out a small number of heterogeneity groups in advance, then there is no need of splitting the sample.[^13] However, this situation is not common. In general, the researcher might not be able to fully specify the form of the heterogeneity due to lack of information, economic theory, or willingness to take a stand at the early stages of the analysis. She might also face data limitations that preclude the availability of the desired covariates. Here we recommend the use of our method to avoid overfitting and p-hacking, and impose discipline to the heterogeneity analysis at the cost of some power loss due to sample splitting. This loss is difficult to quantify as we are not aware of any alternative method that works at the same level of agnosticism as ours. In Appendix \[app:power\] we provide a numerical example using a simple parametric model where standard methods are available. We find that the extent of the power loss for not using the parametric form of the heterogeneity roughly corresponds to reducing the sample size by half in a test for the presence of heterogeneity, although the exact comparison depends on features of the data generating process.
Proofs
======
Proof of Theorem \[theorem: BLP1\] {#proof-of-theorem-theorem-blp1 .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
The subset of the normal equations, which correspond to $\beta := (\beta_1,\beta_2)'$, are given by $
{{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) ( Y- \alpha' X_1 - \beta' X_2) X_2] =0.
$ Substituting $Y = b_0(Z) + s_0(Z) D + U$, and using the definition $X_2 = X_2(Z,D) = [ D-p(Z), (D-p(Z) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S)]'$, $X_1 = X_1(Z)$, and the law of iterated expectations, we notice that: $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) b_0(Z) X_2 ] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) b_0(Z) \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[X_2\mid Z]}_{=0} ] = 0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) U X_2] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ w(Z) \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[U\mid Z,D]}_{0} X_2 (Z,D)] = 0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) X_1 X_2] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) X_1 (Z) \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[X_2(Z,D) \mid Z]}_{=0} ] = 0. \\
\end{array}$$ Hence the normal equations simplify to: ${{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) ( s_0(Z) D - \beta' X_2) X_2] =0.$ Since $${{\mathrm{E}}}[\{D - p(Z)\} \{D - p(Z)\} \mid Z] = p(Z) (1- p(Z)) = w^{-1} (Z),$$ and $S = S(Z)$, the components of $X_2$ are orthogonal by the law of iterated expectations: $${{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) (D - p(Z)) (D- p(Z)) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) = {{\mathrm{E}}}(S - {{\mathrm{E}}}S) = 0.$$ Hence the normal equations above further simplify to $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) \{s_0(Z) D - \beta_1 (D - p(Z))\} (D - p(Z)) ] =0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[w(Z) \{ s_0(Z) D - \beta_2 (D- p(Z)) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) \} (D- p(Z)) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) ] =0.
\end{array}$$ Solving these equations and using the law of iterated expectations, we obtain $$\beta_1 = \frac{{{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) \{ s_0(Z) D (D - p(Z)) \}}{{{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) (D - p(Z))^2} = \frac{ {{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) s_0(Z) w^{-1}(Z) }{{{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) w^{-1}(Z)} = {{\mathrm{E}}}s_0(Z),$$$$\beta_2 = \frac{{{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) \{ s_0(Z) D (D - p(Z)) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}S) \}}{{{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) (D - p(Z))^2 (S- {{\mathrm{E}}}S)^2}$$ $$= \frac{ {{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) s_0(Z) w^{-1}(Z) (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}S) }{{{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) w^{-1}(Z) (S- {{\mathrm{E}}}S)^2} = \mathrm{Cov} (s_0(Z), S)/\mathrm{Var}(S).$$ The conclusion follows by noting that these coefficients also solve the normal equations $${{\mathrm{E}}}\{[ s_0(Z) - \beta_1 - \beta_2(S - {{\mathrm{E}}}S)][1, (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}S)]'\} =0,$$ which characterize the optimum in the problem of best linear approximation/prediction of $s_0(Z)$ using $S$.
Proof of Theorem \[theorem: BLP2\] {#proof-of-theorem-theorem-blp2 .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
The normal equations defining $\beta = (\beta_1, \beta_2)'$ are given by $
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ ( Y H - \mu' X_1 H - \beta' \tilde X_2) \tilde X_2] =0.
$ Substituting $Y = b_0(Z) + s_0(Z) D + U$, and using the definition $\tilde X_2 = \tilde X_2(Z) = [1, (S(Z) - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S(Z))]'$, $X_1 = X_1(Z)$, and the law of iterated expectations, we notice that: $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ b_0(Z) H \tilde X_2(Z) ] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ b_0(Z) \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[H \mid Z]}_{=0} \tilde X_2(Z) ] = 0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ U H \tilde X_2(Z) ] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[U \mid Z,D]}_{0} H(D,Z) \tilde X_2(Z) ] = 0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ X_1(Z) H \tilde X_2(Z)] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ X_1 (Z) \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[H \mid Z]}_{=0} \tilde X_2 (Z) ] = 0. \\
\end{array}$$
Hence the normal equations simplify to: $${{\mathrm{E}}}[ (s_0(Z) D H - \beta' \tilde X_2) \tilde X_2] =0.$$ Since $1$ and $S- {{\mathrm{E}}}S$ are orthogonal, the normal equations above further simplify to $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}\{s_0(Z) D H - \beta_1 \} =0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[\{ s_0(Z) D H - \beta_2 (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) \} (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) ] =0.
\end{array}$$ Using that $${{\mathrm{E}}}[D H \mid Z] = [p(Z) (1- p(Z))]/ [ p(Z) (1- p(Z))] =1,$$ $S=S(Z)$, and the law of iterated expectations, the equations simplify to $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}\{s_0(Z) - \beta_1 \} =0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}\{ s_0(Z) - \beta_2 (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) \} (S - {{\mathrm{E}}}_{} S) =0.
\end{array}$$ These are normal equations that characterize the optimum in the problem of best linear approximation/prediction of $s_0(Z)$ using $S$. Solving these equations gives the expressions for $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ stated in the theorem.
Proof of Theorem \[theorem: GATES\] {#proof-of-theorem-theorem-gates .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \[theorem: BLP1\]- \[theorem: BLP2\]. Moreover, since the proofs for the two strategies are similar, we will only demonstrate the proof for the second strategy.
The subset of the normal equations, which correspond to $\gamma :=(\gamma_k)_{k=1}^K$, are given by $
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ ( Y H - \mu' \tilde W_1 - \gamma' \tilde W_2) \tilde W_2] =0.
$ Substituting $Y = b_0(Z) + s_0(Z) D + U$, and using the definition $\tilde W_2 = \tilde W_2(Z) = [1(S \in I_k)_{k=1}^K]'$, $\tilde W_1 = X_1(Z) H$, and the law of iterated expectations, we notice that: $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ b_0(Z) H \tilde W_2(Z) ] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ b_0(Z) \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[H \mid Z]}_{=0} \tilde W_2(Z) ] = 0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ U H \tilde W_2(Z) ] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[U \mid Z,D]}_{0} H(D,Z) \tilde W_2(Z) ] = 0, \\
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ \tilde W_1 \tilde W_2(Z)] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ X_1 (Z) \underbracket{{{\mathrm{E}}}[H \mid Z]}_{=0} \tilde W_2 (Z) ] = 0. \\
\end{array}$$
Hence the normal equations simplify to: $${{\mathrm{E}}}[ \{s_0(Z) D H - \gamma' \tilde W_2\} \tilde W_2] =0.$$ Since components of $\tilde W_2 = \tilde W_2(Z) = [1(G_k)_{k=1}^K]'$ are orthogonal, the normal equations above further simplify to $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}[\{ s_0(Z) D H - \gamma_k 1(G_k) \} 1(G_k) ] =0.
\end{array}$$ Using that $${{\mathrm{E}}}[D H \mid Z] = [p(Z) \{1- p(Z)\}]/ [ p(Z) \{1- p(Z)\}] =1,$$ $S = S(Z)$, and the law of iterated expectations, the equations simplify to $$\begin{array}{l}
{{\mathrm{E}}}[ \{ s_0(Z) - \gamma_k 1(G_k) \} 1(G_k) ] =0 \Longleftrightarrow \ \
\gamma_k = {{\mathrm{E}}}{s_0(Z) 1(G_k) }/ {{\mathrm{E}}}[1(G_k)] = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ s_0(Z) \mid G_k].
\end{array}$$
Proof of Theorem \[theorem: PV\] {#proof-of-theorem-theorem-pv .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
We have that $p_{.5} {\leqslant}\alpha/2$ is equivalent to $
\Bbb{E}_P[1( p_A {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ) \mid \mathrm{Data} ] {\geqslant}1/2.
$ So $$\Bbb{P}_P[p_{.5} {\leqslant}\alpha/2] = \mathbb{E}_P 1\{ \Bbb{E}_P [1( p_A {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ) \mid \mathrm{Data} ] {\geqslant}1/2\} .$$ By Markov inequality, $$\mathbb{E}_P 1\{ \Bbb{E}_P [1( p_A {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ) \mid \mathrm{Data} ] {\geqslant}1/2\}
{\leqslant}2 \Bbb{P}_P[ p_A {\leqslant}\alpha/2 ].$$ Moreover, $$\Bbb{P}_P( p_A {\leqslant}\alpha/2) {\leqslant}\Bbb{E}_P [\Bbb{P}_P [ p_A {\leqslant}\alpha/2 \mid \mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A} ] + \gamma]
{\leqslant}\alpha/2 + \delta + \gamma .$$
Proof of Theorem \[theorem: CI\] {#proof-of-theorem-theorem-ci .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
To show the second claim, we note that $$\Bbb{P}_P( \theta_A \not \in \mathrm{CI}) =
\Bbb{P}_P( p_l(\theta_A) {\leqslant}\alpha/2) + \Bbb{P}_P(p_u (\theta_A) {\leqslant}\alpha/2)$$$${\leqslant}\alpha + \delta+ \gamma + \alpha + \delta + \gamma,$$ where the inequality holds by Theorem \[theorem: PV\] on the p-values. The last bound is upper bounded by $2 \alpha + o(1)$ by the regularity condition [PV]{} for the p-values, uniformly in $P \in \mathcal{P}$.
To show the first claim, we need to show the following inequalities: $$\sup\{\theta \in \Bbb{R}: p_u(\theta) > \alpha/2 \} {\leqslant}u, \quad
\inf\{\theta \in \Bbb{R}: p_l(\theta) >\alpha/2\} {\geqslant}l.$$ We demonstrate the first inequality, and the second follows similarly.
We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\{\theta \in \Bbb{R}:p_u(\theta) > \alpha/2 \}
& = & \{ \theta \in \Bbb{R}: \underline{\mathrm{Med}} [\Phi \{{\widehat}\sigma^{-1}_A({\widehat}\theta_A- \theta)\}\mid \mathrm{Data}] > \alpha/2 \} \\
& = & \{ \theta \in \Bbb{R}: \Phi \{
\underline{\mathrm{Med}} [{\widehat}\sigma^{-1}_A({\widehat}\theta_A- \theta)\mid \mathrm{Data}] \} > \alpha/2 \} \\
& = & \{ \theta \in \Bbb{R}:
\underline{\mathrm{Med}} [{\widehat}\sigma^{-1}_A({\widehat}\theta_A-\theta)\mid \mathrm{Data}] > \Phi^{-1}(\alpha/2) \} \\
& = & \{ \theta \in \Bbb{R}:
\overline{\mathrm{Med}} [{\widehat}\sigma^{-1}_A(\theta - {\widehat}\theta_A)\mid \mathrm{Data}] < \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) \} \\
& = & \left \{ \theta \in \Bbb{R}:
\overline{\mathrm{Med}} \left [\frac{\theta - {\widehat}\theta_A}{{\widehat}\sigma_A } - \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) \mid \mathrm{Data} \right] < 0 \right \},
$$ where we have used the equivariance of $ \overline{\mathrm{Med}} $ and $\underline{\mathrm{Med}}$ to monotone transformations, implied from their definition. We claim that by the definition of $$u:= \underline{\mathrm{Med}} [{\widehat}\theta_A + {\widehat}\sigma_A \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) \mid \mathrm{Data} ],$$ we have $$\overline{\mathrm{Med}} \left [\frac{u- {\widehat}\theta_A }{{\widehat}\sigma_A } - \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2)\mid \mathrm{Data} \right] {\geqslant}0.$$ Indeed, by the definition of $u$, $$\Bbb{E} \left( 1 ( u - {\widehat}\theta_A - {\widehat}\sigma_A \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) {\geqslant}0) \mid \mathrm{Data} \right ) {\geqslant}1/2.$$ Since ${\widehat}\sigma_A>0$ by assumption, $$1 ( u - {\widehat}\theta_A - {\widehat}\sigma_A \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) {\geqslant}0) =
1\left ( \frac{u- {\widehat}\theta_A }{{\widehat}\sigma_A } - \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) {\geqslant}0\right ),$$ and it follows that $$\Bbb{P} \Big (\frac{u- {\widehat}\theta_A }{{\widehat}\sigma_A } - \Phi^{-1}(1-\alpha/2) {\geqslant}0 \mid \mathrm{Data} \Big ) {\geqslant}1/2.$$
The claimed inequality $\sup\{\theta \in \Bbb{R}: p_u(\theta) > \alpha/2 \} {\leqslant}u$ follows.
A Lemma on Uniform in $P$ Conditional Inference
===============================================
\[lemma: estimation\] Fix two positive constants $c$ and $C$, and a small constant $\delta>0$. Let $\tilde Y$ and $X$ denote a generic outcome and a generic $d$-vector of regressors, whose use and definition may differ in different places of the paper. Assume that for each $P \in \mathcal{P}$, ${{\mathrm{E}}}_P |\tilde Y|^{4+\delta} <C$ and let $0 < \underline{w} {\leqslant}w (Z) {\leqslant}\overline{w} <\infty$ denote a generic weight, and that $\{(\tilde Y_i, Z_i, D_i)\}_{i=1}^N$ are i.i.d. copies of $(\tilde Y,Z,D)$. Let $ \{\mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N\}$ be the event such that the ML algorithm, operating only on $\mathrm{Data}_A$, produces a vector $X_A = X(Z, D; Data_A)$ that obeys, for $\epsilon_A = \tilde Y- X'\beta_A$ defined by: $
\Bbb{E}_P[ \epsilon_A w(Z) X_A \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] = 0,
$ the following inequalities, uniformly in $P \in \mathcal{P}$ $$\Bbb{E}_P[\|X_A \|^{4+\delta} \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] {\leqslant}C, \ \ \textrm{mineig } \Bbb{E}_P[ X_A X_A' \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] > c, \ \ \textrm{mineig } \Bbb{E}_P[ \epsilon_A^2 X_A X_A' \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] >c.$$ Suppose that $\Bbb{P}_P\{\mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N\} {\geqslant}1- \gamma \to1$ uniformly in $P \in \mathcal{P}$, as $N \to \infty$. Let ${\widehat}\beta_A$ be defined by: $$\mathbb{E}_{N,M} [ w(Z) X_A {\widehat}\epsilon_A ] = 0, \quad {\widehat}\epsilon_A = Y_A - X'{\widehat}\beta_A.$$ Let ${\widehat}V_{N, A} := (\mathbb{E}_{N,M} X_A X_A')^{-1} \mathbb{E}_{N,M} {\widehat}\epsilon^2_A X_A X_A' (\mathbb{E}_{N,M} X_A X_A')^{-1} $ be an estimator of $$V_{N,A} = (\mathbb{E}_P[X_A X_A' \mid \mathrm{Data}_A])^{-1} \mathbb{E} _P[ \epsilon_A^2 X_A X_A' \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] (\mathbb{E}_P [X_A X_A' \mid \mathrm{Data}_A])^{-1}.$$ Let $I_d$ denote the identify matrix of order $d$. Then for any convex set $R$ in $\Bbb{R}^d$, we have that uniformly in $P \in \mathcal{P}$: $$\Bbb{P}_P[ {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) \in R \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] \to_P \Bbb{P} ( N(0,I_d) \in R),$$$$\Bbb{P}_P [ {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) \in R \mid \{\mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N\} ] \to \Bbb{P} ( N(0,I_d) \in R),$$ and the same results hold with ${\widehat}V_{N,A}$ replaced by $V_{N,A}$.
[**Proof.**]{} It suffices to demonstrate the argument for an arbitrary sequence $\{P_n\}$ in $\mathcal{P}$. Let $z\mapsto \tilde X_{A,N}(z)$ be a deterministic map such that the following inequalities hold, for $\tilde e_A$ defined by $${{\mathrm{E}}}_{P_n }[ \tilde e_A w(Z) \tilde X_{A,N} (Z) ] = 0$$ and $\tilde X_{A,N} = \tilde X_{A,N}(Z)$: $${{\mathrm{E}}}_{P_n}[\| \tilde X_{A,N}\|^4 ] < C, \ \ \textrm{mineig } {{\mathrm{E}}}_{P_n}[ \tilde X_{A,N} \tilde X_{A,N}' ] >c, \ \ \textrm{mineig } {{\mathrm{E}}}_{P_n}[ \tilde e_A^2 \tilde X_{A,N} \tilde X_{A,N}'] >c.$$ Then we have that (abusing notation): $$B_N:= \sup_{\tilde X_{A,N}} \sup_{h \in \mathrm{BL}_1(\Bbb{R}^d)} |{\Bbb E}_{P_n} h ( \tilde V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) \mid \tilde X_{A,N}) - {\Bbb E}h (N (0,I_d))| \to 0,$$ by the standard argument for asymptotic normality of the least squares estimator, which utilizes the Lindeberg-Feller Central Limit Theorem. Here $$\tilde V_{N, A} := ({{\mathrm{E}}}\tilde X_A \tilde X_A')^{-1} {{\mathrm{E}}}\tilde \epsilon^2_A \tilde X_A \tilde X_A' ({{\mathrm{E}}}\tilde X_A \tilde X_A')^{-1},$$ and $\mathrm{BL}_1(\Bbb{R}^d)$ denotes the set of Lipschitz maps $h: \Bbb{R}^d \to [0,1]$ with the Lipschitz coefficient bounded by 1.\
Then, for the stochastic sequence $X_{A,N} = X_{A,N}(\mathrm{Data}_A)$, $$\sup_{h \in \mathrm{BL}_1(\Bbb{R}^d)} |{\Bbb E}_{P_n} [h ( V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) )\mid X_{A,N}] - {\Bbb E} [h (N (0,I_d))] | {\leqslant}B_N + 2 (1- 1 \{\mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N\}) \to_{P_n} 0.$$ Since under the stated bounds on moments, ${\widehat}V_{N,A}^{1/2} V_{N,A}^{-1/2} \to_{P_n} I_d$ by the standard argument for consistency of the Eicker-Huber-White sandwich, we further notice that $$\sup_{h \in \mathrm{BL}_1(\Bbb{R}^d)} | {\Bbb E}_{P_n} [h ( {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) ) \mid X_{A,N} ] - {\Bbb E}_{P_n}[h ( V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) ) \mid X_{A,N} ] |$$ $${\leqslant}{\Bbb E}_{P_n}[ \|{\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2}V_{N,A}^{1/2} - I_d\|\wedge 1 \cdot \| V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A)\| \wedge 1\mid X_{A,N} ] \to_{P_n} \Bbb{E} [ 0 \wedge 1 \cdot \|N(0,I_d)\| \wedge 1 ] =0,$$ in order to conclude that $$\sup_{h \in \mathrm{BL}_1(\Bbb{R}^d)} {\Bbb E}_{P_n} [h ( {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) )\mid X_{A,N} ] - {\Bbb E} [h (N (0,I_d))] \to_P 0.$$
Moreover, since $
{\Bbb E}_{P_n} [h ( {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) ) \mid X_{A,N} ] =
{\Bbb E}_{P_n} [h ( {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) ) \mid \mathrm{Data}_A ], $ the first conclusion follows: $
\Bbb{P}_{P_n} [ {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) \in R \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] \to_{P_n} \Bbb{P}( N(0,I_d) \in R)$, by the conventional smoothing argument (where we approximate the indicator of a convex region by a smooth map with finite Lipschitz coefficient). The second conclusion $$\Bbb{P}_{P_n} [ {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) \in R \mid \mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N ] \to \Bbb{P}( N(0,I_d) \in R)$$ follows from the first by $$\Bbb{P}_{P_n} [ {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) \in R \mid \mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N ] =$$ $$={\Bbb E}_{P_n} [\Bbb{P}_{P_n} [ {\widehat}V_{N,A}^{-1/2} ({\widehat}\beta_A - \beta_A) \in R \mid \mathrm{Data}_A] 1 ( \{\mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N\})/\Bbb{P}_{P_n}
\{\mathrm{Data}_A \in \mathcal{A}_N \}]$$$$\to {{\mathrm{E}}}[\Bbb{P}( N(0,I_d) \in R) \cdot 1],$$ using the definition of the weak convergence, implied by the convergence to the constants in probability.
Comparison of Two Estimation Strategies {#app:comparison}
=======================================
We focus on the estimation of the BLP. The analysis can be extended to the GATES using analogous arguments.
Let $X_{2i} = (1, S_i - \Bbb{E}_{N,M} S_i)'$ and ${\widehat}\beta = ({\widehat}\beta_1, {\widehat}\beta_2)'$. In the first strategy, we run the weighted linear regression $$Y_i = X_{1i}'{\widehat}\alpha + (D_i - p(Z_i)) X_{2i}'{\widehat}\beta + {\widehat}\epsilon_i, \quad i \in M,$$ $$\ \ \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) {\widehat}\epsilon_i
X_i] = 0, \ \ w(Z) = \{p(Z)(1-p(Z))\}^{-1}, \ \ X _{i}= [X_{1i}', (D_i - p(Z_i)) X_{2i}']'.$$ Let ${\widehat}\theta := ({\widehat}\alpha', {\widehat}\beta')'$. Then, this estimator is $${\widehat}\theta =\left( \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) X_i X_i' ] \right)^{-1} \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) X_i Y_i ].$$ Let $X = [X_{1}', (D - p(Z)) X_{2}']'$ with $X_2 = (1, S - {{\mathrm{E}}}S)'$. By standard properties of the least squares estimator and the central limit theorem $${\widehat}\theta =\left({{\mathrm{E}}}[ w(Z) X X' ] \right)^{-1} \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) X_i Y_i ] + o_P(M^{-1/2}),$$ where $${{\mathrm{E}}}[ w(Z) X X' ] = \left(\begin{array}{cc} {{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z)X_1X_1' & 0 \\0 & {{\mathrm{E}}}X_2 X_2'\end{array}\right).$$ In the previous expression we use that ${{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) (D - p(Z)) X_{1} X_{2}' = 0$ and ${{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) (D - p(Z))^2 X_{2} X_{2}' = {{\mathrm{E}}}X_2 X_2'$ by iterated expectations. Then, $${\widehat}\beta =\left({{\mathrm{E}}}X_2 X_2' \right)^{-1} \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) (D_i - p(Z_i)) X_{2i} Y_i ] + o_P(M^{-1/2}),$$ using that ${{\mathrm{E}}}[ w(Z) X X' ]$ is block-diagonal between ${\widehat}\alpha$ and ${\widehat}\beta$.
In the second strategy, we run the linear regression $$H_i Y_i = H_i X_{1i}'\tilde \alpha + X_{2i}' \tilde \beta + \tilde \epsilon_i, \quad \Bbb{E}_{N,M} \tilde \epsilon_i \tilde X_i =0, \quad H_i = (D_i - p(Z_i)) w(Z_i), \quad \tilde X_i = [H_i X_{1i}', X_{2i}]',$$ which yields the estimator, for $\tilde \theta = (\tilde \alpha', \tilde \beta')'$, $$\tilde \beta =\left( \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[\tilde X_i \tilde X_i' ] \right)^{-1} \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ H_i \tilde X_i Y_i ].$$ Let $\tilde X = [H X_{1}', X_{2}']'$ with $X_2 = (1, S - {{\mathrm{E}}}S)'$. By standard properties of the least squares estimator and the central limit theorem $$\tilde \theta =\left({{\mathrm{E}}}[\tilde X \tilde X' ] \right)^{-1} \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ H_i \tilde X_i Y_i ] + o_P(M^{-1/2}),$$ where $${{\mathrm{E}}}[ \tilde X \tilde X' ] = \left(\begin{array}{cc} {{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z)X_1X_1' & 0 \\0 & {{\mathrm{E}}}X_2 X_2'\end{array}\right) = {{\mathrm{E}}}[ w(Z) X X' ].$$ In the previous expression we use that ${{\mathrm{E}}}H X_{1} X_{2}' = 0$ and ${{\mathrm{E}}}H^2 X_{1} X_{1}' = {{\mathrm{E}}}w(Z) X_1 X_1'$ by iterated expectations. Hence, $$\tilde \beta =\left({{\mathrm{E}}}[ X_2 X_2' ] \right)^{-1} \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) (D_i - p(Z_i)) X_{2i} Y_i ] + o_P(M^{-1/2}),$$ where we use that ${{\mathrm{E}}}[ \tilde X \tilde X' ] $ is block-diagonal between ${\widehat}\alpha$ and ${\widehat}\beta$, and $\Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ H_i X_{2i} Y_i ] = \Bbb{E}_{N, M}[ w(Z_i) (D_i - p(Z_i)) X_{2i} Y_i ]$.
We conclude that ${\widehat}\beta$ and $\tilde \beta$ have the same asymptotic distribution because they have the same first order representation.
Power Calculations {#app:power}
==================
We conduct a numerical simulation to compare the power of the proposed method with the available standard methods to detect heterogeneity. The comparison is complicated because the existing methods do not apply to the general class of models that we consider. We therefore focus on a parametric low dimensional setting for which there are standard methods available. The design is a linear interactive model: $$\label{eq:design}
Y = \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 Z + \alpha_2 D + \beta Z D + \sigma \varepsilon,$$ where $Z$ is standard normal, $D$ is Bernouilli with probability $0.5$, $\varepsilon$ is standard normal, $\alpha_0 = \alpha_1 = 0$, and $\sigma = 1$. The parameter $\beta$ determines whether there is heterogeneity in the CATE, $s_0(Z) = \alpha_2 + \beta Z$. We vary its value across the simulations from no heterogeneity $\beta=0$ to increasing levels of heterogeneity $\beta \in \{.1,.2,.3,.4,.6,.8\}$. The benchmark of comparison is a t-test of $\beta =0$ based on the least squares estimator with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors in using the entire sample.[^14] We implement our test that the BLP is equal to zero using sample splitting. In the first stage we estimate the proxies of the CATE by least squares in the linear interactive model using half of the sample. In the second stage we run the adjusted linear regression of strategy 1 using the other half of the sample. We repeat the procedure for $100$ splits and use the median p-value multiplied by $2$ to carry out the test. The nominal level of the test for both the standard and proposed method is $5\%$. We consider several sample sizes, $n \in \{100,200,300,400,600,800\}$, to study how the power scales with $n$. All the results are based on $5,000$ replications.
Tables \[table:pstandard\] and \[table:pproposed\] report the empirical size and power for the standard and proposed test, respectively. One might conjecture that the standard test is as powerful as the proposed test with double the sample size due to sample splitting. The results roughly agree with this conjecture, but the power comparison depends nonlinearly on the heterogeneity coefficient $\beta$. Thus, the standard test is more powerful than the proposed test with double the sample size for low values of $\beta$, but the proposed test is more powerful than the standard test with half of the sample size for high values of $\beta$. We also note that the proposed test is conservative in this design.
[rrrrrrrr]{} & $\beta$=0 & $\beta$=.1 & $\beta$=.2 & $\beta$=.3 & $\beta$=.4 & $\beta$=.6 & $\beta$=.8\
$n=$100 & 0.07 & 0.10 & 0.19 & 0.35 & 0.53 & 0.84 & 0.97\
$n=$200 & 0.06 & 0.12 & 0.30 & 0.58 & 0.81 & 0.98 & 1.00\
$n=$300 & 0.05 & 0.15 & 0.42 & 0.74 & 0.93 & 1.00 & 1.00\
$n=$400 & 0.05 & 0.18 & 0.52 & 0.86 & 0.98 & 1.00 & 1.00\
$n=$600 & 0.06 & 0.24 & 0.69 & 0.95 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00\
$n=$800 & 0.05 & 0.29 & 0.81 & 0.99 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.00\
[rrrrrrrr]{} & $\beta$=0 & $\beta$=.1 & $\beta$=.2 & $\beta$=.3 & $\beta$=.4 & $\beta$=.6 & $\beta$=.8\
$n=$100 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.08 & 0.17 & 0.48 & 0.80\
$n=$200 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.17 & 0.40 & 0.85 & 0.99\
$n=$300 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.09 & 0.30 & 0.63 & 0.97 & 1.00\
$n=$400 & 0.00 & 0.02 & 0.14 & 0.45 & 0.79 & 1.00 & 1.00\
$n=$600 & 0.00 & 0.03 & 0.24 & 0.70 & 0.96 & 1.00 & 1.00\
$n=$800 & 0.00 & 0.04 & 0.38 & 0.86 & 0.99 & 1.00 & 1.00\
\
[lcccccc]{}\
\[-1mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference\
\[0.5mm\] & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$) & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$)\
\[1mm\]\
\[-1mm\] Fraction participating in Employment Generating Schemes & 0.124 & 0.032 & 0.089 & 0.074 & 0.027 & 0.045\
& (0.107, 0.141) & (0.017, 0.048) & (0.066, 0.113) & (0.060, 0.090) & (0.014, 0.040) & (0.027, 0.066)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction Below Poverty Line (BPL) & 0.206 & 0.183 & 0.021 & 0.179 & 0.174 & 0.004\
& (0.171, 0.241) & (0.148, 0.217) & (-0.027, 0.069) & (0.150, 0.211) & (0.144, 0.201) & (-0.038, 0.046)\
& - & - & \[0.670\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Scheduled Caste-Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) & 0.174 & 0.126 & 0.050 & 0.189 & 0.139 & 0.047\
& (0.148, 0.201) & (0.100, 0.151) & (0.013, 0.087) & (0.162, 0.217) & (0.114, 0.164) & (0.011, 0.086)\
& - & - & \[0.014\] & - & - & \[0.023\]\
Fraction Other Backward Caste (OBC) & 0.276 & 0.154 & 0.124 & 0.335 & 0.168 & 0.169\
& (0.243, 0.309) & (0.123, 0.185) & (0.078, 0.170) & (0.305, 0.367) & (0.139, 0.196) & (0.126, 0.212)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction Minority Caste & 0.007 & 0.008 & -0.001 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.000\
& (0.001, 0.013) & (0.001, 0.014) & (-0.010, 0.008) & (0.001, 0.010) & (0.001, 0.008) & (-0.004, 0.005)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction General Caste & 0.202 & 0.537 & -0.332 & 0.228 & 0.505 & -0.274\
& (0.160, 0.244) & (0.497, 0.578) & (-0.391, -0.276) & (0.188, 0.267) & (0.463, 0.546) & (-0.333, -0.215)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction No Caste & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\
& (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Other caste & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.001\
& (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.002) & (-0.001, 0.001) & (0.000, 0.002)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[0.292\]\
Fraction Dont know caste & 0.326 & 0.167 & 0.155 & 0.236 & 0.179 & 0.052\
& (0.288, 0.366) & (0.128, 0.205) & (0.098, 0.212) & (0.202, 0.272) & (0.145, 0.211) & (0.007, 0.099)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.047\]\
Fraction Hindu & 0.806 & 0.940 & -0.130 & 0.959 & 0.945 & 0.006\
& (0.754, 0.854) & (0.898, 0.985) & (-0.199, -0.062) & (0.936, 0.979) & (0.915, 0.971) & (-0.017, 0.029)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Muslim & 0.165 & 0.026 & 0.135 & 0.020 & 0.020 & 0.005\
& (0.119, 0.210) & (-0.014, 0.066) & (0.071, 0.198) & (0.009, 0.037) & (0.003, 0.046) & (-0.010, 0.020)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Christian& 0.000 & 0.004 & -0.004 & 0.000 & 0.004 & -0.004\
& (-0.005, 0.005) & (-0.001, 0.009) & (-0.012, 0.003) & (-0.005, 0.005) & (-0.001, 0.009) & (-0.011, 0.003)\
& - & - & \[0.537\] & - & - & \[0.524\]\
Fraction Buddhist & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\
& (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Sikh & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\
& (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Jain & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\
& (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Other Religion & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\
& (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
\
[lcccccc]{}\
\[-1mm\] & &\
\[1mm\] & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference & 20% Most & 20% Least & Difference\
\[0.5mm\] & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$) & ($\delta_{5}$) & ($\delta_1$) & ($\delta_{5}-\delta_{1}$)\
\[1mm\]\
\[-1mm\] Fraction Don’t Know Religion & 0.032 & 0.027 & 0.005 & 0.018 & 0.029 & -0.013\
& (0.020, 0.044) & (0.016, 0.038) & (-0.010, 0.020) & (0.008, 0.029) & (0.019, 0.039) & (-0.027, 0.001)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[0.152\]\
Fraction Literate & 0.782 & 0.781 & 0.002 & 0.819 & 0.783 & 0.034\
& (0.769, 0.796) & (0.769, 0.794) & (-0.016, 0.021) & (0.809, 0.829) & (0.773, 0.794) & (0.020, 0.048)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction unmarried & 0.053 & 0.049 & 0.003 & 0.054 & 0.046 & 0.008\
& (0.049, 0.057) & (0.045, 0.054) & (-0.003, 0.010) & (0.049, 0.058) & (0.042, 0.050) & (0.001, 0.015)\
& - & - & \[0.610\] & - & - & \[0.038\]\
Fraction of adults Married (living with spouse) & 0.491 & 0.515 & -0.022 & 0.517 & 0.517 & 0.001\
& (0.482, 0.501) & (0.507, 0.524) & (-0.035, -0.009) & (0.510, 0.525) & (0.509, 0.524) & (-0.010, 0.011)\
& - & - & \[0.002\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction of adults Married (not living with spouse) & 0.003 & 0.005 & -0.002 & 0.004 & 0.003 & 0.001\
& (0.001, 0.005) & (0.003, 0.006) & (-0.004, 0.001) & (0.002, 0.005) & (0.002, 0.004) & (-0.001, 0.002)\
& - & - & \[0.314\] & - & - & \[0.784\]\
Fraction of adults Divorced or Seperated & 0.006 & 0.001 & 0.005 & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.003\
& (0.005, 0.007) & (0.000, 0.002) & (0.004, 0.007) & (0.003, 0.006) & (0.000, 0.002) & (0.002, 0.005)\
& - & - & \[0.000\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction Widow or Widower & 0.035 & 0.037 & -0.002 & 0.036 & 0.039 & -0.004\
& (0.031, 0.038) & (0.034, 0.040) & (-0.006, 0.003) & (0.033, 0.039) & (0.036, 0.042) & (-0.008, 0.001)\
& - & - & \[0.847\] & - & - & \[0.200\]\
Fraction Marriage Status Unknown & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000\
& (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000) & (0.000, 0.000)\
& - & - & \[1.000\] & - & - & \[1.000\]\
Fraction Marriage status NA" & 0.412 & 0.393 & 0.018 & 0.384 & 0.392 & -0.007\
& (0.400, 0.424) & (0.382, 0.404) & (0.001, 0.034) & (0.375, 0.393) & (0.383, 0.402) & (-0.019, 0.005)\
& - & - & \[0.083\] & - & - & \[0.481\]\
Fraction who received Nursery level education or less & 0.152 & 0.170 & -0.017 & 0.133 & 0.168 & -0.033\
& (0.144, 0.162) & (0.162, 0.178) & (-0.029, -0.005) & (0.127, 0.140) & (0.162, 0.175) & (-0.043, -0.024)\
& - & - & \[0.014\] & - & - & \[0.000\]\
Fraction who received Class 4 level education & 0.079 & 0.090 & -0.011 & 0.079 & 0.090 & -0.011\
& (0.074, 0.084) & (0.085, 0.095) & (-0.018, -0.005) & (0.074, 0.084) & (0.085, 0.094) & (-0.018, -0.004)\
& - & - & \[0.002\] & - & - & \[0.004\]\
Fraction who received Class 9 level education & 0.171 & 0.160 & 0.010 & 0.161 & 0.155 & 0.006\
& (0.164, 0.179) & (0.153, 0.167) & (0.000, 0.021) & (0.155, 0.168) & (0.148, 0.162) & (-0.004, 0.015)\
& - & - & \[0.095\] & - & - & \[0.451\]\
Fraction who received Class 12 level education & 0.208 & 0.224 & -0.013 & 0.246 & 0.225 & 0.020\
& (0.195, 0.220) & (0.213, 0.235) & (-0.029, 0.003) & (0.235, 0.257) & (0.215, 0.235) & (0.006, 0.034)\
& - & - & \[0.219\] & - & - & \[0.009\]\
Fraction who received Graduate or Other Diploma level education & 0.077 & 0.089 & -0.013 & 0.088 & 0.093 & -0.005\
& (0.068, 0.085) & (0.081, 0.098) & (-0.026, -0.001) & (0.079, 0.096) & (0.085, 0.101) & (-0.016, 0.006)\
& - & - & \[0.080\] & - & - & \[0.801\]\
\
[^1]: We thank Susan Athey, Moshe Buchinsky, Denis Chetverikov, Siyi Luo, Max Kasy, Susan Murphy, Whitney Newey, and seminar participants at ASSA 2018, Barcelona GSE Summer Forum 2019, NYU, UCLA and Whitney Newey’s Contributions to Econometrics conference for valuable comments. We gratefully acknowledge research support from the National Science Foundation
[^2]: The papers were published in *Quarterly Journal of of Economics*, *American Economic Review*, *Review of Economics Studies*, *Econometrica* and *Journal of Political Economy*. We than Karthik Mularidharan, Mauricio Romero and Kaspar Wüthrich for sharing the list of papers they computed for another project.
[^3]: In the last few months alone, several new empirical papers in economics used ML methods to estimate heterogenous effects. E.g. [@Rigol] shows that villagers outperform the machine learning tools when they predict heterogeneity in returns to capital. [@Heller] predicts who benefits the most from a summer internship projects. [@Deryugina] uses the methods developed in the present paper to evaluate the heterogeneity in the effect of air pollution on mortality. [@Creponetal] also builds on the present paper to develop a methodology to determine if the impact of two different programs can be accounted for by different selection. The methodological papers reviewed later also contain a number of empirical applications.
[^4]: There are cases where such gap does not exist, e.g., see [@BelloniChernozhukovHansen2011; @BCW-rootLasso] for the lasso. On the other hand, for example, even the wide use of K-fold cross-validation in high-dimensional settings for machine learning remains theoretically unjustified. There do exist, however, related subsample-based methods that achieve excellent performance for tuning selection [@wegkamp2003; @lecueoracle].
[^5]: This problem is “solved" by fixing the Monte-Carlo seed and the entire data analysis algorithm before the empirical study. Even if such a huge commitment is really made and followed, there is a considerable risk that the resulting data-split may be non-typical. Our approach allows one to avoid taking this risk.
[^6]: The dimension $d$ is fixed in [@wager:athey]; the analysis relies on the Stone’s model with smoothness index $\beta=1$, in which no consistent estimator exists once $d {\geqslant}\log n$. It’d be interesting to establish consistency properties and find valid inferential procedures for the random forest in high-dimensional ($d \propto n$ or $d \gg n$) *approximately sparse* cases, with continuous and categorical covariates, but we are not aware of any studies that cover such settings, which are of central importance to us.
[^7]: The orthogonalization ideas embedded in this strategy do have classical roots in econometrics (going back to at least Frisch and Waugh in the 30s), and similar strategies underlie the orthogonal or double machine learning approach (DML) in [@DML]. Our paper has different goals than DML, attacking the problem of inference on heterogeneous effects without rate and even consistency assumptions. The strategy here is more nuanced in that we are making it work under misspecification or inconsistent learning, which is likely to be true in very high-dimensional problems.
[^8]: See [@banerjee2013microcredit] for a summary of the recent literature
[^9]: The results obtained using Boosted Tree and Neural Network are similar to the results reported, but they are slightly less precise. These results are not reported but are available from the authors upon request.
[^10]: [@banerjee2019improving] discusses validation data from random checks conducted by independent surveyors.
[^11]: The baseline survey suggest that about 40% of children aged 1-3 were fully immunized at baseline. These estimate imply that the rates would jump to about 55%.
[^12]: We have the following tuning parameters for each method: Elastic Net: alpha (Mixing Percentage), lambda (Regularization Parameter), Boosted trees: n.trees (Number of Boosting Iterations), interaction.depth (Max Tree Depth), shrinkage (Shrinkage), n.minobsinnode (Min. Terminal Node Size), size (Number of Hidden Units) , decay (Weight Decay), mtry (Number of Randomly Selected Predictors).
[^13]: More generally, the plan needs to specify a parametric form for the heterogeneity as a low dimensional function of prespecified covariates [e.g., @CFL2014]. In this case, we still recommend the use of ML tools to efficiently estimate the CATEs in the presence of control variables [@bcfh17; @DML].
[^14]: Note that this method is only applicable when researcher is willing to specify a parametric model for the expectation of $Y$ conditional on $D$ and $Z$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that for any type ${\rm III_1}$ free Araki-Woods factor $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''''$ associated with an orthogonal representation $(U_t)$ of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on a separable real Hilbert space $H_{\mathbf{R}}$, the continuous core $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is a semisolid ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor, i.e. for any non-zero finite projection $q \in M$, the ${\rm II_1}$ factor $qMq$ is semisolid. If the representation $(U_t)$ is moreover assumed to be mixing, then we prove that the core $M$ is solid. As an application, we construct an example of a non-amenable solid ${\rm II_1}$ factor $N$ with full fundamental group, i.e. $\mathcal{F}(N) = {\mathbf{R}}^*_+$, which is not isomorphic to any interpolated free group factor $L({\mathbf{F}}_t)$, for $1 < t \leq +\infty$.'
address: |
CNRS-ENS Lyon\
UMPA UMR 5669\
69364 Lyon cedex 7\
France
author:
- Cyril Houdayer
title: 'Structural results for free Araki-Woods factors and their continuous cores'
---
Introduction and statement of the main results
==============================================
The [*free Araki-Woods factors*]{} were introduced by Shlyakhtenko in [@shlya97]. In the context of [*free probability*]{} theory, these factors can be regarded as the analogs of the [*hyperfinite*]{} factors coming from the CAR[^1] functor. To each real separable Hilbert space $H_{\mathbf{R}}$ together with an orthogonal representation $(U_t)$ of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on $H_{\mathbf{R}}$, one can associate a von Neumann algebra denoted by $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$, called the [*free Araki-Woods*]{} von Neumann algebra. The von Neumann algebra $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ comes equipped with a unique [*free quasi-free state*]{} denoted by $\varphi_U$, which is always normal and faithful on $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ (see Section \[preliminaries\] for a more detailed construction). If $\dim H_{\mathbf{R}}= 1$, then $\Gamma({\mathbf{R}}, {\operatorname{Id}})'' \cong L^\infty[0, 1]$. If $\dim H_{\mathbf{R}}\geq 2$, then $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ is a full factor. In particular, $\mathcal{M}$ can never be of type ${\rm III_0}$. The type classification of these factors is the following:
1. $\mathcal{M}$ is a type ${\rm II_1}$ factor iff the representation $(U_t)$ is trivial: in that case the functor $\Gamma$ is Voiculescu’s free Gaussian functor [@voiculescu92]. Then $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, {\operatorname{Id}})'' \cong L({\mathbf{F}}_{\dim H_{\mathbf{R}}})$.
2. $\mathcal{M}$ is a type ${\rm III_\lambda}$ factor, for $0 < \lambda < 1$, iff the representation $(U_t)$ is $\frac{2\pi}{|\log \lambda|}$-periodic.
3. $\mathcal{M}$ is a type ${\rm III_1}$ factor iff $(U_t)$ is non-periodic and non-trivial.
Using free probability techniques, Shlyakhtenko obtained several remarkable classification results for $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$. For instance, if the orthogonal representations $(U_t)$ are [*almost periodic*]{}, then the free Araki-Woods factors $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ are completely classified up to state-preserving $\ast$-isomorphism [@shlya97]: they only depend on Connes’ invariant ${\operatorname{Sd}}(\mathcal{M})$ which is equal in that case to the (countable) subgroup $S_U \subset {\mathbf{R}}^*_+$ generated by the eigenvalues of $(U_t)$. Moreover, the [*discrete*]{} core $\mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma \widehat{S_U}$ (where $\widehat{S_U}$ is the compact group dual of $S_U$) is $\ast$-isomorphic to $L({\mathbf{F}}_\infty) \bar{\otimes} \mathbf{B}(\ell^2)$. Shlyakhtenko showed in [@shlya98] that if $(U_t)$ is the left regular representation, then the [*continuous*]{} core $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is isomorphic to $L({\mathbf{F}}_\infty) \bar{\otimes} \mathbf{B}(\ell^2)$ and the dual [trace-scaling]{} action $(\theta_s)$ is precisely the one constructed by Rădulescu [@radulescu1991]. For more on free Araki-Woods factors, we refer to and also to Vaes’ Bourbaki seminar [@vaes2004].
The free Araki-Woods factors as well as their continuous cores carry a [*malleable deformation*]{} in the sense of Popa. Then we will use the [*deformation/rigidity*]{} strategy together with the [*intertwining techniques*]{} in order to study the associated continuous cores. The high flexibility of this approach will allow us to work in a [*semifinite*]{} setting, so that we can obtain new structural/indecomposability results for the continuous cores of the free Araki-Woods factors. We first need to recall a few concepts. Following Ozawa , a finite von Neumann algebra $N$ is said to be:
- [*solid*]{} if for any diffuse von Neumann subalgebra $A \subset N$, the relative commutant $A' \cap N$ is amenable;
- [*semisolid*]{} if for any type ${\rm II_1}$ von Neumann subalgebra $A \subset N$, the relative commutant $A' \cap N$ is amenable.
It is easy to check that solidity and semisolidity for ${\rm II_1}$ factors are stable under taking amplification by any $t > 0$. Moreover, if $N$ is a non-amenable ${\rm II_1}$ factor, then solid $\Longrightarrow$ semisolid $\Longrightarrow$ prime. Recall in this respect that $N$ is said to be [*prime*]{} if it cannot be written as the tensor product of two diffuse factors.
Ozawa discovered a class $\mathcal{S}$ of countable groups for which whenever $\Gamma \in \mathcal{S}$, the group von Neumann algebra $L(\Gamma)$ is solid [@ozawa2003]. He showed that the following countable groups belong to the class $\mathcal{S}$: the word-hyperbolic groups [@ozawa2003], the wreath products $\Lambda \wr \Gamma$ for $\Lambda$ amenable and $\Gamma \in \mathcal{S}$ [@ozawa2004], and ${\mathbf{Z}}^2 \rtimes {\operatorname{SL}}(2, {\mathbf{Z}})$ [@ozawa2008]. He moreover proved that if $\Gamma \in \mathcal{S}$, then for any free, ergodic, p.m.p. action $\Gamma \curvearrowright (X, \mu)$, the corresponding ${\rm II_1}$ factor $L^\infty(X, \mu) \rtimes \Gamma$ is semisolid [@ozawa2004]. Recall that a non-amenable solid ${\rm II_1}$ factor does not have property $\Gamma$ of Murray & von Neumann [@ozawa2003].
Let $M$ be a ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor and let ${\operatorname{Tr}}$ be a fixed faithful normal semifinite trace on $M$. We shall say that $M$ is [*solid*]{} (resp. [*semisolid*]{}) if for any non-zero projection $q \in M$ such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$, the ${\rm II_1}$ factor $qMq$ is solid (resp. semisolid).
Recall that an orthogonal/unitary representation $(U_t)$ acting on $H$ is said to be [*mixing*]{} if for any $\xi, \eta \in H$, $\langle U_t \xi, \eta\rangle \to 0$, as $|t| \to \infty$. The main result of this paper is the following:
\[mainresult\] Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ be a type ${\rm III_1}$ free Araki-Woods factor. Then the continuous core $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is a semisolid ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor. Since $M$ is non-amenable, $M$ is always a prime factor. If the representation $(U_t)$ is moreover assumed to be mixing, then $M$ is a solid ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor.
The proof of Theorem \[mainresult\] follows Popa’s [*deformation/rigidity*]{} strategy. This theory has been successfully used over the last eight years to give a plethora of new classification/rigidity results for crossed products/free products von Neumann algebras. We refer to for some applications of the deformation/rigidity technique. We point out that in the present paper, the rigidity part does not rely on the notion of (relative) property (T) but rather on a certain [*spectral gap*]{} property discovered by Popa in . Using this powerful technique, Popa was able to show for instance that the Bernoulli action of groups of the form $\Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$, with $\Gamma_1$ non-amenable and $\Gamma_2$ infinite is $\mathcal{U}_{{\operatorname{fin}}}$-cocycle superrigid [@popasup]. The spectral gap rigidity principle gave also a new approach to proving primeness and (semi)solidity for type ${\rm II_1}/{\rm III}$ factors . We briefly remind below the concepts that we will play against each other in order to prove Theorem \[mainresult\]:
1. The first ingredient we will use is the [malleable deformation]{} by automorphisms $(\alpha_t, \beta)$ defined on the free Araki-Woods factor $\mathcal{M} \ast \mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}\oplus H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t \oplus U_t)''$. This deformation naturally arises as the [second quantization]{} of the rotations/reflection defined on $H_{\mathbf{R}}\oplus H_{\mathbf{R}}$ that commute with $U_t \oplus U_t$. It was shown in [@popasup] that such a deformation automatically features a certain [transversality property]{} (see Lemma $2.1$ in [@popasup]) which will be of essential use in our proof.
2. The second ingredient we will use is the [*spectral gap rigidity*]{} principle discovered by Popa in . Let $B \subset M_i$ be an inclusion of finite von Neumann algebras, for $i = 1, 2$, with $B$ amenable. Write $M = M_1 \ast_B M_2$. Then for any von Neumann subalgebra $Q \subset M_1$ with no amenable direct summand, the action by conjugation ${\operatorname{Ad}}(\mathcal{U}(Q)) \curvearrowright M$ has [spectral gap]{} relative to $M_1$: for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exist $\delta > 0$ and a finite [critical]{} subset $F \subset \mathcal{U}(Q)$ such that for any $x \in (M)_1$ (the unit ball of $M$), if $\|u x u^* - x\|_2 \leq \delta$, $\forall u \in F$, then $\|x - E_{M_1}(x)\|_2 \leq \varepsilon$.
3. Let $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ be the continuous core the free Araki-Woods factor $\mathcal{M}$. Let $q \in M$ be a non-zero finite projection. A combination of $(1)$ and $(2)$ yields that for any $Q \subset qMq$ with no amenable direct summand, the malleable deformation $(\alpha_t)$ necessarily converges uniformly in $\left\| \cdot \right\|_2$ on $(Q' \cap qMq)_1$. Then, using Popa’s intertwining techniques, one can locate the position of $Q' \cap qMq$ inside $qMq$.
The second result of this paper provides a new example of a non-amenable solid ${\rm II_1}$ factor. We first need the following:
\[examplerep\] Using results of [@antoniou], we construct an example of an orthogonal representation $(U_t)$ of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on a (separable) real Hilbert space $K_{\mathbf{R}}$ such that:
1. $(U_t)$ is mixing.
2. The spectral measure of $\bigoplus_{n \geq 1} U_t^{\otimes n}$ is singular w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$.
Shlyakhtenko showed in [@shlya98] that if the spectral measure of the representation $\bigoplus_{n \geq 1} U_t^{\otimes n}$ is singular w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure, then the continuous core of the free Araki-Woods factor $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ cannot be isomorphic to any $L({\mathbf{F}}_t) \bar{\otimes} \mathbf{B}(\ell^2)$, for $1 < t \leq \infty$, where $L({\mathbf{F}}_t)$ denote the interpolated free group factors . Therefore, we obtain:
\[examplesolid\] Let $(U_t)$ be an orthogonal representation acting on $K_{\mathbf{R}}$ as in Example $\ref{examplerep}$. Denote by $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(K_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ the corresponding free Araki-Woods factor and by $M = \mathcal{M}Ê\rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ its continuous core. Let $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Then the non-amenable ${\rm II_1}$ factor $qMq$ is solid, has full fundamental group, i.e. $\mathcal{F}(qMq) = {\mathbf{R}}^*_+$, and is not isomorphic to any interpolated free group factor $L({\mathbf{F}}_t)$, for $1 < t \leq \infty$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[preliminaries\], we recall the necessary background on free Araki-Woods factors as well as intertwining techniques for (semi)finite von Neumann algebras. Section \[results\] is mainly devoted to the proof of Theorem \[mainresult\], following the deformation/spectral gap rigidity strategy presented above. In the last Section, we construct Example \[examplerep\] and deduce Theorem \[examplesolid\].
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} The author would like to thank Prof. D. Shlyakhtenko for suggesting him the idea of looking at indecomposability results for the continuous cores of the free Araki-Woods factors and also for the useful discussions.
Preliminary background {#preliminaries}
======================
Shlyakhtenko’s free Araki-Woods factors
---------------------------------------
Let $H_{{\mathbf{R}}}$ be a real separable Hilbert space and let $(U_t)$ be an orthogonal representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on $H_{{\mathbf{R}}}$ such that the map $t \mapsto U_t$ is strongly continuous. Let $H_{\mathbf{C}}= H_{{\mathbf{R}}} \otimes_{{\mathbf{R}}} {\mathbf{C}}$ be the complexified Hilbert space. We shall still denote by $(U_t)$ the corresponding unitary representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on $H_{\mathbf{C}}$. Let $A$ be the infinitesimal generator of $(U_t)$ on $H_{\mathbf{C}}$ (Stone’s theorem), so that $A$ is the positive, self-adjoint, (possibly) unbounded operator on $H_{\mathbf{C}}$ which satisfies $U_t = A^{it}$, for every $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$. Define another inner product on $H_{\mathbf{C}}$ by $$\langle \xi, \eta\rangle_{U} = \left\langle \frac{2}{1 + A^{-1}}\xi, \eta\right\rangle, \forall \xi, \eta \in H_{\mathbf{C}}.$$ Note that for any $\xi \in H_{\mathbf{R}}$, $\|\xi\|_U = \|\xi\|$; also, for any $\xi , \eta \in H_{\mathbf{R}}$, $\Re(\langle \xi, \eta\rangle_U) = \langle \xi, \eta\rangle$, where $\Re$ denotes the real part. Denote by $H$ the completion of $H_{\mathbf{C}}$ w.r.t. the new inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle_U$, and note that $(U_t)$ is still a unitary representation on $H$. Introduce now the *full Fock space* of $H$: $$\mathcal{F}(H) ={\mathbf{C}}\Omega \oplus \bigoplus_{n = 1}^{\infty} H^{\bar{\otimes} n}.$$ The unit vector $\Omega$ is called the *vacuum vector*. For any $\xi \in H$, we have the *left creation operator* $$\ell(\xi) : \mathcal{F}(H) \to \mathcal{F}(H) : \left\{
{\begin{array}{l} \ell(\xi)\Omega = \xi, \\ \ell(\xi)(\xi_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \xi_n) = \xi \otimes \xi_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \xi_n.
\end{array}} \right.$$ For any $\xi \in H$, we denote by $s(\xi)$ the real part of $\ell(\xi)$ given by $$s(\xi) = \frac{\ell(\xi) + \ell(\xi)^*}{2}.$$ The crucial result of Voiculescu [@voiculescu92] is that the distribution of the operator $s(\xi)$ w.r.t. the vacuum vector state $\varphi_U = \langle \cdot \Omega, \Omega\rangle_U$ is the semicircular law of Wigner supported on the interval $[-\|\xi\|, \|\xi\|]$.
Let $(U_t)$ be an orthogonal representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on the real Hilbert space $H_{{\mathbf{R}}}$. The *free Araki-Woods* von Neumann algebra associated with $H_{\mathbf{R}}$ and $(U_t)$, denoted by $\Gamma(H_{{\mathbf{R}}}, U_t)''$, is defined by $$\Gamma(H_{{\mathbf{R}}}, U_t)'' := \{s(\xi) : \xi \in H_{{\mathbf{R}}}\}''.$$ The vector state $\varphi_{U} = \langle \cdot \Omega, \Omega\rangle_U$ is called the *free quasi-free state*. It is normal and faithful on $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$.
Recall that for any type ${\rm III_1}$ factor $\mathcal{M}$, Connes-Takesaki’s continuous decomposition yields $$\mathcal{M} \bar{\otimes} \mathbf{B}(L^2({\mathbf{R}})) \cong (\mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}) \rtimes_\theta {\mathbf{R}},$$ where the [*continuous core*]{} $\mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is a ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor and $\theta$ is the [*trace-scaling*]{} action [@takesaki73]: $${\operatorname{Tr}}(\theta_s(x)) = e^{-s} {\operatorname{Tr}}(x), \forall x \in (\mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}})_+, \forall s \in {\mathbf{R}}.$$ The fact that $\mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ does not depend on the choice of a f.n. state on $\mathcal{M}$ follows from Connes’ Radon-Nikodym derivative theorem [@connes73]. Moreover, for any non-zero finite projection $q \in M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$, the ${\rm II_1}$ factor $qMq$ has full fundamental group.
Following [@connes74], a factor $\mathcal{M}$ (with separable predual) is said to be [*full*]{} if the subgroup of inner automorphisms ${\operatorname{Inn}}(\mathcal{M}) \subset {\operatorname{Aut}}(\mathcal{M})$ is closed. Recall that ${\operatorname{Aut}}(\mathcal{M})$ is endowed with the $u$-topology: for any sequence $(\theta_n)$ in ${\operatorname{Aut}}(\mathcal{M})$, $$\theta_n \to {\operatorname{Id}}, \mbox{ as } n \to \infty \Longleftrightarrow \left\| \varphi \circ \theta_n - \varphi \right\| \to 0, \mbox{ as } n \to \infty, \forall \varphi \in \mathcal{M}_*.$$ Since $\mathcal{M}$ has a separable predual, ${\operatorname{Aut}}(\mathcal{M})$ is a polish group. For any ${\rm II_1}$ factor $N$, $N$ is full iff $N$ does not have property $\Gamma$ of Murray & von Neumann (see [@connes74]).
Denote by $\pi : {\operatorname{Aut}}(\mathcal{M}) \to {\operatorname{Out}}(\mathcal{M})$ the canonical projection. Assume $\mathcal{M}$ is a full factor so that ${\operatorname{Out}}(\mathcal{M})$ is a Hausdorff topological group. Fix a f.n. state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal{M}$. Connes’ invariant $\tau(\mathcal{M})$ is defined as the [*weakest topology*]{} on ${\mathbf{R}}$ that makes the map $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{R}}& \to & {\operatorname{Out}}(\mathcal{M}) \\
t & \mapsto & \pi\left( \sigma_t^\varphi \right)\end{aligned}$$ continuous. Note that this map does not depend on the choice of the f.n. state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal{M}$ [@connes73].
Denote by $\mathcal F(U_t) = \bigoplus_{n \in {\mathbf{N}}} U_t^{\otimes n}$. The modular group $\sigma^{\varphi_U}$ of the free quasi-free state is given by: $\sigma_t^{\varphi_U} = {\operatorname{Ad}}(\mathcal F(U_{-t}))$, for any $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$. The free Araki-Woods factors provided many new examples of full factors of type [III]{} . We can summarize their general properties in the following theorem (see also Vaes’ Bourbaki seminar [@vaes2004]):
\[faw\] Let $(U_t)$ be an orthogonal representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on the real Hilbert space $H_{{\mathbf{R}}}$ with $\dim H_{{\mathbf{R}}} \geq 2$. Denote by $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{{\mathbf{R}}}, U_t)''$.
1. $\mathcal M$ is a full factor and Connes’ invariant $\tau(\mathcal M)$ is the weakest topology on ${\mathbf{R}}$ that makes the map $t \mapsto U_t$ strongly continuous.
2. $\mathcal{M}$ is of type ${\rm II_1}$ iff $U_t = {\operatorname{id}}$ for every $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$. In this case, $\mathcal{M} \cong L({\mathbf{F}}_{\dim(H_{\mathbf{R}})})$.
3. $\mathcal{M}$ is of type ${\rm III_{\lambda}}$ $(0 < \lambda < 1)$ iff $(U_t)$ is periodic of period $\frac{2\pi}{|\log \lambda|}$.
4. $\mathcal{M}$ is of type ${\rm III_1}$ in the other cases.
5. $\mathcal{M}$ has almost periodic states iff $(U_t)$ is almost periodic.
Moreover, it follows from [@shlya2004b] that any free Araki-Woods factor $\mathcal{M}$ is [*generalized solid*]{} in the sense of [@VV]: for any diffuse von Neumann subalgebra $A \subset \mathcal M$ such that there exists a faithful normal conditional expectation $E : \mathcal M \to A$, the relative commutant $A' \cap \mathcal M$ is amenable.
Notice that the centralizer of the free quasi-free state $\mathcal{M}^{\varphi_U}$ may be trivial. This is the case for instance when the representation $(U_t)$ has no eigenvectors. Nevertheless, the author recently proved in [@houdayer5] that for any type ${\rm III_1}$ free Araki-Woods factor $\mathcal{M}$, the [*bicentralizer*]{} is trivial, i.e. there always exists a faithful normal state $\psi$ on $\mathcal{M}$ such that $(\mathcal{M}^\psi)' \cap \mathcal{M} = {\mathbf{C}}$. We refer to [@haagerup84] for more on Connes’ bicentralizer problem.
Explicitly the value of $\varphi_U$ on a word in $s(\xi_\iota)$ is given by $$\label{formula}
\varphi_U(s(\xi_1) \cdots s(\xi_n)) = 2^{-n}\sum_
{(\{\beta_i, \gamma_i\})
\in {\operatorname{NC}}(n),
\beta_i < \gamma_i}
\prod_{k = 1}^{n/2}\langle \xi_{\beta_k}, \xi_{\gamma_k}\rangle_U.$$ for $n$ even and is zero otherwise. Here ${\operatorname{NC}}(2p)$ stands for all the non-crossing pairings of the set $\{1, \dots, 2p\}$, i.e. pairings for which whenever $a < b < c < d$, and $a, c$ are in the same class, then $b, d$ are not in the same class. The total number of such pairings is given by the $p$-th Catalan number $$C_p = \frac{1}{p + 1}\begin{pmatrix}
2p \\
p
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Recall that a continuous $\varphi$-preserving action $(\sigma_t)$ of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on a von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ endowed with a f.n. state $\varphi$ is said to be $\varphi$-[*mixing*]{} if for any $x, y \in \mathcal{M}$ with $\varphi(x) = \varphi(y) = 0$, $$\label{mixing}
\varphi(\sigma_t(x) y) \to 0, \mbox{ as } |t| \to \infty.$$
Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ be any free Araki-Woods factor and let $\varphi_U$ be the free quasi-free state. Then $$(U_t) \mbox{ is mixing } \Longleftrightarrow (\sigma_t^{\varphi_U}) \mbox{ is } \varphi_U\mbox{-mixing}.$$
We prove both directions.
$\Longleftarrow$ For any $\xi, \eta \in H_{\mathbf{R}}$, $\varphi_U(s(\xi)) = \varphi_U(s(\eta)) = 0$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle U_t \xi, \eta \rangle_U & = & 4 \varphi_U(s(U_t \xi) s(\eta)) \\
& = & 4 \varphi_U( \sigma_{-t}^{\varphi_U}(s(\xi)) s(\eta)) \to 0, \mbox{ as } |t| \to \infty. \end{aligned}$$ It follows that $(U_t)$ is mixing.
$\Longrightarrow$ One needs to show that for any $x, y \in \mathcal{M}$, $$\lim_{|t| \to \infty} \varphi_U(\sigma_t^{\varphi_U}(x)y) = \varphi_U(x) \varphi_U(y).$$ Note that $$\mbox{span} \left\{ 1, s(\xi_1) \cdots s(\xi_n) : n \geq 1, \xi_1, \dots, \xi_n \in H_{\mathbf{R}}\right\}$$ is a unital $\ast$-strongly dense $\ast$-subalgebra of $\mathcal{M}$. Using Kaplansky density theorem, it suffices to check Equation $(\ref{mixing})$ for $x, y \in \mathcal{M}$ of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
x & = & s(\xi_1) \cdots s(\xi_{p}) \\
y & = & s(\eta_1) \cdots s(\eta_{q}).\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $p + q$ is odd. Then $p$ or $q$ is odd and we have $\varphi_U(\sigma_t^{\varphi_U}(x)y) = 0 = \varphi_U(x) \varphi_U(y)$, for any $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$.
Assume now that $p + q$ is even.
1. Suppose that $p, q$ are odd and write $p = 2k + 1$, $q = 2l + 1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_U(\sigma_t^{\varphi_U}(x) y) & = & \varphi_U(s(U_{-t} \xi_1) \cdots s(U_{-t} \xi_{2k + 1}) s(\eta_1) \cdots s(\eta_{2l + 1})) \\
& = & 2^{-2(k + l + 1)}\sum_
{(\{\beta_i, \gamma_i\})
\in {\operatorname{NC}}(2(k+ l + 1)),
\beta_i < \gamma_i}
\prod_{j = 1}^{k+ l+ 1}\langle h_{\beta_j}, h_{\gamma_j}\rangle_U,\end{aligned}$$ where the letter $h$ stands for $U_{-t} \xi$ or $\eta$. Notice that since $2k + 1$ and $2l + 1$ are odd, for any non-crossing pairing $(\{\beta_i, \gamma_i\})
\in {\operatorname{NC}}(2(k+ l + 1))$, there must exist some $j \in \{1, \dots, k + l + 1\}$ such that $\langle h_{\beta_j}, h_{\gamma_j}\rangle = \langle U_{-t} \xi_{\beta_j}, \eta_{\gamma_j} \rangle$. Since we assumed that $(U_t)$ is mixing, it follows that $\varphi_U(\sigma_t^{\varphi_U}(x) y) \to 0 = \varphi_U(x) \varphi_U(y)$, as $|t| \to \infty$.
2. Suppose that $p, q$ are even and write $p = 2k$, $q = 2l$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_U(\sigma_t^{\varphi_U}(x) y) & = & \varphi_U(s(U_{-t} \xi_1) \cdots s(U_{-t} \xi_{2k}) s(\eta_1) \cdots s(\eta_{2l})) \\
& = & 2^{-2(k + l)}\sum_
{(\{\beta_i, \gamma_i\})
\in {\operatorname{NC}}(2(k+ l)),
\beta_i < \gamma_i}
\prod_{j = 1}^{k+ l}\langle h_{\beta_j}, h_{\gamma_j}\rangle_U,\end{aligned}$$ where the letter $h$ stands for $U_{-t} \xi$ or $\eta$. Note that for a non-crossing pairing $\nu = (\{\beta_i, \gamma_i\}) \in {\operatorname{NC}}(2(k+ l))$ such that an element of $\{1, \dots, 2k\}$ and an element of $\{1, \dots, 2l\}$ are in the same class, the proof of $(1)$ yields that the corresponding product $\prod_{j = 1}^{k+ l}\langle h_{\beta_j}, h_{\gamma_j}\rangle_U$ goes to $0$, as $|t| \to \infty$. Thus, we just need to sum up over the non-crossing pairings $\nu$ of the form $\nu_1 \times \nu_2$, where $\nu_1$ is a non-crossing pairing on the set $\{1, \dots, 2k\}$ and $\nu_2$ is a non-crossing pairing on the set $\{1, \dots, 2l\}$. Consequently, we get $\varphi_U(\sigma_t^{\varphi_U}(x)y) \to \varphi_U(x) \varphi_U(y)$, as $|t| \to \infty$.
Therefore, $(\sigma_t^{\varphi_U})$ is mixing.
Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$. If $(U_t)$ is mixing, then Connes’ invariant $\tau(\mathcal{M})$ is the usual topology on ${\mathbf{R}}$.
Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$. Recall from Theorem \[faw\] that $\tau(\mathcal{M})$ is the weakest topology on ${\mathbf{R}}$ that makes the map $t \mapsto U_t$ strongly continuous. Let $(t_k)$ be a sequence in ${\mathbf{R}}$ such that $t_k \to 0$ w.r.t. the topology $\tau(\mathcal{M})$, as $k \to \infty$, i.e. $U_{t_k} \to {\operatorname{Id}}$ strongly, as $k \to \infty$. Fix $\xi \in H_{\mathbf{R}}$, $\|\xi\| = 1$. Since $$\lim_{k \to \infty} \langle U_{t_k} \xi, \xi\rangle = 1$$ and $(U_t)$ is assumed to be mixing, it follows that $(t_k)$ is necessarily bounded. Let $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$ be any cluster point for the sequence $(t_k)$. Then $U_t = {\operatorname{Id}}$. Since $(U_t)$ is mixing, it follows that $t = 0$. Therefore $(t_k)$ converges to $0$ w.r.t. the usual topology on ${\mathbf{R}}$.
Intertwining techniques for (semi)finite von Neumann algebras
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let $(B, \tau)$ be a finite von Neumann algebra with a distinguished f.n. trace. Since $\tau$ is fixed, we simply denote $L^2(B, \tau)$ by $L^2(B)$. Let $H$ be a right Hilbert $B$-module, i.e. $H$ is a complex (separable) Hilbert space together with a normal $\ast$-representation $\pi : B^{{\operatorname{op}}} \to \mathbf{B}(H)$. For any $b \in B$, and $\xi \in H$, we shall simply write $\pi(b^{{\operatorname{op}}}) \xi = \xi b$. By the general theory, we know that there exists an isometry $v : H \to \ell^2 \bar{\otimes} L^2(B)$ such that $v(\xi b) = v(\xi) b$, for any $\xi \in H$, $b \in B$. Since $p = vv^*$ commutes with the right $B$-action on $\ell^2 \bar{\otimes} L^2(B)$, it follows that $p \in \mathbf{B}(\ell^2) \bar{\otimes} B$. Thus, as right $B$-modules, we have $H_B \simeq p(\ell^2 \bar{\otimes} L^2(B))_B$.
On $\mathbf{B}(\ell^2) \bar{\otimes} B$, we define the following f.n. semifinite trace ${\operatorname{Tr}}$ (which depends on $\tau$): for any $x = [x_{ij}]_{i, j} \in (\mathbf{B}(\ell^2) \bar{\otimes} B)_+$, $${\operatorname{Tr}}\left( [x_{ij}]_{i, j} \right) = \sum_i \tau(x_{ii}).$$
We set $\dim(H_B) = {\operatorname{Tr}}(vv^*)$. Note that the dimension of $H$ depends on $\tau$ but does not depend on the isometry $v$. Indeed take another isometry $w : H \to \ell^2 \bar{\otimes} L^2(B)$, satisfying $w(\xi b) = w(\xi) b$, for any $\xi \in H$, $b \in B$. Note that $vw^* \in \mathbf{B}(\ell^2) \bar{\otimes} B$ and $w^*w = v^*v = 1$. Thus, we have $${\operatorname{Tr}}(vv^*) = {\operatorname{Tr}}(v w^*w v^*) = {\operatorname{Tr}}(w v^* v w^*) = {\operatorname{Tr}}(ww^*).$$
Assume that $\dim(H_B) < \infty$. Then for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a central projection $z \in \mathcal{Z}(B)$, with $\tau(z) \geq 1 - \varepsilon$, such that the right $B$-module $Hz$ is finitely generated, i.e. of the form $p L^2(B)^{\oplus n}$ for some projection $p \in \mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes B$. The non-normalized trace on $\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}})$ will be denoted by ${\operatorname{Tr}}_n$. For simplicity, we shall denote $B^n := \mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes B$.
In , Popa introduced a powerful tool to prove the unitary conjugacy of two von Neumann subalgebras of a tracial von Neumann algebra $(M, \tau)$. If $A, B \subset (M, \tau)$ are two (possibly non-unital) von Neumann subalgebras, denote by $1_A, 1_B$ the units of $A$ and $B$. Note that we endow the finite von Neumann algebra $B$ with the trace $\tau(1_B \cdot 1_B) / \tau(1_B)$.
\[intertwining1\] Let $A, B \subset (M, \tau)$ be two (possibly non-unital) embeddings. The following are equivalent:
1. There exist $n \geq 1$, a (possibly non-unital) $\ast$-homomorphism $\psi : A \to B^n$ and a non-zero partial isometry $v \in \mathbf{M}_{1, n}({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes 1_AM1_B$ such that $x v = v \psi(x)$, for any $x \in A$.
2. The bimodule $\vphantom{}_AL^2(1_AM1_B)_B$ contains a non-zero sub-bimodule $\vphantom{}_AH_B$ which satisfies $\dim(H_B) < \infty$.
3. There is no sequence of unitaries $(u_k)$ in $A$ such that $\left\|E_B(a^* u_k b)\right\|_2 \to 0$, as $k \to \infty$, for any $a, b \in 1_A M 1_B$.
If one of the previous equivalent conditions is satisfied, we shall say that $A$ [*embeds into*]{} $B$ [*inside*]{} $M$ and denote $A \preceq_M B$.
\[weakmixing\] Let $A \subset B \subset (N, \tau)$ be an inclusion of finite von Neumann algebras. We say that $B \subset N$ is [*weakly mixing through*]{} $A$ if there exists a sequence of unitaries $(u_k)$ in $A$ such that $$\left\| E_B(a^* u_k b) \right\|_2 \to 0, \mbox { as } k \to \infty, \forall a,b \in N \ominus B.$$
The following result will be a crucial tool in Section \[results\]: it will allow us to control the relative commutant $A' \cap N$ of certain subalgebras $A$ of a given von Neumann algebra $N$.
\[principle\] Let $(N, \tau)$ be a finite von Neumann algebra and $A \subset B \subset N$ be von Neumann subalgebras. Assume that $B \subset N$ is weakly mixing through $A$. Then for any sub-bimodule $\vphantom{}_AH_B$ of $\vphantom{}_AL^2(N)_B$ such that $\dim(H_B) < \infty$, one has $H \subset L^2(B)$. In particular, $A' \cap N \subset B$.
For our purpose, we will need to use Popa’s intertwining techniques for [*semifinite*]{} von Neumann algebras. We refer to Section $2$ of [@houdayer4] where such techniques were developed. Namely, let $(M, {\operatorname{Tr}})$ be a von Neumann algebra endowed with a faithful normal semifinite trace ${\operatorname{Tr}}$. We shall simply denote by $L^2(M)$ the $M$-$M$ bimodule $L^2(M, {\operatorname{Tr}})$, and by $\left\| \cdot \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}$ the $L^2$-norm associated with the trace ${\operatorname{Tr}}$. We will use quite often the following inequality: $$\left\| x \eta y \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \left\| x \right\|_\infty \left\| y \right\|_\infty \left\| \eta \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}, \forall \eta \in L^2(M), \forall x, y \in M,$$ where $\left\| \cdot \right\|_\infty$ denotes the operator norm. We shall say that a projection $p \in M$ is ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-[*finite*]{} if ${\operatorname{Tr}}(p) < \infty$. Note that a non-zero ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-finite projection $p$ is necessarily finite and ${\operatorname{Tr}}(p \cdot p)/{\operatorname{Tr}}(p)$ is a f.n. (finite) trace on $pMp$. Remind that for any projections $p, q \in M$, we have $p \vee q - p \sim q - p \wedge q$. Then it follows that for any ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-finite projections $p, q \in M$, $p \vee q$ is still ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-finite and ${\operatorname{Tr}}(p \vee q) = {\operatorname{Tr}}(p) + {\operatorname{Tr}}(q) - {\operatorname{Tr}}(p \wedge q)$.
Note that if a sequence $(x_k)$ in $M$ converges to $0$ strongly, as $k \to \infty$, then for any non-zero ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-finite projection $q \in M$, $\left\| x_k q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $k \to \infty$. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
x_k \to 0 \; \mbox{strongly in } M & \Longleftrightarrow & x^*_kx_k \to 0 \mbox{ weakly in } M \\
& \Longrightarrow & qx^*_kx_kq \to 0 \mbox{ weakly in } qMq \\
& \Longrightarrow & {\operatorname{Tr}}(qx^*_kx_kq) \to 0 \\
& \Longrightarrow & \left\| x_k q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, there always exists an increasing sequence of ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-finite projections $(p_k)$ in $M$ such that $p_k \to 1$ strongly, as $k \to \infty$.
\[intertwining\] Let $(M, {\operatorname{Tr}})$ be a semifinite von Neumann algebra. Let $B \subset M$ be a von Neumann subalgebra such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}_{|B}$ is still semifinite. Denote by $E_B : M \to B$ the unique ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-preserving faithful normal conditional expectation. Let $q \in M$ be a non-zero ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-finite projection. Let $A \subset qMq$ be a von Neumann subalgebra. The following conditions are equivalent:
1. There exists a ${\operatorname{Tr}}$-finite projection $p \in B$, $p \neq 0$, such that the bimodule $\vphantom{}_AL^2(qMp)_{pBp}$ contains a non-zero sub-bimodule $\vphantom{}_AH_{pBp}$ which satisfies $\dim(H_{pBp}) < \infty$, where $pBp$ is endowed with the finite trace ${\operatorname{Tr}}(p \cdot p) / {\operatorname{Tr}}(p)$.
2. There is no sequence of unitaries $(u_k)$ in $A$ such that $E_B(x^* u_k y) \to 0$ strongly, as $k \to \infty$, for any $x, y \in qM$.
Under the assumptions of Theorem $\ref{intertwining}$, if one of the equivalent conditions is satisfied, we shall still say that $A$ [*embeds into*]{} $B$ [*inside*]{} $M$ and still denote $A \preceq_M B$.
Structural results for the continuous cores of $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ {#results}
==============================================================================
Deformation/spectral gap rigidity strategy
------------------------------------------
We first introduce some notation we will be using throughout this section. Let $H_{\mathbf{R}}$ be a separable real Hilbert space ($\dim(H_{\mathbf{R}}) \geq 2$) and let $(U_t)$ be an orthogonal representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on $H_{\mathbf{R}}$ that we assume to be neither trivial nor periodic. We set:
- $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ is the free Araki-Woods factor associated with $(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)$, $\varphi$ is the free quasi-free state and $\sigma$ is the modular group of the state $\varphi$. $\mathcal{M}$ is necessarily a type ${\rm III_1}$ factor since $(U_t)$ is neither periodic nor trivial.
- $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is the continuous core of $\mathcal{M}$ and ${\operatorname{Tr}}$ is the semifinite trace associated with the state $\varphi$. $M$ is a ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor since $\mathcal{M}$ is a type ${\rm III_1}$ factor.
- Likewise $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}\oplus H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t \oplus U_t)''$, $\widetilde{\varphi}$ is the corresponding free quasi-free state and $\widetilde{\sigma}$ is the modular group of $\widetilde{\varphi}$.
- $\widetilde{M} = \widetilde{\mathcal{M}} \rtimes_{\widetilde{\sigma}} {\mathbf{R}}$ is the continuous core of $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ and $\widetilde{{\operatorname{Tr}}}$ is the f.n. semifinite trace associated with $\widetilde{\varphi}$.
It follows from [@shlya97] that $$\left( \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}, \widetilde{\varphi} \right) \cong (\mathcal{M}, \varphi) \ast (\mathcal{M}, \varphi).$$ In the latter free product, we shall write $\mathcal{M}_1$ for the first copy of $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{M}_2$ for the second copy of $\mathcal{M}$. We regard $\mathcal{M} \subset \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ via the identification of $\mathcal{M}$ with $\mathcal{M}_1$.
Denote by $(\lambda_t)$ the unitaries in $L({\mathbf{R}})$ that implement the modular action $\sigma$ on $\mathcal{M}$ (resp. $\widetilde{\sigma}$ on $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$). Define the following faithful normal conditional expectations:
- $E : M \to L({\mathbf{R}})$ such that $E(x \lambda_t) = \varphi(x) \lambda_t$, for every $x \in \mathcal{M}$ and $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$;
- $\widetilde{E} : \widetilde{M} \to L({\mathbf{R}})$ such that $\widetilde{E}(x \lambda_t) = \widetilde{\varphi}(x) \lambda_t$, for every $x \in \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}$ and $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$.
Then $$\left( \widetilde{M}, \widetilde{E} \right) \cong (M, E) \ast_{L({\mathbf{R}})} (M, E).$$ Likewise, in the latter amalgamated free product, we shall write $M_1$ for the first copy of $M$ and $M_2$ for the second copy of $M$. We regard $M \subset \widetilde{M}$ via the identification of $M$ with $M_1$. Notice that the conditional expectation $E$ (resp. $\widetilde{E}$) preserves the canonical semifinite trace ${\operatorname{Tr}}$ (resp. $\widetilde{{\operatorname{Tr}}}$) associated with the state $\varphi$ (resp. $\widetilde{\varphi}$) (see [@ueda]).
Consider the following orthogonal representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on $H_{\mathbf{R}}\oplus H_{\mathbf{R}}$: $$V_s = \begin{pmatrix}
\cos(\frac{\pi}{2}s) & -\sin(\frac{\pi}{2}s) \\
\sin(\frac{\pi}{2}s) & \cos(\frac{\pi}{2}s)
\end{pmatrix}, \forall s \in {\mathbf{R}}.$$ Let $(\alpha_s)$ be the natural action on $\left( \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}, \widetilde{\varphi} \right)$ associated with $(V_s)$: $\alpha_s = {\operatorname{Ad}}(\mathcal{F}(V_s))$, for every $s \in {\mathbf{R}}$. In particular, we have $$\alpha_s(s\begin{pmatrix}
\xi \\ \eta \end{pmatrix}) = s(V_s\begin{pmatrix}
\xi \\ \eta \end{pmatrix}), \forall s \in {\mathbf{R}}, \forall \xi, \eta \in H_{\mathbf{R}},$$ and the action $(\alpha_s)$ is $\widetilde{\varphi}$-preserving. We can easily see that the representation $(V_s)$ commutes with the representation $(U_t \oplus U_t)$. Consequently, $(\alpha_s)$ commutes with modular action $\widetilde{\sigma}$. Moreover, $\alpha_1(x \ast 1) = 1 \ast x$, for every $a \in \mathcal{M}$. At last, consider the automorphism $\beta$ defined on $\left( \widetilde{\mathcal{M}}, \widetilde{\varphi} \right)$ by: $$\beta(s\begin{pmatrix}
\xi \\ \eta \end{pmatrix}) = s\begin{pmatrix}
\xi \\ -\eta \end{pmatrix}, \forall \xi, \eta \in H_{\mathbf{R}}.$$ It is straightforward to check that $\beta$ commutes with the modular action $\widetilde{\sigma}$, $\beta^2 = {\operatorname{Id}}$, $\beta_{|\mathcal{M}} = {\operatorname{Id}}_{|\mathcal{M}}$ and $\beta\alpha_{s} = \alpha_{-s}\beta$, $\forall s \in {\mathbf{R}}$. Since $(\alpha_s)$ and $\beta$ commute with the modular action $\widetilde{\sigma}$, one may extend $(\alpha_s)$ and $\beta$ to $\widetilde{M}$ by ${\alpha_s}_{|L({\mathbf{R}})} = {\operatorname{Id}}_{L({\mathbf{R}})}$, for every $s \in {\mathbf{R}}$ and $\beta_{|L({\mathbf{R}})} = {\operatorname{Id}}_{L({\mathbf{R}})}$. Moreover $(\alpha_s, \beta)$ preserves the semifinite trace $\widetilde{{\operatorname{Tr}}}$. Let’s summarize what we have done so far:
The $\widetilde{{\operatorname{Tr}}}$-preserving deformation $(\alpha_s, \beta)$ defined on $\widetilde{M}$ is *s-malleable*:
1. ${\alpha_s}_{|L({\mathbf{R}})} = {\operatorname{Id}}_{L({\mathbf{R}})}$, for every $s \in {\mathbf{R}}$ and $\alpha_1(x \ast_{L({\mathbf{R}})} 1) = 1 \ast_{L({\mathbf{R}})} x$, for every $x \in M$.
2. $\beta^2 = {\operatorname{Id}}$ and $\beta_{|M} = {\operatorname{Id}}_{|M}$.
3. $\beta \alpha_s = \alpha_{-s} \beta$, for every $s \in {\mathbf{R}}$.
Denote by $E_M : \widetilde{M} \to M$ the canonical trace-preserving conditional expectation. Since $\widetilde{{\operatorname{Tr}}}_{|M} = {\operatorname{Tr}}$, we will simply denote by ${\operatorname{Tr}}$ the semifinite trace on $\widetilde{M}$. Remind that the s-malleable deformation $(\alpha_s, \beta)$ automatically features a certain [*transversality property*]{}.
\[transversality\] We have the following: $$\label{trans}
\left\| x - \alpha_{2s}(x) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq 2 \left\| \alpha_s(x) - E_{M}(\alpha_s(x)) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}, \; \forall x \in L^2(M, {\operatorname{Tr}}), \forall s > 0.$$
The next proposition refered in the Introduction as the [*spectral gap*]{} property was first proved by Popa in [@popasolid] for free products of finite von Neumann algebras. We will need the following straightforward generalization:
\[spectralgap\] We keep the same notation as before. Let $q \in M$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Let $Q \subset qMq$ be a von Neumann subalgebra with no amenable direct summand. Then for any free ultrafilter $\omega$ on ${\mathbf{N}}$, we have $Q' \cap (q\widetilde{M}q)^\omega \subset (qMq)^\omega$.
Let $q \in M$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Note that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q \cdot q)/{\operatorname{Tr}}(q)$ is a finite trace on $q \widetilde{M} q$. If $Q \subset qMq$ has no amenable direct summand, then for any $\varepsilon > 0$, there exist $\delta > 0$ and a finite subset $F \subset \mathcal{U}(Q)$ such that for any $x \in (q\widetilde{M}q)_1$ (the unit ball w.r.t. the operator norm), $$\label{spectral}
\left\| ux - xu \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} < \delta, \forall u \in F \Longrightarrow \left\| x - E_{qMq}(x) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} < \varepsilon.$$ We will simply denote $ux - xu$ by $[u, x]$.
Semisolidity of the continuous core
-----------------------------------
The following theorem is in some ways a reminiscence of a result of Ioana, Peterson & Popa, namely Theorem $4.3$ of [@ipp] and also Theorem $4.2$ of [@houdayer4]. The deformation/spectral gap rigidity strategy enables us to locate inside the core $M$ of a free Araki-Woods factor the position of subalgebras $A \subset M$ with a [*large*]{} relative commutant $A' \cap M$.
\[semisolidity\] Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ be a free Araki-Woods factor and $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ be its continuous core. Let $q \in L({\mathbf{R}}) \subset M$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Let $Q \subset qMq$ be a von Neumann subalgebra with no amenable direct summand. Then $Q' \cap qMq \preceq_M L({\mathbf{R}})$.
\[semisoliditybis\] Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ be a free Araki-Woods factor of type ${\rm III_1}$. Then the continuous core $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is a semisolid ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor. Since $M$ is non-amenable, $M$ is always a prime factor.
Let $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Let $Q \subset qMq$ be a von Neumann subalgebra with no amenable direct summand. Denote by $Q_0 = Q' \cap qMq$. We keep the notation introduced previously and regard $M \subset \widetilde{M} = M_1 \ast_{L({\mathbf{R}})} M_2$ via the identification of $M$ with $M_1$. Remind that ${\alpha_s}_{|L({\mathbf{R}})} = {\operatorname{Id}}_{L({\mathbf{R}})}$, for every $s \in {\mathbf{R}}$. In particular $\alpha_s(q) = q$, for every $s \in {\mathbf{R}}$.
[**Step (1) : Using the spectral gap condition and the transversality property of $(\alpha_t, \beta)$ to find $t > 0$ and a non-zero intertwiner $v$ between ${\operatorname{Id}}$ and $\alpha_t$.**]{}
Let $\varepsilon = \frac{1}{4}\left\| q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}$. We know that there exist $\delta > 0$ and a finite subset $F \subset \mathcal{U}(Q)$, such that for every $x \in (q \widetilde{M} q)_1$, $$\left\| [x, u] \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \delta, \forall u \in F \Longrightarrow \left\| x - E_{qMq}(x) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon.$$ Since $\alpha_t \to {\operatorname{Id}}$ pointwise $\ast$-strongly, as $t \to 0$, and since $F$ is a finite subset of $Q \subset qMq$, we may choose $t = 1/2^k$ small enough ($k \geq 1$) such that $$\max\{\left\| u - \alpha_t(u) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} : u \in F\} \leq \frac{\delta}{2}.$$ For every $x \in (Q_0)_1$ and every $u \in F \subset Q$, since $[u, x] = 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| [\alpha_t(x), u] \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & = & \left\| [\alpha_t(x), u - \alpha_t(u)] \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & 2\|u - \alpha_t(u)\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \delta.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we get for every $x \in (Q_0)_1$, $\left\| \alpha_t(x) - E_{qMq}(\alpha_t(x)) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon$. Using Proposition $\ref{transversality}$, we obtain for every $x \in (Q_0)_1$ $$\left\| x - \alpha_s(x) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \frac{1}{2}\left\| q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}},$$ where $s = 2t$. Thus, for every $u \in \mathcal{U}(Q_0)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| u^*\alpha_s(u) - q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & = & \left\| u^*(\alpha_s(u) - u) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \left\| u - \alpha_s(u) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \frac{1}{2} \left\| q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $\mathcal{C} = \overline{{\operatorname{co}}}^w \{u^*\alpha_s(u) : u \in \mathcal{U}(Q_0)\} \subset q L^2(\widetilde{M})q$ the ultraweak closure of the convex hull of all $u^*\alpha_s(u)$, where $u \in \mathcal{U}(Q_0)$. Denote by $a$ the unique element in $\mathcal{C}$ of minimal $\left\| \cdot \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}$-norm. Since $\left\| a - q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq 1/2 \left\| q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}$, necessarily $a \neq 0$. Fix $u \in \mathcal{U}(Q_0)$. Since $u^* a \alpha_s(u) \in \mathcal{C}$ and $\left\| u^* a \alpha_s(u) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} = \left\| a \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}$, necessarily $u^* a \alpha_s(u) = a$. Taking $v = {\operatorname{pol}}(a)$ the polar part of $a$, we have found a non-zero partial isometry $v \in q\widetilde{M}q$ such that $$\label{specgap}
x v = v \alpha_s (x), \forall x \in Q_0.$$
[**Step (2) : Proving $Q_0 \preceq_M L({\mathbf{R}})$ using the malleability of $(\alpha_t, \beta)$.**]{} By contradiction, assume $Q_0 \npreceq_M L({\mathbf{R}})$. The first task is to lift Equation $(\ref{specgap})$ to $s = 1$. Note that it is enough to find a non-zero partial isometry $w \in q\widetilde{M}q$ such that $$x w = w \alpha_{2s} (x), \forall x \in Q_0.$$ Indeed, by induction we can go till $s = 1$ (because $s = 1/2^{k - 1}$). Remind that $\beta(z) = z$, for every $z \in M$. Note that $vv^* \in Q_0' \cap q\widetilde{M}q$. Since $Q_0 \npreceq_{M} L({\mathbf{R}})$, we know from Theorem $2.4$ in [@houdayer4] that $Q_0' \cap q\widetilde{M}q \subset qMq$. In particular, $vv^* \in qMq$. Set $w = \alpha_s(\beta(v^*)v)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
ww^* & = & \alpha_s(\beta(v^*) vv^* \beta(v)) \\
& = & \alpha_s(\beta(v^*) \beta(vv^*) \beta(v)) \\
& = & \alpha_s \beta(v^*v) \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $w$ is a non-zero partial isometry in $q\widetilde{M}q$. Moreover, for every $x \in Q_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
w \alpha_{2s}(x) & = & \alpha_s(\beta(v^*) v \alpha_s(x)) \\
& = & \alpha_s(\beta(v^*) x v) \\
& = & \alpha_s(\beta(v^*x)v) \\
& = & \alpha_s(\beta(\alpha_s(x)v^*)v) \\
& = & \alpha_s\beta\alpha_s(x) \alpha_s(\beta(v^*)v) \\
& = & \beta(x) w \\
& = & xw.\end{aligned}$$
Since by induction, we can go till $s = 1$, we have found a non-zero partial isometry $v \in q\widetilde{M}q$ such that $$\label{inter}
xv = v\alpha_1(x), \forall x \in Q_0.$$ Note that $v^*v \in \alpha_1(Q_0)' \cap qMq$. Moreover, since $\alpha_1 : q\widetilde{M}q \to q\widetilde{M}q$ is a $\ast$-automorphism, and $Q_0 \npreceq_{M} L({\mathbf{R}})$, Theorem $2.4$ in [@houdayer4] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1(Q_0)' \cap q\widetilde{M}q & = & \alpha_1\left( Q_0' \cap q\widetilde{M}q \right) \\
& \subset & \alpha_1(qMq).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $v^*v \in \alpha_1(qMq)$.
Since $Q_0 \npreceq_M L({\mathbf{R}})$, we know that there exists a sequence of unitaries $(u_k)$ in $Q_0$ such that $E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(x^* u_k y) \to 0$ strongly, as $k \to \infty$, for any $x, y \in qM$. We need to go further and prove the following:
\[esperance\] $\forall a, b \in q\widetilde{M}q, \left\| E_{M_2}(a^* u_k b) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $k \to \infty$.
Let $a, b \in (\widetilde{M})_1$ be either elements in $L({\mathbf{R}})$ or reduced words with letters alternating from $M_1 \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})$ and $M_2 \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})$. Write $b = y b'$ with
- $y = b$ if $b \in L({\mathbf{R}})$;
- $y = 1$ if $b$ is a reduced word beginning with a letter from $M_2 \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})$;
- $y =$ the first letter of $b$ otherwise.
Note that either $b' = 1$ or $b'$ is a reduced word beginning with a letter from $M_2 \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})$. Likewise write $a = a' x$ with
- $x = a$ if $x \in L({\mathbf{R}})$;
- $x = 1$ if $a$ is a reduced word ending with a letter from $M_2 \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})$;
- $x =$ the last letter of $a$ otherwise.
Either $a' = 1$ or $a'$ is a reduced word ending with a letter from $M_2 \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})$. For any $z \in Q_0 \subset M_1$, $xzy - E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(xzy) \in M_1 \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})$, so that $$E_{M_2} (a z b) = E_{M_2}(a' E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(x z y) b').$$ Since $E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(x u_k y) \to 0$ strongly, as $k \to \infty$, it follows that $E_{M_2}(a u_k b) \to 0$ strongly, as $k \to \infty$, as well. Thus, in the finite von Neumann algebra $q\widetilde{M}q$, we get $\left\| qE_{M_2}(a u_k b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $k \to \infty$.
Note that $$\mathcal{A}:= \mbox{span} \left\{ L({\mathbf{R}}), (M_{i_1} \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})) \cdots (M_{i_n} \ominus L({\mathbf{R}})) : n \geq 1, i_1 \neq \cdots \neq i_n \right\}$$ is a unital $\ast$-strongly dense $\ast$-subalgebra of $\widetilde{M}$. What we have shown so far is that for any $a, b \in \mathcal{A}$, $\left\| qE_{M_2}(a u_k b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $k \to \infty$. Let now $a, b \in (\widetilde{M})_1$. By Kaplansky density theorem, let $(a_i)$ and $(b_j)$ be sequences in $(\mathcal{A})_1$ such that $a_i \to a$ and $b_j \to b$ strongly. Recall that $(u_k)$ is a sequence in $Q_0 \subset q \widetilde{M} q$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| qE_{M_2}(a u_k b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & \leq & \left\| qE_{M_2}(a_i u_k b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| qE_{M_2}(a_i u_k (b - b_j))q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& & + \left\| qE_{M_2}((a - a_i) u_k b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| qE_{M_2}((a - a_i) u_k (b - b_j))q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \left\| qE_{M_2}(a_i u_k b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| qa_i u_k (b - b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& & + \left\| q(a - a_i) u_k b_j q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| q(a - a_i) u_k (b - b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \left\| qE_{M_2}(a_i u_k b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + 3 \left\|(b - b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| q(a - a_i)q\right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\\end{aligned}$$ Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. Since $a_i \to a$ and $b_j \to b$ strongly, let $i_0, j_0$ large enough such that $$3 \left\|(b - b_{j_0})q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| q(a - a_{i_0})q\right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon/2.$$ Now let $k_0 \in {\mathbf{N}}$ such that for any $k \geq k_0$, $$\left\| qE_{M_2}(a_{i_0} u_k b_{j_0})q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon/2.$$ We finally get $\left\| qE_{M_2}(a u_k b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon$, for any $k \geq k_0$, which finishes the proof of the claim.
We remind that for any $x \in Q_0$, $v^*xv = \alpha_1(x)v^*v$. Moreover, $v^*v \in \alpha_1(qMq) \subset qM_2q$. So, for any $x \in Q_0$, $v^*xv \in qM_2q$. Since $\alpha_1(u_k) \in \mathcal{U}(qM_2q)$, we get $$\left\| v^*v \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} = \left\| \alpha_1(u_k) v^*v \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} = \left\| E_{M_2}(\alpha_1(u_k) v^*v) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} = \left\| E_{M_2}(v^* u_k v) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0.$$ Thus $v = 0$, which is a contradiction.
Let $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Denote by $N = qMq$ the corresponding ${\rm II_1}$ factor and by $\tau = {\operatorname{Tr}}(q \cdot q)/{\operatorname{Tr}}(q)$ the canonical trace on $N$. By contradiction, assume that $N$ is not semisolid. Then there exists $Q \subset N$ a non-amenable von Neumann subalgebra such that the relative commutant $Q' \cap N$ is of type ${\rm II_1}$. Write $z \in \mathcal{Z}(Q)$ for the maximal projection such that $Qz$ is amenable. Then $1 - z \neq 0$, the von Neumann algebra $Q(1 - z)$ has no amenable direct summand and $(Q' \cap N)(1 - z)$ is still of type ${\rm II_1}$. We may choose a projection $q_0 \in Q(1 - z)$ such that $\tau(q_0) = 1/n$. Since $N$ is a ${\rm II_1}$ factor, we may replace $Q$ by $\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes q_0 Q q_0$, so that we may assume $Q \subset N$ has no amenable direct summand and $Q' \cap N$ is still of type ${\rm II_1}$.
If we apply Theorem \[semisolidity\], it follows that $Q' \cap N \preceq_M L({\mathbf{R}})$. We get a contradiction because $Q' \cap N$ is of type ${\rm II_1}$ and $L({\mathbf{R}})$ is of type ${\rm I}$.
It follows from [@shlya2004] that for any type ${\rm III_1}$ factor $\mathcal{M}$, if the continuous core $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is full, then Connes’ invariant $\tau(\mathcal{M})$ is the usual topology on ${\mathbf{R}}$. Let now $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ be a free Araki-Woods factor associated with $(U_t)$ an almost periodic representation. Denote by $S_U \subset {\mathbf{R}}^*_+$ the (countable) subgroup generated by the point spectrum of $(U_t)$. Then $\tau(\mathcal{M})$ is strictly weaker than the usual topology. More precisely, the completion of ${\mathbf{R}}$ w.r.t. the topology $\tau(\mathcal{M})$ is the compact group $\widehat{S_U}$ dual of $S_U$ (see [@connes74]). Therefore in this case, for any non-zero projection $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$, the ${\rm II_1}$ factor $qMq$ is semisolid, by Theorem \[semisolidity\], and has property $\Gamma$ of Murray & von Neumann by the above remark.
Solidity of the continuous core under the assumption that $(U_t)$ is mixing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We start this subsection with the following observations. The [*solidity*]{} of the continuous core $M$ forces the centralizers on $\mathcal{M}$ to be [*amenable*]{}. Indeed, fix $\psi$ any f.n. state on $\mathcal{M}$. Assume that the continuous core $M \simeq \mathcal{M} \rtimes_{\sigma^\psi} {\mathbf{R}}$ is solid. Choose a non-zero projection $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Since $L({\mathbf{R}})q$ is diffuse in $q(\mathcal{M} \rtimes_{\sigma^\psi} {\mathbf{R}})q$, its relative commutant must be amenable. In particular $\mathcal{M}^\psi \bar{\otimes} L({\mathbf{R}})q$ is amenable. Thus, $\mathcal{M}^\psi$ is amenable.
Note that if the orthogonal representation $(U_t)$ contains a $\frac{2\pi}{|\log \lambda|}$-periodic subrepresentation $(V_t^\lambda)$, $0 < \lambda < 1$, of the form $$V_t^\lambda = \begin{pmatrix}
\cos(t\log\lambda) & -\sin(t\log\lambda) \\
\sin(t\log\lambda) & \cos(t\log\lambda)
\end{pmatrix},$$ then the free Araki-Woods factor $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ freely absorbs $L({\mathbf{F}}_\infty)$ (see [@shlya97]): $$(\mathcal{M}, \varphi_U) \ast (L({\mathbf{F}}_\infty), \tau) \cong (\mathcal{M}, \varphi_U).$$ In particular, the centralizer of the free quasi-free state $\mathcal{M}^{\varphi_U}$ is non-amenable since it contains $L({\mathbf{F}}_\infty)$. Therefore, whenever $(U_t)$ contains a periodic subrepresentation of the form $(V_t^\lambda)$ for some $0 < \lambda < 1$, the continuous core of $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ is semisolid by Theorem \[semisolidity\] but can never be solid. However, when $(U_t)$ is assumed to be [*mixing*]{}, we get solidity of the continuous core. Indeed in that case, we can control the relative commutant $A' \cap M$ of diffuse subalgebras $A \subset L({\mathbf{R}}) \subset M$, where $M$ is the continuous core of the free Araki-Woods factor associated with $(U_t)$. Thus, the next theorem can be regarded as the analog of a result of Popa, namely Theorem 3.1 of [@popamal1] (see also Theorem D.4 in [@vaesbern]).
\[solidity\] Let $(U_t)$ be a mixing orthogonal representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on the real Hilbert space $H_{\mathbf{R}}$. Denote by $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ the corresponding free Araki-Woods factor and by $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ its continuous core. Let $k \geq 1$ and let $q \in \mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})$ be a non-zero projection such that $T := ({\operatorname{Tr}}_k \otimes {\operatorname{Tr}})(q) < \infty$. Write $L({\mathbf{R}})^T := q(\mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}}))q$ and $M^T := q(\mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes M)q$. Let $A \subset L({\mathbf{R}})^T$ be a diffuse von Neumann subalgebra.
Then for any sub-bimodule $\vphantom{}_AH_{L({\mathbf{R}})^T}$ of $\vphantom{}_AL^2(M^T)_{L({\mathbf{R}})^T}$ such that $\dim(H_{L({\mathbf{R}})^T}) < \infty$, one has $H \subset L^2(L({\mathbf{R}})^T)$. In particular $A' \cap M^T \subset L({\mathbf{R}})^T$.
\[soliditybis\] Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ be a free Araki-Woods factor such that the orthogonal representation $(U_t)$ is mixing. Then the continuous core $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ is a solid ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor.
As usual, denote by $(\lambda_t)$ the unitaries in $L({\mathbf{R}})$ that implement the modular action $\sigma$ on $\mathcal{M}$. Let $\Phi : L^\infty({\mathbf{R}}) \to L({\mathbf{R}})$ be the Fourier Transform so that $\Phi(e^{it \cdot}) = \lambda_t$, for every $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$. Let $T > 0$ and denote by $q = \Phi(\chi_{[0, T]})$. Notice that $L^\infty({\mathbf{R}})\chi_{[0, T]} \cong L^\infty[0, T]$ and that $$\mbox{span} \left\{ \sum_{k \in F} c_k e^{i \frac{2\pi}{T} k \cdot}\chi_{[0, T]} : F \subset {\mathbf{Z}}\mbox{ finite subset}, c_k \in {\mathbf{C}}, \forall k \in F \right\}$$ is a unital $\ast$-strongly dense $\ast$-subalgebra of $L^\infty({\mathbf{R}})\chi_{[0, T]}$. Thus, using the isomorphism $\Phi$, we get that $$\mathcal{A} := \mbox{span} \left\{ \sum_{k \in F} c_k \lambda_{\frac{2\pi}{T}k} q : F \subset {\mathbf{Z}}\mbox{ finite subset}, c_k \in {\mathbf{C}}, \forall k \in F \right\}$$ is a unital $\ast$-strongly dense $\ast$-subalgebra of $L({\mathbf{R}})q$. Let $(u_n)$ be bounded sequence in $L({\mathbf{R}})q$ such that $u_n \to 0$ weakly, as $n \to \infty$, and $\left\| u_n \right\|_\infty \leq 1$, for every $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$. Using Kaplansky density theorem together with a standard diagonal process, choose a sequence $y_n \in \mathcal{A}$ such that $\left\| y_n \right\|_\infty \leq 1$, for every $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, and $\left\| u_n - y_n \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$. We will write $y_n = z_n q$ with $$z_n = \sum_{k \in F_n} c_{k, n} \lambda_{\frac{2 \pi}{T} k},$$ where $F_n \subset {\mathbf{Z}}$ is finite, $c_{k, n} \in {\mathbf{C}}$, for any $k \in F_n$ and any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$. Using the $T$-periodicity, we have for any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| z_n \right\|_\infty & = & \left\| \Phi^{-1}(z_n) \right\|_\infty \\
& = & {\mathop{\mbox{ess sup}}}_{x \in {\mathbf{R}}} \left| \sum_{k \in F_n} c_{k, n} e^{i \frac{2\pi}{T} k x} \right| \\
& = & {\mathop{\mbox{ess sup}}}_{x \in [0, T]} \left| \sum_{k \in F_n} c_{k, n} e^{i \frac{2\pi}{T} k x} \right| \\
& = & \left\| \Phi^{-1}(z_n) \chi_{[0, T]} \right\|_\infty \\
& = & \left\| y_n \right\|_\infty \leq 1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the sequence $(z_n)$ is uniformly bounded.
The [**first step**]{} of the proof consists in proving the following: $$\left\| E_{L({\mathbf{R}})q}(a u_n b) \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0, \mbox{ as } n \to \infty, \forall a, b \in qMq \cap \ker\left(E_{L({\mathbf{R}})q}\right).$$ Equivalently, we need to show that $$\label{estimate}
\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0, \mbox{ as } n \to \infty, \forall a, b \in \ker\left(E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}\right).$$
The [**first step**]{} of the proof is now divided in three different claims that will lead to proving $(\ref{estimate})$. First note that $$\mathcal{E} := \mbox{span}\left\{ \sum_{t \in F} x_t \lambda_{t} : F \subset {\mathbf{R}}\mbox{ finite subset}, x_t \in \mathcal{M} \mbox{ with } \varphi(x_t) = 0, \forall t \in F\right\}$$ is $\ast$-strongly dense in $\ker\left(E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}\right)$ by Kaplansky density theorem. We first prove the following:
\[estimate1\] If $\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(x u_n y) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0, \mbox{ as } n \to \infty$, $\forall x, y \in \mathcal{M}$ with $\varphi(x) = \varphi(y) = 0$, then $(\ref{estimate})$ is satisfied.
Assume $\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(x u_n y) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0, \mbox{ as } n \to \infty$, $\forall x, y \in \mathcal{M}$ with $\varphi(x) = \varphi(y) = 0$. First take $a \in \mathcal{E}$ that we write $a = \sum_{s \in F} x_s \lambda_s$, with $F \subset {\mathbf{R}}$ finite subset, such that $x_s \in\mathcal{M}$, $\varphi(x_s) = 0$, for every $s \in F$. Then take $b \in \ker\left(E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}\right)$ and let $(b_j)_{j \in J}$ be a sequence in $\mathcal{E}$ such that $b - b_j \to 0$ $\ast$-strongly, as $j \to \infty$. Since $\left\| u_n \right\|_\infty \leq 1$, we get for any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$ and any $j \in J$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & \leq & \left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b_j) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n (b - b_j)) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b_j) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| a \right\|_\infty \left\| (b - b_j)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}\end{aligned}$$ Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. Since $b - b_j \to 0$ $\ast$-strongly, as $j \to \infty$, fix $j_0 \in J$ such that $\left\| a \right\|_\infty \left\| (b - b_{j_0})q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon/2$. Write $b_{j_0} = \sum_{t \in F'} y_t \lambda_t$, with $F' \subset {\mathbf{R}}$ finite subset, such that $y_t \in \mathcal{M}$, $\varphi(y_t) = 0$, for every $t \in F'$. Therefore, for any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b_{j_0}) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & \leq & \sum_{(s, t) \in F \times F'} \left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(x_s \lambda_s u_n y_t \lambda_t) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& = & \sum_{(s, t) \in F \times F'} \left\| \lambda_s q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(\sigma_{-s}(x_s) u_n y_t) q \lambda_t \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& = & \sum_{(s, t) \in F \times F'} \left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(\sigma_{-s}(x_s) u_n y_t) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\varphi(\sigma_{-s}(x_s)) = \varphi(y_t) = 0$, for any $(s, t) \in F \times F'$, using the assumption of the claim, there exists $n_0 \in {\mathbf{N}}$ large enough such that for any $n \geq n_0$, $\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b_{j_0}) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon/2$. Thus, for any $n \geq n_0$, $\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon$. This proves that for any $a \in \mathcal{E}$ and any $b \in \ker\left(E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}\right)$, $\left\| q E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b) q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $nÊ\to \infty$. If we do the same thing by approximating $a \in \ker\left(E_{L({\mathbf{R}})}\right)$ with elements in $\mathcal{E}$, using the fact that $u_n \in (L({\mathbf{R}})q)_1$, we finally get the claim.
We now replace the sequence $(u_n)$ by $(z_n)$, use the mixing property of the modular action $\sigma$ and prove the following:
\[estimate2\] $\forall a, b \in (\mathcal M)_1$ with $\varphi(a) = \varphi(b) = 0$, $\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$.
Fix $a, b \in (\mathcal{M})_1$ such that $\varphi(a) = \varphi(b) = 0$. Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. For any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n b)q \right\|^2_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & = & \left\| \sum_{k \in F_n} c_{k, n} \varphi\left(a \sigma_{\frac{2\pi}{T} k}(b)\right) \lambda_{\frac{2\pi}{T} k} q \right\|^2_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& = & {\operatorname{Tr}}(q) \sum_{k \in F_n} |c_{k, n}|^2 \left|\varphi \left(a \sigma_{\frac{2\pi}{T} k}(b)\right)\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover for any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, $${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) \sum_{k \in F_n} |c_{k, n}|^2 = \left\| z_n q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}^2 \leq {\operatorname{Tr}}(q) \left\| z_n q \right\|^2_\infty \leq T.$$ Since the modular group $\sigma$ is $\varphi$-mixing (because $(U_t)$ is assumed to be mixing), there exists a finite subset $K \subset {\mathbf{Z}}$ such that for any $k \in {\mathbf{Z}}\backslash K$, $\left|\varphi \left(a \sigma_{\frac{2\pi}{T} k}(b)\right)\right| \leq \varepsilon/\sqrt{2 T}$. Thus, $$\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \left\| \sum_{k \in K \cap F_n} c_{k, n} \lambda_{\frac{2\pi}{T} k} q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \varepsilon/2.$$ Since $u_n - z_n q \to 0$ strongly and $u_n \to 0$ weakly, as $n \to \infty$, it follows that $z_n q \to 0$ weakly, as $n \to \infty$. In particular there exists $n_0$ large enough such that for any $n \geq n_0$, for any $k \in K \cap F_n$, $|c_{k, n}| \leq \varepsilon/(2 |K| \left\| q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}})$. Thus, for any $n \geq n_0$, $$\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon/2 + \varepsilon/2 = \varepsilon.$$ This proves that $\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$.
The last claim consists in going back to the sequence $(u_n)$ and proving the following:
\[estimate3\] $\forall a, b \in (\mathcal M)_1$ with $\varphi(a) = \varphi(b) = 0$, $\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$.
Applying once more Kaplansky density theorem, we can find a sequence $(q_i)_{i \in I}$ in $L({\mathbf{R}})$ such that
- $q_i = \sum_{t \in F_i} d_t \lambda_t$, with $F_i \subset {\mathbf{R}}$ finite subset, $d_t \in {\mathbf{C}}$, for any $t \in F_i$ and for any $i \in I$;
- $\|q_i\|_\infty \leq 1$, for any $i \in I$;
- $q - q_i \to 0$ $\ast$-strongly, as $i \to \infty$.
Fix now $a, b \in (\mathcal M)_1$ such that $\varphi(a) = \varphi(b) = 0$. Using the fact that $$\left\| a \right\|_\infty, \left\| b \right\|_\infty, \left\| q \right\|_\infty, \left\| z_n \right\|_\infty \leq 1, \forall n \in {\mathbf{N}},$$ we get for any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$ and any $i \in I$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & \leq & \left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a (u_n - z_n q) b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n q b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \|u_n - z_n q\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n (q - q_i) b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\ & & + \left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n q_i b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \|u_n - z_n q\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| (q - q_i) b q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\ & & + \sum_{t \in F_i} |d_t| \left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n \sigma_t(b)) \lambda_t q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\
& \leq & \|u_n - z_n q\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} + \left\| (q - q_i) b q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \\ & & + \sum_{t \in F_i} |d_t| \left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n \sigma_t(b))q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $q - q_i \to 0$ $\ast$-strongly, as $i \to \infty$, it follows that $\|(q - q_i)bq\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $i \to \infty$. Fix $\varepsilon > 0$. Then, take $i_0 \in I$ such that $\|(q - q_{i_0})bq\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon/3$. Since $\|u_n - z_nq\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$ and using Claim $\ref{estimate2}$, we may choose $n_0$ large enough such that for any $n \geq n_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| u_n - z_n q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & \leq & \varepsilon/3 \\
\sum_{t \in F_{i_0}} |d_t| \left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a z_n \sigma_t(b))q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} & \leq & \varepsilon/3.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, for any $n \geq n_0$, we get $\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \leq \varepsilon$. Therefore, we have proven $\left\| qE_{L({\mathbf{R}})}(a u_n b)q \right\|_{2, {\operatorname{Tr}}} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$.
Thanks to Claims \[estimate1\] and \[estimate3\], it is then clear that $(\ref{estimate})$ is satisfied. This finishes the [**first step**]{} of the proof.
The [**last step**]{} of the proof consists in using Theorem \[principle\]. Let $k \geq 1$ and $q \in \mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})$ be a non-zero projection such that $T := ({\operatorname{Tr}}_k \otimes {\operatorname{Tr}})(q) < \infty$. Since $\mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes M$ is a ${\rm II_\infty}$ factor, there exists a unitary $u \in \mathcal{U}(\mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes M)$ such that $$q =
u \begin{pmatrix}
q_0 & & 0 \\
& \ddots & \\
0 & & q_0
\end{pmatrix} u^*$$ where $q_0 = \Phi(\chi_{[0, T/k]}) \in L({\mathbf{R}})$. Using the spatiality of ${\operatorname{Ad}}(u)$ on $\mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes M$, we may assume without loss of generality that $$q =
\begin{pmatrix}
q_0 & & 0 \\
& \ddots & \\
0 & & q_0
\end{pmatrix}$$ In particular, $q \in \mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})q_0$. Define $M^T := q(\mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes M)q$ and $L({\mathbf{R}})^T := q(\mathbf{M}_k({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}}))q$. Let $A \subset L({\mathbf{R}})^T$ be a diffuse von Neumann subalgebra. Choose a sequence of unitaries $(u_n)$ in $A$ such that $u_n \to 0$ weakly, as $n \to \infty$. Thus, we can write $u_n = [u_n^{i,j}]_{i, j}$ where $u_n^{i, j} \in L({\mathbf{R}})q_0$ and $\left\| u_n^{i, j} \right\|_\infty \leq 1$, for any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$ and any $i, j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$. Moreover, $u^{i, j}_n \to 0$ weakly, as $n \to \infty$, in $L({\mathbf{R}}) q_0$, for any $i, j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$. Thus, using the [**first step**]{} of the proof, it becomes clear that the inclusion $L({\mathbf{R}})^T \subset M^T$ is weakly mixing through $A$ in the sense of Definition \[weakmixing\]. Thus, using Theorem \[principle\], it follows that for any $\vphantom{}_AH_{L({\mathbf{R}})^T}$ sub-bimodule of $\vphantom{}_AL^2(M^T)_{L({\mathbf{R}})^T}$ such that $\dim(H_{L({\mathbf{R}})^T}) < \infty$, one has $H \subset L^2(L({\mathbf{R}})^T)$. In particular $A' \cap M^T \subset L({\mathbf{R}})^T$.
Let $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Denote by $N = qMq$ the corresponding ${\rm II_1}$ factor. By contradiction assume that $N$ is not solid. Then there exists a non-amenable von Neumann subalgebra $Q \subset N$ such that the relative commutant $Q' \cap N$ is diffuse. Since $N$ is a ${\rm II_1}$ factor, using the same argument as in the proof of Corollary \[semisoliditybis\], we may assume that $Q$ has no amenable direct summand and $Q_0 = Q' \cap N$ is still diffuse.
Since $Q$ has no amenable direct summand, Theorem \[semisolidity\] yields $Q_0 \preceq_M L({\mathbf{R}})$. Thus using Theorem \[intertwining\], we know that there exists a non-zero projection $p \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(p) < \infty$, and $Q_0 \preceq_{eMe} L({\mathbf{R}})p$ where $e = p \vee q$. Consequently, there exist $n \geq 1$, a (possibly non-unital) $\ast$-homomorphism $\psi : Q_0 \to \mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})p$ and a non-zero partial isometry $v \in \mathbf{M}_{1, n}({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes qMp$ such that $$xv = v \psi(x), \forall x \in Q_0.$$ We moreover have $$vv^* \in Q_0' \cap qMq \mbox{ and } v^*v \in \psi(Q_0)' \cap \psi(q)(\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes pMp)\psi(q).$$ Write $Q_1 = Q_0' \cap qMq$ and notice that $Q \subset Q_1$. Since $\psi(Q_0)$ is diffuse and $v^*v \in \psi(Q_0)' \cap \psi(q)(\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes pMp)\psi(q)$, Theorem \[solidity\] yields $v^*v \in \psi(q)(\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})p)\psi(q)$, so that we may assume $v^*v = \psi(q)$. For any $y \in Q_1$, and any $x \in Q_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
v^*y v \psi(x) & = & v^* y x v \\
& = & v^* x y v \\
& = & \psi(x) v^* y v. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, $v^* Q_1 v \subset \psi(Q_0)' \cap v^*v (\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes pMp) v^*v$. Since $\psi(Q_0)$ is diffuse, Theorem \[solidity\] yields $v^* Q_1 v \subset v^*v(\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})p)v^*v$. Since $Q$ has no amenable direct summand and $Q \subset Q_1$ is a unital von Neumann subalgebra, it follows that $Q_1$ has no amenable direct summand either. Thus the von Neumann algebra $vv^* Q_1 vv^*$ is non-amenable. But ${\operatorname{Ad}}(v^*) : vv^* M vv^* \to v^*v(\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes pMp)v^*v$ is a $\ast$-isomorphism and $${\operatorname{Ad}}(v^*)(vv^* Q_1 vv^*) \subset v^*v(\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})p)v^*v.$$ Since $v^*v(\mathbf{M}_n({\mathbf{C}}) \otimes L({\mathbf{R}})p)v^*v$ is of type ${\rm I}$, hence amenable, we get a contradiction.
Since the left regular representation $(\lambda_t)$ of ${\mathbf{R}}$ acting on $L^2_{\mathbf{R}}({\mathbf{R}}, \mbox{Lebesgue})$ is mixing, the continuous core $M$ of $\Gamma(L^2_{\mathbf{R}}({\mathbf{R}}, \mbox{Lebesgue}), \lambda_t)''$ is solid. We partially retrieve a previous result of Shlyakhtenko [@shlya98] where he proved in this case that $M \cong L({\mathbf{F}}_\infty) \bar{\otimes} \mathbf{B}(\ell^2)$, which is solid by [@ozawa2003]. We will give in the next section an example of a non-amenable solid ${\rm II_1}$ factor with full fundamental group which is not isomorphic to any interpolated free group factor $L({\mathbf{F}}_t)$, for $1 < t \leq \infty$.
Note that the mixing property of the representation $(U_t)$ is not a necessary condition for the solidity of the continuous core $M$. Indeed, take $U_t = {\operatorname{Id}}\oplus \lambda_t$ on $H_{\mathbf{R}}= {\mathbf{R}}\oplus L^2_{\mathbf{R}}({\mathbf{R}}, \mbox{Lebesgue})$. Then $(U_t)$ is not mixing, but the continuous core $M$ of $\Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ is still isomorphic to $L({\mathbf{F}}_\infty) \bar{\otimes} \mathbf{B}(\ell^2)$ [@shlya2003].
Examples of solid ${\rm II_1}$ factors {#solidfactor}
======================================
Probability measures on the real line and unitary representations of ${\mathbf{R}}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write $\lambda$ for the Lebesgue measure on the real line ${\mathbf{R}}$. Let $\mu$ be a [*symmetric*]{} (positive) probability measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$, i.e. $\mu(X) = \mu(-X)$, for any Borel subset $X \subset {\mathbf{R}}$. Consider the following unitary representation $(U_t^\mu)$ of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on $L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$ given by: $$\label{representation}
(U_t^\mu f)(x) = e^{itx} f(x), \forall f \in L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu), \forall t, x \in {\mathbf{R}}.$$ Define the Hilbert subspace of $L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$ $$\label{hilbert}
K_{\mathbf{R}}^\mu := \left\{ f \in L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu) : f(x) = \overline{f(-x)}, \forall x \in {\mathbf{R}}\right\}.$$ Since $\mu$ is assumed to be symmetric, the restriction of the inner product to $K_{\mathbf{R}}$ is real-valued. Indeed, for any $f, g \in K_{\mathbf{R}}^\mu$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f, g\rangle & = & \int_{\mathbf{R}}f(x) \overline{g(x)} \, d\mu(x) \\
& = & \int_{\mathbf{R}}f(-x) \overline{g(-x)} \, d\mu(-x) \\
& = & \int_{\mathbf{R}}\overline{f(x)} g(x) \, d\mu(x) \\
& = & \overline{\langle f, g\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover the representation $(U_t^\mu)$ leaves $K_{\mathbf{R}}^\mu$ globally invariant. Thus, $(U_t^\mu)$ restricted to $K_{\mathbf{R}}^\mu$ becomes an orthogonal representation. Define the [*Fourier Transform*]{} of the probability measure $\mu$ by: $$\widetilde{\mu}(t) = \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{itx} \, d\mu(x), \forall t \in {\mathbf{R}}.$$ We shall identify $\widehat{{\mathbf{R}}}$ with ${\mathbf{R}}$ in the usual way, such that $$\widehat{f}(t) = \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{i t x}f(x) \,d\lambda(x), \forall t \in {\mathbf{R}}, \forall f \in L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \lambda).$$
\[mixingrepresentation\] Let $\mu$ be a symmetric probability measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$. Then $$(U_t^\mu) \mbox{ is mixing } \Longleftrightarrow \widetilde{\mu}(t) \to 0, \mbox{ as } |t| \to \infty.$$
We prove both directions.
$\Longrightarrow$ Assume $(U_t^\mu)$ is mixing. Let $f = \mathbf{1}_{\mathbf{R}}\in L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$ be the constant function equal to $1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\mu}(t) & = & \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{itx} \, d\mu(x) \\
& = & \langle U_t^\mu f, f\rangle \to 0, \mbox{ as } |t| \to \infty.\end{aligned}$$
$\Longleftarrow$ Assume $\widetilde{\mu}(t) \to 0$, as $|t| \to \infty$. Let $f, g \in L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$. Then $h := f \overline{g} \in L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$. Since the set $\left\{f \in {\operatorname{C}}_0({\mathbf{R}}) : \widehat{f} \in L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \lambda) \right\}$ is dense in $L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$, we may choose a sequence $(h_n)$ in C$_0({\mathbf{R}})$ such that $\left\| h - h_n \right\|_{L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$, and $\widehat{h}_n \in L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \lambda)$, for any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{h}(t) & = & \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{itx} h(x) \, d\mu(x), \forall t \in {\mathbf{R}}\\
\widetilde{h}_n(t) & = & \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{itx} h_n(x) \, d\mu(x), \forall t \in {\mathbf{R}}, \forall n \in {\mathbf{N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\left\| h - h_n \right\|_{L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)} \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$, it follows that $\left\| \widetilde{h} - \widetilde{h}_n \right\|_\infty \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$. Since $\widehat{h}_n \in L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \lambda)$, we know that $$h_n(x) = C \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{-ixu} \widehat{h}_n(u) \, d\lambda(u), \forall x \in {\mathbf{R}},$$ where $C$ is a universal constant that only depends on the normalization of the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$ on ${\mathbf{R}}$. Therefore, for any $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$ and any $n \in {\mathbf{N}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{h}_n(t) & = & \int_{x \in {\mathbf{R}}} e^{itx} h_n(x) \, d\mu(x) \\
& = & C \int_{x \in {\mathbf{R}}} \left( \int_{u \in {\mathbf{R}}} e^{i(t - u)x} \widehat{h}_n(u) \, d\lambda(u) \right) d\mu(x) \\
& = & C \int_{u \in {\mathbf{R}}} \widehat{h}_n(u) \left( \int_{x \in {\mathbf{R}}} e^{i(t - u)x} \, d\mu(x)\right) d\lambda(u) \\
& = & C \int_{u \in {\mathbf{R}}} \widehat{h}_n(u) \widetilde{\mu}(t - u) \, d\lambda(u) \\
& = & C \left(\widehat{h}_n \ast \widetilde{\mu}\right) (t),\end{aligned}$$ where $\ast$ is the convolution product. Since $\widetilde{\mu} \in {\operatorname{C}}_0({\mathbf{R}})$ and $\widehat{h}_n \in L^1({\mathbf{R}}, \lambda)$, it is easy to check that $\widehat{h}_n \ast \widetilde{\mu} \in {\operatorname{C}}_0({\mathbf{R}})$. Consequently, $\widetilde{h}_n \in {\operatorname{C}}_0({\mathbf{R}})$ and since $\left\| \widetilde{h} - \widetilde{h}_n \right\|_\infty \to 0$, as $n \to \infty$, it follows that $\widetilde{h} \in {\operatorname{C}}_0({\mathbf{R}})$. But for any $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle U_t^\mu f, g\rangle & = & \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{itx} f(x) \overline{g(x)} \, d\mu(x) \\
& = & \widetilde{h}(t).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the unitary representation $(U^\mu_t)$ is mixing.
For a measure $\nu$ on ${\mathbf{R}}$, define the [*measure class*]{} of $\nu$ by: $$\mathcal{C}_\nu := \left\{ \nu' : \nu' \mbox{ is absolutely continuous w.r.t. } \nu \right\}.$$
Let $(V_t)$ be a unitary representation of ${\mathbf{R}}$ on a separable Hilbert space $H$. Denote by $B$ the infinitesimal generator of $(V_t)$, i.e. $B$ is the positive, self-adjoint (possibly) unbounded operator on $H$ such that $V_t = B^{it}$, for every $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$. We define the [*spectral measure*]{} of the representation $(V_t)$ as the spectral measure of the operator $B$ and denote it by $\mathcal{C}_{V}$.
The [*measure class*]{} $\mathcal{C}_V$ can also be defined as the smallest collection of all the measures $\nu$ on ${\mathbf{R}}$ such that:
1. If $\nu \in \mathcal{C}_V$ and $\nu'$ is absolutely continuous w.r.t. $\nu$, then $\nu' \in \mathcal{C}_V$;
2. For any unit vector $\eta \in H$, the probability measure associated with the positive definite function $t \mapsto \langle V_t \eta, \eta\rangle$ belongs to $\mathcal{C}_V$.
Since $H$ is separable, there exists a measure $\nu$ that generates $\mathcal{C}_V$, i.e. $\mathcal{C}_V$ is the smallest collection of measures on ${\mathbf{R}}$ satisfying $(1)$ and containing $\nu$. We will refer to this particular measure $\nu$ as the [spectral measure]{} of the representation $(V_t)$ and simply denote it by $\nu$.
Let $\mu$ be a symmetric probability measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$ and consider the unitary representation $(U_t^\mu)$ on $L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$ as defined in $(\ref{representation})$. Then for any unit vector $f \in L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$, $$\langle U_t^\mu f, f\rangle = \int_{\mathbf{R}}e^{itx} \left| f(x) \right|^2 \, d\mu(x), \forall t \in {\mathbf{R}}.$$ Since the probability measure $|f(x)|^2 \, d\mu(x)$ is absolutely continuous w.r.t. $d\mu(x)$, it is clear that the spectral measure of $(U_t^\mu)$ is $\mu$. More generally, we have the following:
\[spectralmeasure\] Let $\mu$ be a symmetric probability measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$. Consider the unitary representation $(U^\mu_t)$ defined on $L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$ by $(\ref{representation})$. Then for any $n \geq 1$, the spectral measure of the $n$-fold tensor product $(U^\mu_t)^{\otimes n}$ is the $n$-fold convolution product $$\mu^{\ast n} = \underbrace{\mu \ast \cdots \ast \mu}_{n \, {\operatorname{times}}}.$$
Examples of solid ${\rm II_1}$ factors {#examples-of-solid-rm-ii_1-factors}
--------------------------------------
Erdös showed in [@erdos] that the symmetric probability measure $\mu_\theta$, with $\theta = 5/2$, obtained as the weak limit of $$\left( \frac12 \delta_{-\theta^{-1}} + \frac12 \delta_{\theta^{-1}} \right) \ast \cdots \ast \left( \frac12 \delta_{-\theta^{-n}} + \frac12 \delta_{\theta^{-n}} \right)$$ has a Fourier Transform $$\widetilde{\mu}_\theta(t) = \prod_{n \geq 1} \cos\left(\frac{t}{\theta^n}\right)$$ which vanishes at infinity, i.e. $\widetilde{\mu}(t) \to 0$, as $|t| \to \infty$, and $\mu_\theta$ is singular w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$.
\[singularmeasure\] Modifying the measure $\mu_\theta$, Antoniou & Shkarin (see Theorem $2.5, {\rm v}$ in [@antoniou]) constructed an example of a symmetric probability $\mu$ on ${\mathbf{R}}$ such that:
1. The Fourier Transform of $\mu$ vanishes at infinity, i.e. $\widetilde{\mu}(t) \to 0$, as $|t| \to \infty$.
2. For any $n \geq 1$, the $n$-fold convolution product $\mu^{\ast n}$ is singular w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$.
Let $\mu$ be a symmetric probability measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$ as in Example \[singularmeasure\]. Proposition \[mixingrepresentation\] and Proposition \[spectralmeasure\] yields that the unitary representation $(U_t^\mu)$ defined on $L^2({\mathbf{R}}, \mu)$ by $(\ref{representation})$ satisfies:
1. $(U_t^\mu)$ is mixing.
2. The spectral measure of $\bigoplus_{n \geq 1} (U_t^\mu)^{\otimes n}$ is singular w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$.
Let now $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ and let $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ be the continuous core. Let $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ be a non-zero projection such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$. Denote by $N = qMq$ the corresponding ${\rm II_1}$ factor. Using free probability techniques such as the [*free entropy*]{}, Shlyakhtenko (see Theorem $9.12$ in [@shlya99]) showed that if the spectral measure of the unitary representation $\bigoplus_{n \geq 1} U_t^{\otimes n}$ is singular w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure $\lambda$, then for any finite set of generators $X_1, \dots, X_n$ of $N$, the free entropy dimension satisfies $$\delta_0(X_1, \dots, X_n) \leq 1.$$ In particular, $N$ is not isomorphic to any interpolated free group factor $L({\mathbf{F}}_t)$, for $1 < t \leq \infty$. Combining these two results together with Corollary \[solidity\], we obtain the following:
\[examplesolidfactor\] Let $\mu$ be a symmetric probability measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$ as in Example $\ref{singularmeasure}$. Let $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(K_{\mathbf{R}}^\mu, U^\mu_t)''$ be the free Araki-Woods factor associated with the orthogonal representation $(U_t^\mu)$ acting on the real Hilbert space $K_{\mathbf{R}}^\mu$, as defined in $(\ref{representation}-\ref{hilbert})$. Let $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ be the continuous core. Fix a non-zero projection $q \in L({\mathbf{R}})$ such that ${\operatorname{Tr}}(q) < \infty$, and denote by $N = qMq$ the corresponding ${\rm II_1}$ factor. Then
1. $N$ is non-amenable and solid.
2. $N$ has full fundamental group, i.e. $\mathcal{F}(N) = {\mathbf{R}}^*_+$.
3. $N$ is not isomorphic to any interpolated free group factor $L({\mathbf{F}}_t)$, for $1 < t \leq \infty$.
We believe that all the free Araki-Woods factors $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ have the [*complete metric approximation property*]{} (c.m.a.p.), i.e. there exists a sequence $\Phi_n : \mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{M}$ of finite rank, completely bounded maps such that $\Phi_n \to {\operatorname{Id}}$ ultraweakly pointwise, as $n \to \infty$, and $\limsup_{n \to \infty} \left\| \Phi_n \right\|_{{\operatorname{cb}}} \leq 1$. If $\mathcal{M} = \Gamma(H_{\mathbf{R}}, U_t)''$ had the c.m.a.p. then by [@anan95], the continuous core $M = \mathcal{M} \rtimes_\sigma {\mathbf{R}}$ would have the c.m.a.p., as well as the ${\rm II_1}$ factor $qMq$, for $q \in M$ non-zero finite projection. On the other hand, the wreath product ${\rm II_1}$ factors $L({\mathbf{Z}}\wr {\mathbf{F}}_n)$ do not have the c.m.a.p., for any $2 \leq n \leq \infty$, by [@ozawapopa]. Thus, we conjecture that the solid ${\rm II_1}$ factors constructed in Theorem \[examplesolidfactor\] are not isomorphic to $L({\mathbf{Z}}\wr {\mathbf{F}}_n)$, for any $2 \leq n \leq \infty$.
[AA]{}
, [*Amenable correspondences and approximation properties for von Neumann algebras*]{}. Pacific J. Math. [**171**]{} (1995), 309–341.
, [*Decay measures on locally compact abelian topological groups*]{}. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh [**131**]{} (2001), 1257–1273.
, [*Free product von Neumann algebras of type ${\rm III}$*]{}. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**123**]{} (1995), 543–553.
, [*Ergodic subequivalence relations induced by a Bernoulli action.*]{} <arXiv:0802.2353>
, [*Bass Serre rigidity results in von Neumann algebras.*]{} Duke Math. J., to appear. <arXiv:0805.1566>
, [*Almost periodic states and factors of type ${\rm III_1}$*]{}. J. Funct. Anal. [**16**]{} (1974), 415–445.
, [*Une classification des facteurs de type [III]{}.*]{} Ann. Sci. [É]{}cole Norm. Sup. [**6**]{} (1973), 133–252.
, [*Interpolated free group factors.*]{} Pacific J. Math. [**163**]{} (1994), 123–135.
, [*On a family of symmetric Bernoulli convolutions.*]{} Amer. J. Math. [**61**]{} (1939), 974–976.
, [*Connes’ bicentralizer problem and uniqueness of the injective factor of type ${\rm III_1}$.*]{} Acta Math. [**69**]{} (1986), 95–148.
, [*Free Araki-Woods factors and Connes’ bicentralizer problem.*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**137**]{} (2009), 3749-3755.
, [*Construction of type ${\rm II_1}$ factors with prescribed countable fundamental group.*]{} J. reine angew Math. [**634**]{} (2009), 169-207.
, [*On some free products of von Neumann algebras which are free Araki-Woods factors.*]{} Int. Math. Res. Notices. Vol. [**2007**]{}, article ID rnm098, 21 pages.
, [*Amalgamated free products of $w$-rigid factors and calculation of their symmetry groups.*]{} Acta Math. [**200**]{} (2008), 85–153.
, [*Solid von Neumann algebras.*]{} Acta Math. [**192**]{} (2004), 111–117.
Int. Math. Res. Notices. Vol. 2006 : article ID 97560, 21 pages.
, [*An example of a solid von Neumann algebra.*]{} Hokkaido Math. J., [**38**]{} (2009), 557–561.
, [*On a class of $\rm{II}_1$ factors with at most one Cartan subalgebra.*]{} Ann. of Math., to appear <arXiv:0706.3623>
, [*On the superrigidity of malleable actions with spectral gap.*]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**21**]{} (2008), 981–1000.
, [*On Ozawa’s property for free group factors.*]{} Int. Math. Res. Notices. Vol. 2007 : article ID rnm036, 10 pages.
, [*Strong rigidity of ${\rm II_1}$ factors arising from malleable actions of w-rigid groups ${\rm I}$.*]{} Invent. Math. [**165**]{} (2006), 369-408.
, [*On a class of type ${\rm II_1}$ factors with Betti numbers invariants.*]{} Ann. of Math. [**163**]{} (2006), 809–899.
, [*Some rigidity results for non-commutative Bernoulli Shifts.*]{} J. Funct. Anal. [**230**]{} (2006), 273–328.
, [*Strong rigidity of generalized Bernoulli actions and computations of their symmetry groups.*]{} Adv. Math. [**217**]{} (2008), 833–872.
, [ *Random matrices, amalgamated free products and subfactors of the von Neumann algebra of a free group, of noninteger index.*]{} Invent. Math. [**115**]{} (1994), 347–389.
, [ *A one-parameter group of automorphisms of $L(\mathbf{F}_{\infty}) \otimes \mathbf{B}(H)$ scaling the trace.*]{} C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris SŽr. ${\rm I}$ Math. [**314**]{} (1992), 1027–1032.
, [*Some estimates for non-microstates free entropy dimension, with applications to $q$-semicircular families.*]{} Int. Math. Res. Notices [**51**]{} (2004), 2757–2772.
, [*On the classification of full factors of type [III]{}.*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**356**]{} (2004), 4143–4159.
, [*On multiplicity and free absorption for free Araki-Woods factors.*]{} [math.OA/0302217](math.OA/0302217)
, [*$A$-valued semicircular systems.*]{} J. Funct. Anal. [**166**]{} (1999), 1–47.
, [*Some applications of freeness with amalgamation.*]{} J. reine angew. Math. [**500**]{} (1998), 191–212.
, [*Free quasi-free states.*]{} Pacific J. Math. [**177**]{} (1997), 329–368.
, [*Duality for crossed products and structure of von Neumann algebras of type ${\rm III}$.*]{} Acta Math. [**131**]{} (1973), 249–310.
, [*Amalgamated free products over Cartan subalgebra.*]{} Pacific J. Math. [**191**]{} (1999), 359–392.
, [*The boundary of universal discrete quantum groups, exactness and factoriality.*]{} Duke Math. J. [**140**]{} (2007), 35-84.
, [*Rigidity results for Bernoulli actions and their von Neumann algebras (after S. Popa).*]{} S[é]{}minaire Bourbaki, exposé 961. Astérisque [**311**]{} (2007), 237-294.
, [*États quasi-libres libres et facteurs de type [III]{} (d’apr[è]{}s D. Shlyakhtenko).*]{} S[é]{}minaire Bourbaki, exposé 937, [Astérisque [ **299**]{}]{} (2005), 329–350.
, [*Free random variables.*]{} CRM Monograph Series [**1**]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, $1992$.
[^1]: Canonical Anticommutation Relations
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We apply field-particle correlations— a technique that tracks the time-averaged velocity-space structure of the energy density transfer rate between electromagnetic fields and plasma particles—to data drawn from a hybrid Vlasov-Maxwell simulation of Alfvén Ion-Cyclotron turbulence. Energy transfer in this system is expected to include both Landau and cyclotron wave-particle resonances, unlike previous systems to which the field-particle correlation technique has been applied. In this simulation, the energy transfer rate mediated by the parallel electric field $E_\parallel$ comprises approximately $60\%$ of the total rate, with the remainder mediated by the perpendicular electric field $E_\perp$. The parallel electric field resonantly couples to protons, with the canonical bipolar velocity-space signature of Landau damping identified at many points throughout the simulation. The energy transfer mediated by $E_\perp$ preferentially couples to particles with [$v_{tp} \lesssim
v_\perp \lesssim 3 v_{tp}$]{} in agreement with the expected formation of a cyclotron diffusion plateau. Our results demonstrate clearly that the field-particle correlation technique can distinguish distinct channels of energy transfer using single-point measurements, even at points in which multiple channels act simultaneously, and can be used to determine quantitatively the rates of particle energization in each channel.
date: '?; revised ?; accepted ?.'
title: |
Diagnosing collisionless energy transfer using field-particle correlations:\
Alfvén-Ion Cyclotron Turbulence
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Identifying the mechanisms that transport energy between electromagnetic fields and charged particles in nearly collisionless plasmas is a critical step in the broader effort to characterize and ultimately predict the dissipation of turbulence in space and astrophysical plasmas. Proposed mechanisms for energy transfer can broadly be grouped into three classes: (i) resonant mechanisms, *e.g.*, Landau damping, Barnes damping, or cyclotron damping [@Landau:1946; @Barnes:1966; @Kennel:1966]; (ii) non-resonant mechanisms, *e.g.*, stochastic heating by low-frequency, large-amplitude kinetic [Alfvén ]{}waves [@McChesney:1987; @Chen:2001; @Johnson:2001; @Chandran:2010a; @Chandran:2010b] or magnetic pumping [@Berger:1958; @Lichko:2017]; and (iii) spatially localized mechanisms, *e.g.*, magnetic reconnection at intermittent current sheets [@Dmitruk:2004; @Matthaeus:2011; @Servidio:2011a; @Karimabadi:2013; @Zhdankin:2013; @Osman:2014a; @Osman:2014b; @Zhdankin:2015a]. The solar wind, a hot and diffuse plasma emanating from the Sun, serves as a natural laboratory for observing which energization mechanisms operate under what plasma conditions. A significant limitation of *in situ* measurements of the solar wind is that most observations occur at a single point, therefore it is not possible to assess the entire energy budget of the system. However, as different mechanisms preferentially transfer energy to particles with specific characteristic velocities, single-point observations of the velocity-space structure of the energy transfer may enable the determination of which energization mechanisms are at work.
A field-particle correlation technique [@Klein:2016; @Howes:2017a] has been proposed to capture the velocity-space structure of energization mechanisms from single-point observations. This technique resolves the electric-field component of the field-particle interaction term in the Vlasov equation as a function of velocity and averages the energy density transfer rate over some correlation time interval. By capturing the transfer rate as a function of velocity, the regions in phase space that lose energy to or gain energy from the fields are identified. Performing a time average removes the oscillatory energy transfer between the plasma and the fields, isolating the secular component of the transfer that leads to net energization. Combined, this velocity-resolved and time-averaged transfer rate, denoted the *velocity-space signature*, can be used to characterize the energization mechanisms operating in a plasma measured only at a single point in space.
Previous applications of this field-particle correlation technique include numerical studies of electrostatic waves [@Klein:2016; @Howes:2017a] and instabilities [@Klein:2017a], monochromatic kinetic [Alfvén ]{}waves [@Howes:2017b], energization near current sheets arising from strong [Alfvén ]{}wave collisions [@Howes:2018a], as well as low-frequency, wavevector anisotropic, strong turbulence [@Klein:2017b]. The technique has also been applied to turbulent magnetosheath plasma measured by MMS [@Chen:2019]. For both simulations and observations, a clear signature of energy transfer as a function of $v_\parallel$ was identified, which is indicative of significant energy being transferred via the Landau resonance. The previous numerical simulations of turbulence used `AstroGK`, a gyrokinetic code in which the low-frequency approximation arising through the gyroaveraging procedure eliminates the physics of the cyclotron resonance [@Howes:2006]. In this work, we use a hybrid Vlasov-Maxwell code, `HVM`, to simulate higher frequency Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence, a system in which proton cyclotron damping may contribute to the removal of energy from the turbulence. For the Alfvén-ion cyclotron system, both $E_\parallel$ and $E_\perp$ may contribute to the energy density transfer via the Landau and cyclotron resonances, respectively. At most points throughout the simulation, resonant signatures near the proton thermal velocity, $|v_\parallel| \sim v_{tp}$, are associated with energization due to $E_\parallel$, while particles with $v_{tp}
\lesssim v_\perp \lesssim 3 v_{tp}$ couple most strongly with $E_\perp$. By diagnosing the energy transfer at 64 spatial points distributed throughout the simulation, we find that the energy transfer mediated by $E_\parallel$ [after one Alfvén crossing time]{} at these points accounts for [$62\% \pm
24\%$ of the total energy transfer.]{}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. An overview of the relevant damping mechanisms and the simulation code employed, `HVM`, is given in Secs. \[sec:mech\] and \[sec:hvm\]. The field-particle correlation method is presented in Sec. \[sec:fpem\] and is applied to simulation data in Sec. \[sec:vel\]. In Sec. \[sec:heatflux\], we discuss the relative importance of the electric field and advection to energy transfer, followed by conclusions in Sec. \[sec:conclude\]. This extension of the field-particle correlation technique to a regime of higher-frequency turbulence, distinct from previous numerical studies of low-frequency turbulence, demonstrates that this technique can successfully employ single-point measurements both to distinguish distinct mechanisms of energy transfer and to determine quantitatively the rates of particle energization in each channel.
Energy Transfer in Ion-Cyclotron Turbulence {#sec:mech}
===========================================
Collisionless resonant mechanisms that mediate energy transfer in magnetized plasmas sensitively depend on the frequency of the associated plasma fluctuations. These mechanisms require a portion of the particle velocity distribution with significant phase space density to approximately satisfy the resonance condition $\omega({\mathbf{k}}) - k_\parallel v_\parallel - n\Omega_s = 0$, where $\omega({\mathbf{k}})$ is the wavevector dependent normal mode frequency, $k_\parallel$ is the component of the wavevector parallel to the mean magnetic field ${\mathbf{B}}_0$, $v_\parallel$ is the parallel particle velocity, $\Omega_s = q_s B/m_s c$ is the cyclotron frequency for species $s$, and $n$ is an integer. Previous field-particle correlation work specifically focused on energy transfer in systems where the Landau, or $n=0$, resonance is the only available channel for collisionless damping, including both systems with monochromatic waves [@Klein:2016; @Howes:2017a; @Klein:2017a; @Howes:2017b] and simulations of strong, wavevector-anisotropic turbulence [@Klein:2017b; @Howes:2018a].
The Landau resonance is important for low-frequency, wavevector anisotropic fluctuations of the kind typically observed in the solar wind. A significant body of evidence, including observational [@Sahraoui:2010a; @Chen:2013a; @Roberts:2015b], theoretical [@Schekochihin:2009; @Kunz:2015; @Kunz:2018], and numerical [@Howes:2008a; @Mallet:2015; @Groselj:2018] studies, suggests that magnetized collisionless turbulence is dominated by low-frequency, anisotropic [Alfvénic ]{}fluctuations. However, as discussed in [@Cerri:2016] and [@Arzamasskiy:2019], the role of higher-frequency fluctuations in realistic turbulent systems is still an area of active debate. For higher frequency fluctuations, with turbulent fluctuation frequencies at or above the proton cyclotron frequency $\omega \gtrsim \Omega_p$, collisionless damping may proceed through the $n \ne 0$ cyclotron resonances.
In this work, we focus on determining the velocity-space signatures of energy transfer to the protons in higher frequency, Alfvén-Ion Cyclotron turbulence. In order to select a wavevector region for which cyclotron damping may be present, we consider the collisionless power absorption for the [Alfvén ]{}dispersion surface as derived from linear kinetic theory. The power absorption by species $s$ due to a normal mode with frequency $\omega({\mathbf{k}})$ in one wave period, following [@Quataert:1998], is given by $$\frac{\gamma_s({\mathbf{k}})}{\omega({\mathbf{k}})} = \frac{{\mathbf{E}}^*({\mathbf{k}})\cdot
\underline{\underline{\Lambda}}_s^a({\mathbf{k}}) \cdot {\mathbf{E}}({\mathbf{k}})}{4 W_{\rm EM}({\mathbf{k}})}.
\label{eqn:power}$$ The Fourier-transformed vector electric field and its complex conjugate are given by ${\mathbf{E}}({\mathbf{k}})$ and ${\mathbf{E}}^*({\mathbf{k}})$, the electromagnetic wave energy by $W_{\rm EM}({\mathbf{k}})$ and the anti-Hermitian part of the linear susceptibility tensor for species $s$ is $\underline{\underline{\Lambda}}_s^a({\mathbf{k}})$. The decomposition of the power absorption by species given by Eqn. \[eqn:power\] is valid as long as the total damping rate is small compared to the wave frequency $\sum_s\gamma_s < \omega$. In Figure \[fig:linear\](a), we use Eqn. \[eqn:power\] to compute the proton power absorption for the [Alfvénic ]{}dispersion surface for a proton-electron plasma with $\beta_p =8 \pi n_p T_p/B^2= 1$ and $T_p = T_e$ calculated using the PLUME dispersion solver [@Klein:2015a], showing significant proton damping primarily in two regions[^1]: (i) $k_\perp \rho_p \sim 1$ (yellow) and (ii) $k_\parallel \rho_p \gtrsim
1$ (red[^2]). The parallel wave phase velocity $\omega/k_\parallel v_A$ is plotted in Figure \[fig:linear\](b), showing three general regimes: (i) the non-dispersive *MHD [Alfvén ]{}wave regime* with $k_\parallel \rho_p \ll 1$ and $k_\perp
\rho_p <1 $ where $\omega/k_\parallel v_A=1$; (ii) the *ion cyclotron wave regime* with $k_\parallel \rho_p \gtrsim 1$ where the phase velocity decreases as $k_\parallel \rho_p$ increases; and (iii) the *kinetic [Alfvén ]{}wave regime* with $k_\parallel \rho_p \ll 1$ and $k_\perp \rho_p \gtrsim 1 $ where the phase velocity increases as $k_\perp \rho_p$ increases. Note that, for a plasma with $\beta_p=1$, the proton Larmor radius $\rho_p=v_{tp}/\Omega_p$ is the same as the proton inertial length $d_p=v_A/\Omega_p$, as the scales can be related via $\rho_p = d_p/\sqrt{\beta_p}$.
To quantify the relative contributions to the proton damping rate $\gamma_p$ from Landau and cyclotron damping, we recalculate Eqn. \[eqn:power\] using a susceptibility tensor $\underline{\underline{\Lambda}}_p$ constructed using only the $n=0$ contributions (Landau damping) or $n \neq 0$ contributions to the $(x,y)$ manifold (cyclotron damping, c.f. [@Stix:1992] $\S 11.8$). This decomposition by the characteristic resonance shows that the two primary regions of significant proton damping are caused by distinct mechanisms. In Figure \[fig:linear\](c), we plot the ratio of the Landau damping rate to the total proton damping rate $\gamma_p[n=0]/\gamma_p$, showing that, in the region $k_\parallel \rho_p
\ll 1$, Landau damping is dominant, so that the yellow region at $k_\perp
\rho_p \sim 1$ and $k_\parallel \rho_p \ll 1$ in Figure \[fig:linear\](a) is dominated by Landau damping. In Figure \[fig:linear\](d), we plot the ratio of the cyclotron damping rate to the total proton damping rate $\gamma_p[\mbox{cyclotron}]/\gamma_p$, showing that, in the region $k_\parallel \rho_p \gtrsim 1$, cyclotron damping is dominant, so the red and black regions at $k_\parallel \rho_p \gtrsim 1$ in Figure \[fig:linear\](a) is dominated by cyclotron damping.
For Landau damping of [Alfvén ]{}waves in the wavevector anisotropic region with $k_\perp\rho_p \sim 1$ and $k_\parallel \ll k_\perp$, the collisionless energy transfer is associated with resonant parallel phase velocities $\omega/k_\parallel \sim v_{A}$, which are of order $v_{tp}$ for plasmas with $\beta_p \approx 1$. For waves with $k_\perp \rho_p \gg 1$, the parallel phase velocity of the wave increases, moving out of resonance with the thermal proton population, reducing the effectiveness of proton Landau damping. As the parallel wavevector $k_\parallel \rho_p$ increases to unity and beyond, the parallel phase velocity decreases $\omega/k_\parallel \rightarrow 0$, similarly leading to a quenching of Landau damping.
For cyclotron damping, the velocity distribution evolves along circular pitch angle contours centered about the parallel wave phase velocity, where this pitch-angle diffusion drives the distribution toward a state where it is constant along contours $(v_\parallel-\omega/k_\parallel)^2+v_\perp^2$ [@Kennel:1966; @Marsch:2001; @He:2015]. For a spectrum of proton cyclotron waves propagating both up and down the magnetic field, with $k_\parallel >0$ and $k_\parallel<0$, this evolution leads to the formation of a quasilinear *cyclotron diffusion plateau* in the region with significant overlap of constant energy contours with $v_{tp} \lesssim v_\perp \lesssim 3 v_{tp}$. [The parallel structure of this plateau peaks at small $v_\parallel$, corresponding to higher phase-space densities near the center of the proton distribution.]{}
With the identification of the different regions of wavevector space $(k_\perp \rho_p, k_\parallel \rho_p)$ in which Landau or cyclotron damping are expected to dominate, as shown in Figure \[fig:linear\], we may now specify an appropriate wavevector range to yield significant proton cyclotron damping in a simulation of high-frequency Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence.
Hybrid Simulations of Alfvén-Ion Cyclotron Turbulence {#sec:hvm}
=====================================================
Based upon these power absorption calculations, we select a wavevector region for which both Landau and cyclotron damping may be active. For our `HVM` simulation of Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence, we simulate a turbulent plasma in a domain over a wavevector range $0.2
\le k_\perp d_p \le 3.2$ and $0.2 \le k_\parallel d_p \le 3.2$, denoted by the black box in Figure \[fig:linear\]. For comparison, the previous turbulent gyrokinetic simulations used in [@Klein:2017b] spanned $0.25 \le k_\perp d_p \le 5.5$ under the asymptotic anisotropic conditions $k_\parallel \ll k_\perp$ of the gyrokinetic approximation, a wavevector range denoted by the red box in Figure \[fig:linear\]. To describe turbulent fluctuations with finite parallel wavevectors $k_\parallel d_p \gtrsim 1$ and ion-cyclotron frequencies $\omega \sim \Omega_p$, we employ the hybrid Vlasov-Maxwell code `HVM` [@Valentini:2007]. `HVM` self-consistently solves the Vlasov equation for ions on a uniform fixed 3D grid in physical space and a uniform fixed 3V grid in velocity space, coupled with an isothermal fluid description for the electrons through Maxwell’s equations. This method allows for accurate simulation of ion kinetic-scale phenomena. By employing an Eulerian approach, these simulations are able to resolve velocity-space structure without the statistical noise associated with particle-in-cell macroparticles. Since the ions are fully kinetic, we resolve ion-cyclotron frequency physics, which is outside the gyrokinetic formalism.
The simulation employs $32^3$ spatial grid points and $51^3$ velocity grid points. The velocity grid spans $\pm 5 v_{tp}$ for all three directions, and the size of the isotropic simulation cube is $L=10 \pi
d_p$. The proton plasma beta is unity, $\beta_p=1$, and the proton and electron temperatures are in equilibrium $T_p = T_e$. The uniform background magnetic field is in the $\hat{{\mathbf{z}}}$ direction, ${\mathbf{B}}_0=B_0 {\hat{z}}$. [The simulation dissipates small scale fluctuations using grid-scale resistivity by adding an $\eta J$ term into Ohm’s law. A small value for the resistivity $\eta$ has been chosen in order to achieve relatively high Reynolds numbers and to remove any spurious numerical effects due to the presence of grid-scale current sheets. The choice of this small value for the resistivity corresponds to a very small correction, confined to small scales, with the resulting dissipation electric field $\eta J$ only becoming dominant for largest wave numbers in simulation.]{}
Twelve [Alfvén ]{}wave modes at the largest two spatial scales in the domain are initialized: ${\mathbf{k}}d_p=(k_x d_p, k_y d_p, k_z d_p)=
(0.2,0,\pm0.2),$ $(0,0.2,\pm0.2),$ $(0.2,0.2,\pm0.2),$ $(-0.2,0.2,\pm0.2),$ $(0.4,0,\pm0.2),$ and $(0,0.4,\pm0.2)$. The magnetic and velocity fluctuations satisfy the MHD [Alfvén ]{}wave eigenfunctions and are assigned distinct random phases $\phi_k \in
[0,2\pi]$ for each initialized wavevector ${\mathbf{k}}$. The real amplitude of each Fourier wavevector mode is chosen so that the system will have a sufficiently strong turbulent cascade, as measured by the nonlinearity parameter, $\chi = (k_\perp/k_\parallel) (\delta B_\perp/
B_0) \approx 1$; we set amplitudes $ \delta \hat{B}_k = 1/\sqrt{2}$ for ${\mathbf{k}}d_p = (0.2,0,\pm0.2)$ and $(0.0,0.2,\pm0.2)$, $ \delta
\hat{B}_k = 1/4$ for ${\mathbf{k}}d_p = (0.2,0.2,\pm0.2)$ and $(-0.2,0.2,\pm0.2)$, and $ \delta \hat{B}_k = 1/(4\sqrt{2})$ for $
{\mathbf{k}}d_p =(0.4,0.0,\pm0.2)$ and $(0.0,0.4,\pm0.2)$, which corresponds to an overall initial RMS amplitude of $\delta B_\perp/ B_0=1/2$. In contrast to gyrokinetic simulations, where the significant wavevector anisotropy $k_\parallel \ll k_\perp$ allows the turbulence to be strong (*i.e*,. $\chi \sim 1$) for $\delta B_\perp/B_0 \ll 1$, having a system of strong turbulence for the wavevectors considered here with $k_\parallel \sim k_\perp$ requires $\delta B_\perp \sim
B_0$.
[This simulation box size was intentionally chosen to enclose wavevectors susceptible to both Landau and cyclotron resonances, allowing the application of the field-particle correlation technique to systems in which multiple heating mechanisms operate. This work does not necessarily replicate solar wind turbulence, which is typically found to have more significant wavevector anisotropies than are simulated here, as described for instance in [@Chen:2016a].]{}
The simulation was evolved to $t_{max}=45\Omega_{p}^{-1}$. We selected 64 points, ${\mathbf{r}}_0$, in the simulation’s 3D spatial domain, producing output of the electromagnetic fields ${\mathbf{E}}'({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ and ${\mathbf{B}}'({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ in the simulation frame of reference as well as the 3V proton velocity distribution $f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$ at each of the selected points. To demonstrate that there is significant power distributed across a broadband range of frequencies, rather than being composed of a handful of monochromatic [Alfvén ]{}waves, we plot in Fig. \[fig:spectra\] the frequency power spectral density for the electric and magnetic field at each of the 64 spatial points. We see a broad distribution of power across frequency at each point, [rather than a peak at $2 \pi f_0/\Omega_p =
\omega_0/\Omega_p$, where $\omega_0$ are the initialized Alfven frequencies, $\omega_0(k_\perp d_p =0.2,k_\parallel d_p = 0.2) =
0.192 \Omega_p$, $\omega_0(k_\perp d_p =0.282,k_\parallel d_p = 0.2)
= 0.195 \Omega_p$, and $\omega_0(k_\perp d_p =0.4,k_\parallel d_p =
0.2) = 0.198 \Omega_p$.]{} [Comparing this frequency distribution to the initial frequencies indicates significant nonlinear energy transfer from the initialized modes, producing a broadband turbulent system.]{} [The time series from which the frequency power spectra are calculated are stationary in the turbulent simulation, rather than traversing it at super-Alfvénic speeds as is typical of in situ measurements of the solar wind. As such, these single-point spectra do not capture the underlying spatial structure of the plasma fluctuations, which requires either invoking Taylor’s Hypothesis, that the plasma-frame frequency is small compared to spatial advection [@Taylor:1938; @Howes:2014a], or measuring the system at multiple spatial points [@Klein:2019:WP].]{}
[fig2.pdf]{}
[We compare the observed broadband distribution of frequencies to frequency ranges accessible to the Alfvén and fast normal mode solutions within the simulation’s wavevector range $0.2 \le k_\perp
d_p \le 3.2$ and $0.2 \le k_\parallel d_p \le 3.2$, calculated using the *PLUME* dispersion solver, see Fig. \[fig:freq\_one\]. Alfvén solutions are limited to a relatively narrow range of frequencies, $\omega/\Omega_p \in
[.19,1.0]$. Above this frequency, we see a significant break in the power spectral densities in Fig. \[fig:spectra\], indicating that there is relatively little power in higher frequency, non-Alfvénic fluctuations.]{} [Integrating the power in the electric and magnetic fluctuations in the Alfvén and fast frequency ranges, we find that nearly 95 frequencies, with less than 30 fast frequency range.]{} [Further discussion of wave mode identification using single point timeseries can be found in Appendix \[app:modes\].]{}
Applying the Field-Particle Correlation Technique {#sec:fpem}
=================================================
This section provides a brief overview of the field-particle correlation technique. The field-particle correlation analysis captures how energy is transferred between charged particles and electromagnetic fields by correlating the structure of the particle velocity distribution function with the electric field. Applications of this technique to simulations have been limited to velocity distributions in one or two dimensions. Here we discuss the application of the field-particle correlation technique to three dimensional velocity distributions generated by the `HVM` code.
Overview of Field-Particle Correlations {#ssec:fpem}
---------------------------------------
For a collisionless magnetized plasma, the Vlasov equation $$\frac{\partial f_s}{\partial t} + \mathbf{v}\cdot \nabla f_s + \frac
{q_s}{m_s}\left[ \mathbf{E}+ \frac{\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}
}{c} \right] \cdot \frac{\partial f_s}{\partial \mathbf{v}} =
0
\label{eqn:vlasov}$$ describes the time evolution of the velocity distribution function of charged particles of each species $s$, $f_s({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t)$. Combined with Maxwell’s equations, the Vlasov-Maxwell system describes the self-consistent dynamics of a collisionless plasma. We want to measure the time rate of change of the microscopic kinetic particle energy, $W_s(t) \equiv \int d{\mathbf{r}} \int d{\mathbf{v}} \ m_s v^2
f_s/2$. However, $\partial_t W_s$ can only be calculated by integrating over all of 3D-3V phase space. Such a calculation is accessible to numerical simulations, but not to measurements made from a single point in coordinate space, as is typical for *in situ* measurements of heliospheric plasmas, such as the solar wind.
We therefore choose to track the energy density at a single point in 3D-3V phase space, $\Theta_s({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t) \equiv m_s v^2
f_s({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t)/2$, and its time rate of change, which is found by multiplying the Vlasov equation by $m_s v^2/2$ and not performing any integration: $$\frac{\partial \Theta_s({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t)}{\partial t} = - \frac{m_sv^2}{2}{\mathbf{v}}\cdot \nabla
f_s - q_s\frac{v^2}{2} \mathbf{E} \cdot \frac{\partial f_s}{\partial
\mathbf{v}} - \frac{q_s}{c}\frac{v^2}{2} \left(\mathbf{v} \times
\mathbf{B}\right) \cdot \frac{\partial f_s}{\partial \mathbf{v}}.
\label{eqn:dws}$$ Of the three terms on the right-hand side of Eqn. \[eqn:dws\], it can be shown [@Howes:2017a] that only the electric field term will contribute to the net transfer of energy between the electromagnetic fields and particles: the first term is zero for periodic or infinitely distant boundary conditions and does not exchange energy between the fields and the distribution; and the magnetic field in the third term does no work on the distribution.
Integrating by parts the second term over velocity yields the species current density dotted into the electric field ${\mathbf{j}}_s\cdot{\mathbf{E}}$, representing the work done by ${\mathbf{E}}$ on $f_s$ or vice-versa. By not integrating this term, we resolve the velocity-space structure of energy density transfer. As different mechanisms preferentially energize particles with different characteristic velocities, resolving the velocity-space structure of the energy density transfer allows damping mechanisms to be differentiated using measurements from a single point in coordinate space.
In an electromagnetic system, to determine the net contribution of the parallel and perpendicular electric field to the energization of a species $s$, we calculate the correlations $$C_{E_\parallel} ({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t,\tau)= C\left(- q_s\frac{v_\parallel^2}{2}
\frac{\partial \delta f_s({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t)}{\partial
v_\parallel},E_\parallel({\mathbf{r}},t)\right)
\label{eq:cepar}$$ $$C_{E_\perp}({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t,\tau) = C\left(- q_s\frac{v_{\perp 1}^2}{2}
\frac{\partial \delta f_s({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t)}{\partial {v}_{\perp
1}},{E}_{\perp 1}({\mathbf{r}},t)\right) + C\left(- q_s\frac{v_{\perp
2}^2}{2} \frac{\partial \delta f_s({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}},t)}{\partial
{v}_{\perp 2}},{E}_{\perp 2}({\mathbf{r}},t)\right).
\label{eq:ceperp}$$ The unnormalized correlation of discretely sampled timeseries $A$ and $B$ with uniform spacing $\Delta t$ at time $t_i$ is defined as $$C(t_i,\tau=N \Delta t)\equiv \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=i-N/2}^{i+N/2}A_jB_j,
\label{eqn:corr}$$ with correlation interval of length $\tau = N \Delta t$. Parallel and perpendicular are defined with respect to the background magnetic field ${\mathbf{B}}_0$, with $\perp_1$ and $\perp_2$ denoting the orthogonal components in the plane perpendicular to $\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}={\mathbf{B}}_0/|B_0|$. The $v^2$ component in the electric field term of Eqn \[eqn:dws\] is replaced by the square of the component of the velocity $v_i$ associated with the component of the field with which the distribution is being correlated $E_i$, as the net velocity integration is zero for the other two components, $v_j$ and $v_k$. By averaging over a time interval $\tau$ longer than the characteristic timescale of the dominant oscillations, rather than calculating the instantaneous rate of change $C_{E_l}(t_i,\tau=0)=-q_s v_l^2 E_l \partial_{v_l} f_s/2$, the contribution due to any oscillatory energy transfer, which does not contribute to the net energization of the distribution, largely cancels out.
The spatial energy density transfer rate at a single point ${\mathbf{r}}_0$ associated with a single component of the electric field $E_l$ is given by integrating over 3V velocity space, $$\frac{\partial \bar{w}_{E_l}}{\partial t} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t_i,\tau) \equiv \int
d{\mathbf{v}} C_{E_l} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t_i,\tau)
\label{eqn:partialw}$$ and the accumulated spatial energy density transferred through time $t$ is $$\Delta \bar{w}_{E_l} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau) = \int dt'
\frac{\partial \bar{w}_{E_l}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t',\tau)}{\partial t}.
\label{eqn:Deltaw}$$ All energy density quantities are normalized to the average energy density at that point in space over the simulated time interval $T$, $w_0({\mathbf{r}}_0)=\left <\int d{\mathbf{v}} m_p {\mathbf{v}}^2 f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)/2
\right>_T$, e.g. $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_l}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau)=\partial_t
w_{E_l}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau)/w_0({\mathbf{r}}_0)$.
Field-Particle Correlation Implementation {#ssec:implementation}
-----------------------------------------
Here we describe how we calculate the velocity-resolved energy density transfer rate using the simulated proton distribution $f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$ and the simulation-frame fields ${\mathbf{B}}'({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$, and ${\mathbf{E}}'({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ at a single spatial point ${\mathbf{r}}_0$, one of the 64 points ${\mathbf{r}}_0$ probed in the turbulent `HVM` simulation described in Sec. \[sec:hvm\]. As discussed in [@Howes:2017a], $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_l}$ is the same for correlations calculated using the velocity derivative of the full distribution $\partial_{v_i} f_s$ or a perturbed distribution $\partial_{v_i} \delta f_s$, where the perturbed velocity distribution $\delta f_s = f_s - F_{0,s}$ is computed by subtracting a suitably time-averaged mean velocity distribution, $F_{0,s}=\left <
f_s\right>_t$, as long as $F_{0,s}$ is an even function of velocity. Here we calculate $F_{0,p}({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}})=\left <
f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)\right>_T$ averaged over duration of the simulation $T$ and use the perturbed distribution $\delta
f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$ for all of our correlation calculations[^3].
The vector velocity derivatives $\partial_{{\mathbf{v}}} \delta
f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$ are constructed using a centered-difference method. The time-averaged bulk fluid velocity for a given point ${\mathbf{U}}({\mathbf{r}}_0)= \left <{\mathbf{v}}_b({\mathbf{r}}_0,t) \right >_T$ is computed using the instantaneous bulk velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_b({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)
=[1/{n({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)}]$ $\int d{\mathbf{v}} \ {\mathbf{v}} f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$ and the instantaneous density $n({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)=\int d{\mathbf{v}}f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$. Both $\partial_{{\mathbf{v}}} \delta f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$ and ${\mathbf{E}}'({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ are transformed to the frame of reference moving at the average bulk flow velocity at each point, ${\mathbf{U}}({\mathbf{r}}_0)$. For the electric field, this requires applying the Lorentz transformation, discussed for instance in [@Howes:2014a], $${\mathbf{E}}={\mathbf{E}}'+{\mathbf{U}}\times {\mathbf{B}}/c,
\label{eqn:Eprime.hvm_fpc}$$ where ${\mathbf{E}}'$ is the electric field in the simulation frame, and ${\mathbf{E}}$ is the field in the average bulk flow frame. Note that, under the non-relativistic limit relevant to heliospheric plasmas, the magnetic field requires no such transformation [@Howes:2014a], i.e. $ {\mathbf{B}}= {\mathbf{B}}'$.
We define an instantaneous magnetic-field-aligned coordinate system at position ${\mathbf{r}}_0$ by parallel direction $\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)={\mathbf{B}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)/|{\mathbf{B}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)|$ and the plane normal to $\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ spanned by in-plane unit vectors $\hat{e}_{\perp 1}=\hat{{\mathbf{x}}}\times \hat{{\mathbf{b}}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ and $\hat{e}_{\perp 2}=\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)\times[\hat{{\mathbf{x}}}\times
\hat{{\mathbf{b}}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)]$. We rotate the proton velocity distribution $f_p$ and the electric field components into this field-aligned coordinate systems. Note that, due to the large amplitude magnetic field fluctuations required to achieve strong turbulence in this Alfvén-ion cyclotron system, it is essential to project the fields and particle velocities along the instantaneous magnetic field direction to avoid smearing out of the resulting velocity-space signatures of the energy transfer due to the variation in the magnetic field direction over the correlation interval.
Using the electric field and proton velocity distribution in the average bulk flow frame and field-aligned coordinates, we calculate the parallel and perpendicular field-particle correlations using Eqns. \[eq:cepar\] and \[eq:ceperp\], yielding the 3V velocity-space resolved correlations $C_{E_\parallel}
({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t,\tau)$ and $C_{E_\perp} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t,\tau)$. We then integrate these correlations over 3V velocity space to obtain the spatial energy density transfer rates, $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\parallel} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau)$ and $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\perp} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau)$, according to Eqn. \[eqn:partialw\] and integrate those quantities over time to obtain the accumulated spatial energy density changes, $\Delta
\bar{w}_{E_\parallel} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau)$ and $\Delta \bar{w}_{E_\perp}
({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau)$, according to Eqn. \[eqn:Deltaw\].
[fig3.pdf]{}
The next step is to determine a sufficiently long correlation time interval $\tau$ over which to average in order to isolate the secular component of the energy density transfer due to the electric field. In this `HVM` turbulence simulation, the domain supports at the largest scale MHD [Alfvén ]{}waves that satisfy the dispersion relation $\omega = k_\parallel v_A$. In addition, as indicated by the [Alfvén ]{}mode wave phase velocities in Figure \[fig:linear\](b) over the range of resolved wavevectors (black box), the simulation also supports higher frequency kinetic [Alfvén ]{}waves at $k_\perp d_p>1 $ and lower frequency ion cyclotron waves at $k_\parallel d_p>1$. In previous studies [@Howes:2017a; @Klein:2017b], it was found that averaging over intervals longer than the linear wave periods associated with the transfer mechanisms of interest was sufficient to isolate signatures of the secular transfer. Note that the domain scale MHD [Alfvén ]{}waves initialized in the simulation have a frequency $\omega = k_\parallel v_A= 2 \pi v_A/L_\parallel$, and therefore the period of these waves, normalized to the proton cyclotron frequency, is $T_0 \Omega_p = 2 \pi \Omega_p/\omega= L_\parallel \Omega_p/v_A =
10 \pi d_p \Omega_p/v_A \simeq 31.4$. Here we substituted the domain parallel length $ L_\parallel = 10 \pi d_p$ and have used the relation between the proton inertial length and proton cyclotron frequency, $d_p = v_A/\Omega_p$, to simplify the results. With the period of these largest-scale waves as guidance, we choose to test a range of possible correlation intervals $ 0 \le \tau \Omega_p \le 40$.
In Figure \[fig:int\], we plot $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_l}$ and $\Delta \bar{w}_{E_l}$ from a single spatial point over this range of correlation intervals $ 0 \le \tau \Omega_p \le 40$. While the instantaneous spatial energy density transfer rate ($\tau=0$, dark blue) from $E_\parallel$ and $E_\perp$ varies significantly, we see that as the correlation interval $\tau$ increases, this large variation is reduced, leading to a smooth, net positive energy transfer rate. [$\Delta \bar{w}_{E_l} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau)$ is adjusted to account for changes in the total integration time for varying correlation lengths, producing the expected convergent behavior.]{}
To determine a sufficiently long interval $\tau$ to remove the oscillatory transfer we calculate the mean and standard deviation of $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_\perp}$ and $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\parallel}$ as a function of $\tau$ for all 64 spatial points (not shown). As expected by the form of the field-particle correlation, the mean of the transfer rate is not significantly affected by the choice of $\tau$, but the standard deviation is reduced for longer correlation intervals. For a correlation interval $\tau \Omega_p = 22.5$, the mean of the standard deviation, averaged over the 64 output spatial points, of $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_\perp}$ and $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_\parallel}$ are reduced to less than $20
\%$ of the standard deviation for $\tau =0$. We therefore take the interval $\tau \Omega_p=22.5$ to be the correlation length used throughout this study; results are qualitatively similar to those obtained using $\tau \Omega_p = 31.4$.
Velocity-Space Signatures of Particle Energization {#sec:vel}
==================================================
In this section, we present the results of a field-particle correlation analysis of proton energization occurring in the Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence simulation described in Sec. \[sec:hvm\]. In particular, we present the first determination of the typical velocity-space signature of proton cyclotron damping in Sec. \[sec:cyc\]. In addition, we analyze quantitatively the range of variation of the velocity-space signatures of both proton cyclotron damping and Landau damping in this simulation in Sec. \[sec:quant\] and study the time variability in Sec. \[ssec:distinguish\]. This section also demonstrates the key capability that the field-particle correlation method can successfully employ single-point measurements both to distinguish distinct mechanisms of energy transfer occurring at the same point in space and to determine quantitatively the rates of particle energization in each channel.
Velocity-Space Signature of Cyclotron Damping {#sec:cyc}
---------------------------------------------
Applying the perpendicular field-particle correlation $C_{E_\perp}$, given by Eqn. \[eq:ceperp\], to a single point in the Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence simulation with a correlation interval $\tau
\Omega_p=22.5$, we plot the typical *velocity-space signature of proton cyclotron damping*, shown in Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\](a). Here we have reduced the full 3V correlation $C_{E_\perp}(v_{\parallel},v_{\perp,1},v_{\perp,2})$ to a 2V correlation over gyrotropic velocity space by integrating over the gyrophase angle $C_{E_\perp}(v_\parallel,v_\perp)=\int d \theta
v_\perp C_{E_\perp}(v_{\parallel},v_{\perp,1},v_{\perp,2})$ at time $t\Omega_p=24.66$. We find that protons are energized by the perpendicular component of the electric field in a region of velocity space with $1 \le v_\perp/v_{tp} \le 3$ and $-1.3 \le
v_\parallel/v_{tp} \le 1.3$ for the $\beta_p=1$ turbulence simulation. This first demonstration of the velocity-space signature of proton cyclotron damping in a kinetic simulation of plasma turbulence is a key result of this study.
The location in velocity space of the cyclotron energization of the protons generally agrees with predictions for the quasilinear cyclotron diffusion plateau [@Kennel:1966; @Marsch:2001; @He:2015], where the energy transfer mediated by $E_\perp$ is largest at the confluence of the contours of constant energy for the forward and backward propagating ion cyclotron waves, which satisfy $\sqrt{(v_\parallel \pm \omega/k_\parallel)^2+v_\perp^2}=\mathcal{C}$. In Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\](a), we plot example contours (purple dot-dashed) with $\mathcal{C}/v_{tp}=[1,2,3,4]$ for ion cyclotron waves with $(k_\parallel d_p,k_\perp d_p)=(1,0.2)$, for which the linear Vlasov-Maxwell dispersion relation yields a parallel phase velocity $\omega/k_\parallel v_A=\omega/k_\parallel v_{tp}=0.335$ in this $\beta_p=1$ plasma.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:spectra\], this simulation generates a broadband turbulent frequency spectrum. The dispersive nature of the Alfvén-ion cyclotron waves leads to a range of parallel phase velocities (and thus a range of frequencies) $0.13 \le
\omega/k_\parallel v_A \le 0.96$ over the range of parallel wavevectors in this simulation, $0.2 \le k_\parallel \rho_p \le 3.2$. The centers of the sets of circular contours in Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\](a) would shift with this variation in parallel phase velocities $\omega/k_\parallel$, potentially leading to a smearing of the observed velocity-space signature. Therefore, the particular contours (purple) plotted in Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\](a) for ion cyclotron waves with $(k_\parallel d_p,k_\perp d_p)=(1,0.2)$ are merely presented as useful guide for the qualitative interpretation of the velocity-space signature.
We also plot in Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\](b) the parallel field-particle correlation over 2V gyrotropic velocity space, $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel,v_\perp)$, given by Eqn. \[eq:cepar\], for the same spatial point and using the same correlation interval $\tau \Omega_p=22.5$ centered at the same time $t\Omega_p=24.66$. Here we find that protons are energized by the parallel component of the electric field in two regions of velocity space, defined by $ 1\le
|v_\parallel/v_{tp}| \le 2.5$ and $0 \le v_\perp/v_{tp} \le 1.5$.
To interpret quantitatively the location of the parallel energization in velocity space, we plot vertical lines at the resonant parallel phase velocity $\omega/k_\parallel v_{tp}$ for the domain-scale [Alfvén ]{}waves with $k_\perp d_p=0.2$ (purple) and for the kinetic [Alfvén ]{}waves with the peak proton Landau damping rate at $k_\perp
d_p=1.2$(green). We find that the proton energization is negative (blue) for parallel velocities less than the resonant phase velocities $|v_\parallel/v_{tp}| < \omega/k_\parallel v_{tp}$ and is positive (red) for parallel velocities greater than the resonant phase velocities $|v_\parallel/v_{tp}| > \omega/k_\parallel v_{tp}$. This typical bipolar signature of the energy transfer about the resonant parallel phase velocity indicates that this collisionless energy transfer is associated with the Landau resonance, consistent with previous determinations of the velocity-space signature of the Landau damping of [Alfvén ]{}waves in single wave simulations [@Howes:2017b; @Klein:2017b], gyrokinetic turbulence simulations [@Klein:2017b], and observations of the Earth’s turbulent magnetosheath [@Chen:2019]. The `HVM` results here represent an independent confirmation of the velocity-space signature of Landau damping in Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence.
[ We further reduce the 2D gyrotropic velocity space to a function of either $v_\perp$ or $v_\parallel$ in Fig. \[fig:1d\_reduce\]. In this reduced space, we plot the proton distribution function measured at point 40 averaged over the duration of the simulation, as well as the standard deviation around the average value. The structures of $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel)$ and $C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp)$ have the same shape as inferred from the gyrotropic representation. By reducing the correlations to a function of $v_\perp$, we can compare the perpendicular heating to quasilinear predictions. If the perpendicular velocity diffusion coefficient associated with cyclotron heating is independent of perpendicular velocity, as predicted by [@Kennel:1966] and [@Isenberg:2007], we would expect $C_{E_\perp} (v_\perp) \propto
v_\perp^3 \exp(-v_\perp^2/v_{th}^2)$. To test this prediction, we fit the average perpendicular thermal width of the reduced proton velocity distribution, $v^{\textrm{fit}}_{\perp,tp}$ and then fit $C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp)$ to the functional form $(v_\perp/v^{\textrm{fit}}_{\perp,tp})^\alpha
\exp(-v_\perp^2/v^{\textrm{fit}}_{\perp,tp})^2$. We are able to extract a good fit from this procedure but find $\alpha \approx
6.6$, rather than the expected value of $3$, qualitatively similar to the results presented in [@Arzamasskiy:2019], indicating a strong dependence of the energy diffusion on $v_\perp$. ]{}
It is worth noting that the bipolar aspect of the energy transfer via the Landau resonance is less apparent in this `HVM` simulation of Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence than in previous analyses of gyrokinetic simulations and magnetosheath observations. This smearing out of the velocity-space signature may be due to the perpendicular motions of the large-amplitude [Alfvén ]{}waves with $\delta B_\perp \sim
B_0$ in the `HVM` simulation. [These relatively large amplitude Alfvénic fluctuations lead to significant shifts in the proton velocity distribution from the average bulk velocity frame, as seen in the width of the standard deviation about the time-averaged VDF in Fig. \[fig:1d\_reduce\](a,b), broadening the velocity-space regions over which energy is transferred.]{} For the anisotropic [Alfvénic ]{}fluctuations with $k_\parallel \ll k_\perp$ in gyrokinetic simulations and in the dissipation-range turbulence of the magnetosheath, strong turbulence can be achieved with $\delta B_\perp
\ll B_0$, possibly leading to a more clear bipolar velocity-space signature, because the smaller amplitude of the turbulent fluctuations would lead to less smearing of the characteristic bipolar appearance.
The velocity-space signatures of (a) cyclotron damping and (b) Landau damping, computed using single-point measurements of the electric field and proton velocity distribution over the same correlation time interval and at the same position in space, clearly demonstrate a second key result of this study: that the field-particle correlation method can successfully employ single-point measurements to distinguish distinct mechanisms of energy transfer occurring at the same point in space.
Of course, since the parallel correlation $C_{E_\parallel}$ integrated over velocity simply yields $j_{\parallel p } E_\parallel$, and the velocity-integrated perpendicular correlation $C_{E_\perp}$ yields ${\mathbf{j}}_{\perp p } \cdot {\mathbf{E}}_\perp$, one could argue that this separation of cyclotron from Landau energization mechanisms could simply be achieved by separating the parallel and perpendicular components of ${\mathbf{j}} \cdot {\mathbf{E}}$. However, determining the components of ${\mathbf{j}} \cdot {\mathbf{E}}$ provides only the rate of change of spatial energy density due to the different components of ${\mathbf{E}}$, but nothing about the specific physical mechanism responsible for this energy transfer. The field-particle correlations $C_{E_\parallel}
({\mathbf{v}},t,\tau)$ and $C_{E_\perp}({\mathbf{v}},t,\tau)$, because they provide the variation of the energization as a function of particle velocity, yield vastly greater detail about the mechanisms through their velocity-space signatures, with the possibility to distinguish one mechanism from another through qualitative or quantitative differences in the characteristic velocity-space signatures of each mechanism.
For example, proton cyclotron damping in a $\beta_p=1$ plasma, as shown in Figs. \[fig:vspacesig\](a) and \[fig:1d\_reduce\](c,d), is expected to energize protons with velocities $1 \le v_\perp/v_{tp}
\le 3$ and $-1.3 \le v_\parallel/v_{tp} \le 1.3$. Landau damping in a $\beta_p=1$ plasma, on the other hand, is expected to energize protons with velocities $1\le |v_\parallel/v_{tp}| \le 2.5$ and $0 \le
v_\perp/v_{tp} \le 1.5$, with a bipolar signature changing sign about the parallel resonant phase velocity. These detailed quantitative features enable one to identify the specific physical mechanisms responsible for the energization. Ongoing work to determine the velocity-space signatures of different energization mechanisms, including their variation as a function of the plasma parameters such as $\beta_p$, will provide a framework for the interpretation of the velocity-space signatures obtained through the field-particle correlation analysis of both kinetic numerical simulations and spacecraft observations, potentially providing a clear procedure for the identification of the particle energization mechanisms that play a role in the dissipation of turbulence in these systems.
Variation of Velocity-Space Signatures {#sec:quant}
--------------------------------------
Now that we have presented fiducial velocity-space signatures for cyclotron damping and Landau damping in Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\], we seek to quantify the variation of the velocity-space signatures of the 2V gyrotropic perpendicular and parallel correlations $C_{E_\perp}(v_\parallel,v_\perp)$ and $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel,v_\perp)$ in our `HVM` simulation of Alfvén-ion cyclotron turbulence.
Intuition gained from plane-wave studies of linear collisionless damping of waves often leads people to believe that linear collisionless damping is expected to occur uniformly in space. This belief is not correct. Similar to the case that any spatially varying waveform can be decomposed into its plane-wave components, the spatial distribution of energy transfer associated with linear collisionless damping mechanisms is controlled by the spatial distribution of the field doing the work, and this field may arise in a spatially non-uniform manner if numerous plane-wave modes contribute to the waveform of the field. In plasma turbulence, early studies discovered that intermittent current sheets naturally develop [@Matthaeus:1980; @Meneguzzi:1981], and more recent work has shown that the dissipation of turbulent energy is largely concentrated near these current sheets [@Uritsky:2010; @Osman:2011; @Zhdankin:2013; @Navarro:2016]. Although the idea of dissipation in current sheets suggests a possible role of magnetic reconnection, in fact, a recent study has shown a clear counterexample in which collisionless wave-particle interactions underlie spatially non-uniform energy transfer. In a gyrokinetic simulation where strongly nonlinear [Alfvén ]{}wave collisions [@Howes:2013a] self-consistently generate current sheets [@Howes:2016b], spatially non-uniform particle energization occurs, with greater energy transfer near current sheets, but the underlying mechanism of energy transfer in this case is clearly identified, using the field-particle correlation technique, as Landau damping [@Howes:2018a]. Therefore, even if the removal of energy from turbulent fluctuations occurs dominantly through collisionless wave-particle interactions, one would expect that the net energy transfer would vary significantly from point to point in a strongly turbulent system.
Furthermore, collisionless energy transfer via wave-particle interactions is reversible, meaning that in addition to positive energy transfer from the fields to the particles, one can also find regions of negative energy transfer from the particles to the fields. Nonetheless, the regions of negative energy transfer mediated by collisionless wave-particle interactions still yield velocity-space signatures characteristic of the energy transfer mechanism, but with opposite sign [@Howes:2018a]. Here we hope to explore the typical variation in space of the velocity-space signatures of the perpendicular and parallel field-particle correlations, examining regions of positive energy transfer, negative energy transfer, and negligible energy transfer.
Here we characterize the variations of the perpendicular and parallel correlations $C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp,v_\parallel)$ and $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\perp,v_\parallel)$ at four different spatial points in our `HVM` turbulence simulation, representing cases with significant energy transfer either direction between the protons and $E_\perp$ or $E_\parallel$, as well as cases with relatively little net energy transfer. To quantify the variation in the velocity-space signature, we use a correlation interval $\tau \Omega_p=22.5$ to compute the correlation $C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp,v_\parallel,t,\tau)$ at each point as a function of the time $t$ at the center of the correlation interval. We compute the mean of this correlation over the entire simulation time $T$, $\langle C_{E_\perp} \rangle_T$, and the standard deviation of its variation $\sigma(C_{E_\perp})$ at each point in gyrotropic velocity space $(v_\perp,v_\parallel)$. To visualize the variation in time at each of the four points, we plot in Fig. \[fig:CD\_gyro\] the mean value in the central column, the mean minus the standard deviation at each point (left column), and the mean plus the standard deviation (right column).
[fig6.pdf]{}
Regardless of the sign or amplitude of $C_{E_\perp}$, we see in Fig. \[fig:CD\_gyro\] that the transfer associated with $E_\perp$ is strongly concentrated between $1 \le v_\perp/v_{tp} \le 3$ and $-2 \le
v_\parallel/v_{tp} \le 2$. We plot the same contours (purple) of constant $\sqrt{(v_\parallel \pm
\omega/k_\parallel)^2+v_\perp^2}=\mathcal{C}$ for ion cyclotron waves used in Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\] with $(k_\parallel d_p,k_\perp
d_p)=(1,0.2)$ as a guide for interpretation.
At point 40 in Fig. \[fig:CD\_gyro\], where we find significant energy transfer to the protons, we observe that protons with $v_\perp
> v_{tp}$ gain a significant amount of energy while protons with $v_\perp < v_{tp}$ lose a relatively small amount of energy to $E_\perp$. At point 8, where we observe energy transfer from the protons, the pattern remains similar, but with the signs reversed. At points 35 and 11 where the net spatial energy density transfer (integrated over all velocity space) is relatively small, we see two distinct behaviors. At point 35, we find regions of strong energy density transfer of opposite sign in adjacent bands of $v_\perp$ that approximately follow contours of constant energy. When integrated over velocity, the opposite signs of these bands significantly reduce the net transfer. At point 11, the sign of $C_{E_\perp}$ changes part-way through the simulation, leading to little net energy transfer when averaged over the full simulation time.
[fig7.pdf]{}
In Fig. \[fig:LD\_gyro\], we present the quantitative analysis of the variation of the parallel correlation $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\perp,v_\parallel)$ at the same four points considered in Fig. \[fig:CD\_gyro\], with the mean over the entire simulation time $\langle C_{E_\parallel} \rangle_T$ in the center column, and minus or plus the standard deviation in the left and right columns, respectively. Here we find that the energy transfer is concentrated in two regions, defined by $0.5 \le|v_\parallel/v_{tp}|
\le 3$ and $0 \le v_\perp/v_{tp} \le 2$.
At all four points, we see some evidence of the bipolar resonant signature associated with Landau damping seen in previous numerical [@Howes:2017b; @Klein:2017b; @Howes:2018a] and observational studies [@Chen:2019]. The change of sign is generally consistent with the resonant parallel phase velocities of the largest-scale [Alfvén ]{}waves in the system (purple) and the most strongly damped kinetic [Alfvén ]{}waves with $k_\perp d_p=1.2$ (green). At points 40, 35, and 11, net energy is transferred from $E_\parallel$ to the protons, with positive energy transfer at parallel velocities above the resonant velocity and negative energy transfer below. At point 8, where there is net transfer from the protons to $E_\parallel$, the bipolar pattern of resonant collisionless energy transfer is the same, but the signs of the energy transfer are reversed, consistent with a previous study of Landau-resonant energization in current sheets generated by strong [Alfvén ]{}wave collisions [@Howes:2018a].
The careful reader will note a difference in the widths of the regions of resonant transfer between this simulation and the strong gyrokinetic turbulence simulation described in [@Klein:2017b]. As $\delta B_\perp/B_0$ is necessarily much larger for this wavevector-isotropic system in order for the simulation to satisfy $\chi = (k_\perp/k_\parallel) (\delta B_\perp/ B_0) \approx
1$, the proton distribution is more perturbed, resulting in a broadening of the resonant signature. Studies of the effect of variations in $k_\perp/k_\parallel$ and $\delta B_\perp/
B_0$ will be left to future work.
In summary, we find that although the amplitude and sign of the energization of particles by $E_\perp$ and $E_\parallel$ varies from position to position in strong turbulence, the regions of velocity space where particles participate in the energy transfer remain remarkably constant. Furthermore, the velocities at which the energy transfer changes sign also appear to be reproducible from point to point. This pattern of energy transfer in velocity-space, denoted the *velocity-space signature*, provides a valuable tool for the identification of the physical mechanisms responsible for the removal of energy from turbulent fluctuations and consequent energization of particles. Further work is needed to determine how these velocity-space signatures change quantitatively as a function of the plasma parameters, in particular the plasma $\beta_p$, which controls where the wave phase velocities fall within the thermal distribution of particle velocities.
It is worthwhile to note that the different regions in velocity space of energy transfer for $E_\parallel$ and $E_\perp$ are partly enforced by the mathematical form of the correlations, Eqns. \[eq:cepar\] and \[eq:ceperp\]. For example, the presence of the $v_\parallel^2$ term in $C_{E_\parallel}$ dictates that the parallel energy transfer must drop to zero as $|v_\parallel|
\rightarrow 0$, and similarly the presence of the $v_{\perp 1}^2$ and $v_{\perp 2}^2$ factors in $C_{E_\perp}$ require that the perpendicular energy transfer drops to zero as $|v_\perp| \rightarrow
0$. Nonetheless, the mathematical forms of $C_{E_\parallel}$ and $C_{E_\perp}$ are simply the terms for the parallel and perpendicular energy transfer in the equation for the evolution of the phase-space energy density, Eqn. \[eqn:dws\]. Therefore, the results of the correlation can be interpreted directly in physical terms, where the unnormalized correlation is precisely the rate of change of phase-space energy density at each point in 3D-3V phase space. A key additional point to emphasize is that the change of sign of the energy transfer—such as that frequently found at the parallel resonant velocity in $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel,v_\perp)$—is *not* guaranteed by the mathematical form of the correlation. This feature is therefore indicative of the governing physical mechanism, suggesting that such features in the velocity-space signatures of different mechanisms can be used to identify the mechanisms dominating particle energization in both numerical simulations and single-point spacecraft observations.
Time Evolution of $C_{E_\perp}$ and $C_{E_\parallel}$ {#ssec:distinguish}
-----------------------------------------------------
The 2V gyrotropic velocity-space signatures presented in Figs. \[fig:vspacesig\]–\[fig:LD\_gyro\] provide valuable information about the energy transfer as a function of particle velocity but do not contain information about the variation of the energy transfer as a function of time. Timestack plots of the reduced perpendicular correlation $C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp,t) = \int d v_\perp
C_{E_\perp}(v_\parallel,v_\perp,t)$ and reduced parallel correlation $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel,t) = \int d v_\parallel
C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel,v_\perp,t)$ enable the energy transfer to be visualized as a function of time and the most relevant component of velocity space. The motivation of these particular reductions is the strong dependence of $C_{E_\perp}$ on $v_\perp$ and weak dependence on $v_\parallel$, as seen in Fig \[fig:CD\_gyro\]; similarly, $C_{E_\parallel}$ has a strong dependence on $v_\parallel$ and a weak dependence on $v_\perp$, as seen in Fig. \[fig:LD\_gyro\]. We have therefore not included plots of $C_{E_\perp}(v_\parallel)$ and $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\perp)$.
In Figs \[fig:reduced.A\] through \[fig:reduced.D\], we consider the same four spatial points highlighted earlier in Figs \[fig:CD\_gyro\] and \[fig:LD\_gyro\]. In each figure, columns (a) and (b) present timestack plots of $C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp,t;\tau=0)$ and $C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp,t;\tau\Omega_p=22.5)$. Plotted at the bottom of each column is the mean value averaged over the entire simulation time $T$, $\left< C_{E_\perp}(v_\perp, t,\tau)\right>_T$ (black), with the extent of the standard deviation about the mean (shaded). Columns (c) and (d) present the same for $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel,t;\tau=0)$ and $C_{E_\parallel}(v_\parallel,t;\tau\Omega_p=22.5)$. Column (e) presents velocity-integrated energy density transfer rates, $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_\parallel}$ (black) and $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\perp}$ (green) for $\tau=0$ (dashed) and $\tau\Omega_p=22.5$ (solid). Note that $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\parallel}$ is equal to the work done by the parallel electric field on the protons, $j_{\parallel,p} E_\parallel$, and $\partial_t\bar{w}_{E_\perp}$ is equal to the work done by the perpendicular electric field on the protons, ${\mathbf{j}}_{\perp,p} \cdot
{\mathbf{E}}_\perp$.
[fig8.pdf]{}
[fig9.pdf]{}
[fig10.pdf]{}
[fig11.pdf]{}
Several key points can be gleaned from the set of timestack plots in Figs \[fig:reduced.A\]–\[fig:reduced.D\]. First, in all cases, throughout the evolution of the simulation, the perpendicular energy transfer diagnosed by $C_{E_\perp} (v_\perp)$ falls primarily in the range $1 \le v_\perp/v_{tp} \le 3$ and the parallel energy transfer diagnosed by $C_{E_\parallel} (v_\parallel)$ falls primarily within the two ranges $ -3 \le v_\parallel/v_{tp} \le -0.5$ and $0.5 \le
|v_\parallel/v_{tp}| \le 3$, consistent with the findings of the 2V gyrotropic velocity space signatures in Sec. \[sec:quant\]. Second, as shown in the lower panels of columns (a) and (c) in the figures, the instantaneous energy transfer rate (the correlation with $\tau=0$) experiences a wide variation (shaded region) of $C_{E_\perp}
(v_\perp)$ and $C_{E_\parallel} (v_\parallel)$ in time, consistent with the idea of a significant *oscillating energy transfer* [@Howes:2017a]. This oscillating energy transfer largely averages out over sufficiently long correlation intervals, as shown in the lower panels of columns (b) and (d) for $\tau \Omega_p=22.5$, where the variation of the energy transfer rate is greatly diminished, as intended with the field-particle correlation method. This removal of the oscillating component can be seen clearly in the velocity-integrated spatial energy transfer rates $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\parallel}$ and $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_\perp}$ in column (e), where the amplitude of the energy transfer in the instantaneous case ($\tau=0$, dashed) is greatly reduced when a sufficiently long correlation interval is chosen ($\tau \Omega_p=22.5$, solid).
Third, for the two points, 35 and 11, at which there is little net energy transfer by the perpendicular electric field, we find two different behaviors. Although, as shown in panel (a) both cases display significant instantaneous transfers of energy at various points in velocity and time, the cancellation of these positive and negative transfers is different in the two cases: (i) at point 35, the energy transfer varies as a function of $v_\perp$, so that the velocity-integrated energy transfer remains small at all times; and (ii) at point 11, the velocity-integrated energy transfer is positive at early times and negative at late times, so that, when averaged over time (lower panel, column (a)), the net energy transfer is small.
Finally, considering all 64 spatial points diagnosed in the simulation (not shown), the fraction of the energy density transfer mediated by $E_\parallel$ compared to the total transfer rate, $|\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\parallel}|/|\partial_t \bar{w}_{E_\parallel}+\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\perp}|$, does vary somewhat as a function of spatial location ${\mathbf{r}}_0$. The mean and standard deviation of this parallel-to-total energy transfer ratio—averaged over the entire simulation time $T$ and over all 64 diagnosed points ${\mathbf{r}}_0$—is equal to $0.67\pm 0.24$, with no significant variation for different choices of $\tau$. This result indicates that both $E_\parallel$ and $E_\perp$ contribute to the energy transfer, though points where one component dominates over the other will be highlighted in the following sections.
Comparing Electric Field and Heat Flux contributions {#sec:heatflux}
====================================================
As shown by Eqn. \[eqn:dws\], the change of phase-space energy density at a given point in 3D-3V phase space $({\mathbf{r}},{\mathbf{v}})$ is the sum of changes due to each of the three terms on the right-hand side of the equation. The first term represents the advective heat flux, the second is the work done on the particles by the total electric field (the sum of work done by $E_\parallel$ and $E_\perp$), and the third is the work done by the magnetic field (which must be zero when integrated over velocity space). The field-particle correlation provides information about the work done by the electric field, but it is worthwhile to analyze how all of the terms lead to the net energy transfer to or from the protons at a single point in space.
To calculate the net rate of change of the spatial energy density at a single point ${\mathbf{r}}_0$ in time, $\partial_t\bar{w}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$, we may simply integrate Eqn. \[eqn:dws\] over all velocity space, identifying each of the different terms. Note that this equation must be satisfied instantaneously, so we do not time-average the correlations in this analysis. The total rate of change in the proton spatial energy density is given by $$\frac{\partial\bar{w}}{\partial t}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int d{\mathbf{v}}\frac{m v^2 f}{2}.$$ The instantaneous rate of work done by the parallel and perpendicular components of the electric field on the protons is simply given by Eqn. \[eqn:partialw\] with a correlation interval $\tau=0$. Note that $\tau=0$ will be implicitly assumed unless otherwise mentioned for all determinations of $\partial_t\bar{w}_{E_\parallel}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ and $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\perp}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ for the remainder of this section, and the total rate of work done by the electric field is given by $\partial_t \bar{w}_{E} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t) =
\partial_t\bar{w}_{E_\parallel}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t) + \partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\perp}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$. Following this procedure, the rate of change of the proton spatial energy density due to the magnetic field is given by $$\partial_t \bar{w}_{B} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)=\frac{q_s}{c} \int d{\mathbf{v}}
\frac{v^2}{2} \left(\mathbf{v} \times \mathbf{B}\right) \cdot
\frac{\partial f_s}{\partial \mathbf{v}}.
\label{eqn:partialB}$$ [As with the energy transfer rates calculated in Section \[sec:fpem\], all of the rates in this section are calculated in the time-averaged bulk-velocity frame for each spatial point in the simulation.]{} Note that integrating by parts in velocity of Eqn. \[eqn:partialB\] enables the integrand to be manipulated into the form $\mathbf{v} \cdot \left(\mathbf{v} \times
\mathbf{B}\right)f_s =0$, so the net work done by the magnetic field must equal zero, as expected. Nonetheless, evaluating Eqn. \[eqn:partialB\] with the numerical velocity derivatives provides a convenient means for estimating the accuracy of the integration and assessment of $\partial_{{\mathbf{v}}}f_s$.
Since the spatial gradients in the ballistic (advective) term in Eqn. \[eqn:dws\] are not available with only single-point measurements, we cannot directly evaluate this term. But, since we can determine all of the other terms in the equation [using single-point measurements,[^4]]{} we may obtain the contribution from the advective heat flux at point ${\mathbf{r}}_0$ by combining all of the other terms, $$\partial_t \bar{w}_{\textrm{Ball}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)=\partial_t \bar{w}
-\partial_t \bar{w}_{E} ({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)-\partial_t \bar{w}_{B}
({\mathbf{r}}_0,t).
\label{eqn:partialBall}$$
[fig12.pdf]{}
In Figure \[fig:stat\], we plot the time evolution of the contributions to the rate of change in the proton spatial energy density at spatial points (a) 40, (b) 8, (c) 35, and (d) 11: (i) total change in proton spatial energy density $\partial_t
\bar{w}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ (black); (ii) the ballistic (heat flux) contribution $\partial_t \bar{w}_{\textrm{Ball}}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$, (red); (iii) the total electric field contribution $\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ (blue); and (iv) the magnetic field contribution $\partial_t \bar{w}_{B}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t)$ (green). As expected the contribution from the magnetic field is nearly zero, providing a practical diagnostic for the accuracy of our velocity derivatives of the 3V distribution function at a given point, $f_p({\mathbf{r}}_0,{\mathbf{v}},t)$.
A salient, and somewhat unexpected, feature that stands out in the time series in panels (a)–(d) is the strong anti-correlation of the ballistic (red) and electric field (blue) terms. This anti-correlation can be quantified by plotting the mean value, over the entire simulation duration $T$, of the energy transfer due to these two terms, $\langle \partial_t \bar{w}_{\textrm{Ball}} \rangle_T$ and $\langle \partial_t \bar{w}_E\rangle_T$ against each other for each of the 64 spatial points, as shown in Figure \[fig:stat\](e) with error bars given by the standard deviations of the means. While the standard deviation of these energy transfer rates has a significant spread, the mean values are well described with a linear fit of $\partial_t \bar{w}_{\textrm{Ball}}=-1.005\partial_t
\bar{w}_{E}+0.004$, a nearly perfect anti-correlation.
One plausible interpretation of this finding is that, when energy is transferred to the protons by the electric field, the heat flux efficiently advects the energy away. Conversely, when energy is lost from the protons through energy transfer to the electric field, the heat flux causes a net energy flow to that point in space. In other words, energy is efficiently transported away from regions where ${\mathbf{j}}\cdot{\mathbf{E}}$ is positive, and toward regions where ${\mathbf{j}}\cdot{\mathbf{E}}$ is negative. The anti-correlation between $\partial_t \bar{w}_E$ and $\partial_t \bar{w}_{\textrm{Ball}}$ supports the general picture of two different recent energy transport models, described in [@Yang:2017] and [@Howes:2018a], where the electromagnetic work done on the particles is merely one step in a process of converting turbulent energy into plasma heat. It must be emphasized that, although locally the field-particle and advective terms nearly cancel out, only the field-particle term represents a net (integrated over configuration space volume) change in the particle energy, and thus represents particle energization. The ballistic term simply leads to a transport in configuration space of the energy gained by the particles when ${\mathbf{E}}$ does work.
The anti-correlation identified in Figure \[fig:stat\](e) does not establish cause and effect: is the change in spatial energy density driven by the work done by the electric field or by the heat flux? A detailed look at the time evolution of the heat flux and electric field terms over the time range $0 \le t \Omega_p \le 8$ in Figure \[fig:stat\](a) suggests that the work by the electric field is the primary driver of the energy evolution. Over the interval $0
\le t \Omega_p \le 3$, the electric field is energizing the protons (blue), and the rate of change of the spatial energy density is positive (black). At $t \Omega_p =3$, the rate of work done by the electric fields peaks and then begins to decline; at the same time, the rate of change spatial energy density swings to negative (black), suggesting that the removal of energy density by the heat flux (red) begins to dominate, advecting energy away from the diagnosed point. This evolution suggests that first the electric field energizes the protons locally, and subsequently the extra energy is carried away by advection.
Finally, in Figure \[fig:stat\](f), we plot the time-averaged rate of work done by the parallel electric field $\langle
\partial_t\bar{w}_{E_\parallel}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau\Omega_p=22.5)\rangle_T$ and perpendicular electric field $\langle \partial_t
\bar{w}_{E_\perp}({\mathbf{r}}_0,t,\tau\Omega_p=22.5) \rangle_T $ against one another, with error bars from the standard deviations. We find that the statistical correlation between parallel and perpendicular energization is fairly weak, with a mean and standard deviation of $0.15 \pm 0.53$, indicating that the energy transfer due to $E_\parallel$ and $E_\perp$ are not strongly correlated.
In summary, the unexpectedly clear anti-correlation found here between the heat flux and electric field terms motivates a more detailed investigation of their time evolution, with an aim to identify cause and effect, rather than just anti-correlation. Consideration of the contribution of the heat flux to the rate of change of the spatial energy density, especially in systems with significant spatial inhomogeneities, will be essential for fully characterizing the entire chain of energy transport from turbulent plasma flows and electromagnetic fields to plasma heat.
Conclusions {#sec:conclude}
===========
We present in this work the first application of the field-particle correlation technique to a system of [Alfvén ]{}Ion-Cyclotron turbulence, using electromagnetic field and proton distribution data drawn from an `HVM` numerical simulation of kinetic protons and fluid electrons. Unlike previous tests of the field-particle correlation technique using gyrokinetic simulations of strong plasma turbulence that prohibit the possibility of ion cyclotron damping [@Klein:2017b], the use of a hybrid code enables collisionless energy transfer to the protons via both the Landau and cyclotron resonances. An isotropic simulation domain over a range of wavevectors spanning ion kinetic scale lengths was chosen here to allow proton energization by both Landau damping and cyclotron damping. [This simulation domain is not necessarily representative of solar wind turbulence, which is typically found to have more significant wavevector anisotropies.]{}
The first key finding of this study is that we have provided the first numerical determination of the characteristic velocity-space signature of proton cyclotron damping in a strong turbulence simulation using the field-particle correlation technique, shown in Fig. \[fig:vspacesig\](a). The region of velocity space controlling the energy transfer—$1 \le v_\perp/v_{tp} \le 3$ and $-2 \le
v_\parallel/v_{tp} \le 2$—is largely consistent with the formation of a cyclotron diffusion plateau, of the kind observed in *in situ* solar wind measurements, *e.g.* [@He:2015]. The velocity region of energization is inconsistent with the predictions of stochastic heating by low-frequency [Alfvénic ]{}turbulence [@Chandran:2010a], which is predicted to preferentially heat particles with $v_\perp/v_{tp} \lesssim 1$ [@Klein:2016a].
Our study also confirmed the characteristic bipolar velocity-space signature of Landau damping with an independent numerical code, confirming previous determinations in single kinetic [Alfvén ]{}wave simulations [@Howes:2017b; @Klein:2017b], gyrokinetic simulations of strong plasma turbulence [@Klein:2017b], and observations of the Earth’s turbulent magnetosheath [@Chen:2019]. The determination of the velocity-space signatures of both cyclotron damping and Landau damping acting simultaneously at the same point clearly demonstrates a second key result: the field-particle correlation method can successfully employ single-point measurements to distinguish distinct mechanisms of energy transfer occurring at the same point in space. Note that, although a simple decomposition of the components of ${\mathbf{j}}\cdot{\mathbf{E}}$ can separate the perpendicular and parallel contributions, the velocity-space signatures generated by the field-particle correlation technique provide a practical means to identify definitively the physical mechanisms that are responsible, even when multiple channels of energization are occurring simultaneously.
This study also quantitatively characterized the variations of the velocity-space signatures of proton cyclotron damping and Landau damping at different points in space and time, finding that the pattern of energy transfer in velocity space generally persists, although the signs of the energy transfer can switch since collisionless wave-particle interactions are reversible, sometimes leading to energy transfer from the particles to the electric field.
An unexpected finding here is a strong anti-correlation of the rate of change of spatial energy density at a single point between the ballistic (advective heat flux) and electric field terms. Preliminary indications suggest that, first, the electric field energizes the protons locally, and subsequently the extra energy is carried away by advection, but a more detailed investigation of the time evolution of these physical mechanisms that change the local spatial energy density is required to confirm this hypothesis.
Further work is needed to explore the variation of the velocity-space signatures of different particle energization mechanisms with changes in the plasma parameters (*e.g.*, $\beta_p$ and $T_p/T_e$) and the characteristics of the turbulence (*e.g.*, nonlinear parameter $\chi$ and anisotropy of turbulence in wavevector space). Ultimately, we aim to develop a framework of characteristic velocity-space signatures of different proposed particle energization mechanisms using the field-particle correlation technique, which unlike other methods for studying plasma heating and particle energization that require measurements of spatial gradients (*e.g.* [@Yang:2017]) is designed to be implemented using only single-point measurements. This framework can then be used to interpret the results of the field-particle correlation analysis of single-point particle velocity distribution and electromagnetic field measurements from current and future spacecraft missions, such as *Magnetospheric MultiScale* and *Parker Solar Probe*. The ultimate goal is to identify the dominant mechanisms of particle energization and compute the resulting rates of particle energization due to the damping of turbulence in key regions of the heliosphere—the solar corona, solar wind, and planetary magnetospheres.
The authors would like to thank Chris Chen, Justin Kasper, Matt Kunz, and Lev Arzamasskiy for helpful discussions during the execution of this project. K.G.K. was supported by NASA grants 80NSSC19K1390 and 80NSSC19K0912. J.M.T. was supported by NSF SHINE award AGS-1622306, and G.G.H. was supported by NASA grants HSR 80NSSC18K1217, HGI 80NSSC18K0643, and MMSGI 80NSSC18K1371. F.V. has been partially supported by the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana under the contract No. ASI-INAF 2015-0390R.O Numerical simulations have been performed on the supercomputer MARCONI at CINECA, Italy.
[Single-Point Mode Identification]{} {#app:modes}
====================================
In this paper, we present the velocity-space signature of ion cyclotron damping using the field-particle correlation technique, illustrated in Fig 4 (a). To establish that this is indeed due to the ion cyclotron resonance, we show here that the simulation of turbulence indeed contains ion cyclotron waves that are expected to damp collisionlessly via the ion cyclotron resonance.
A common method to diagnose the nature of simulated turbulence is to calculate power as a function of both frequency and length scale, and compare the result to linear predictions, producing so-called $\omega-k$ diagrams. Such diagrams are not necessarily a reliable way to identify wave modes in strong plasma turbulence. For example, in Fig 5 of [@TenBarge:2012a], a plot of $\omega$ vs. $k_\perp$ for strong KAW turbulence shows significant broadening, which is interpreted to be due to the strong nonlinear energy transfer among modes, and is not directly comparable to the typical linear $\omega({\mathbf{k}})$ dispersion relations.
To identify the nature of the turbulence simulated in this work using the single-point time series presented in the main text, we consider the relations among different components of the turbulent fluctuations and compare to the predicted eigenfunctions for different wave modes from linear kinetic theory. The practice of calculating these relations, including various helicities, polarizations and other transport ratios [@Gary:1986; @Gary:1992; @Gary:1993; @Song:1994; @Krauss-Varban:1994], has a long history of application to in situ observations of both the magnetosphere [@Lacombe:1995; @Denton:1995; @Schwartz:1996; @Zhu:2019] and solar wind [@He:2011a; @Salem:2012; @TenBarge:2012b; @Chen:2013a; @Roberts:2013; @Klein:2014a; @Verscharen:2017; @Wu:2019]; see [@Klein:Thesis:2013] for a more exhaustive review.
[fig13.pdf]{}
Two particularly useful measures to distinguish between the normal modes accessible to the region of wavevector space simulated in this work, namely ion cyclotron (ICW) and kinetic Alfvén (KAW) waves on the Alfvén dispersion surface, and whistlers on the fast dispersion surface, are the circular polarization of the electric field about the magnetic field, $$\textrm{Pol}_{E_{xy}}=\frac{i(E_xE_y^*-E_x^*E_y)}{|E_x||E_y|}
\label{eq:Epol}$$ and the density-magnetic field correlation [@Howes:2012a; @Klein:2012], $$\left<\delta n, \delta B_\parallel\right> =\frac{
\left(\delta n^* \delta B_\parallel+\delta n \delta B_\parallel^* \right)}
{|\delta n||\delta B_\parallel|}
\label{eq:CnB},$$ where $\delta {\mathbf{E}}$, $\delta {\mathbf{B}}$, and $\delta n$ are complex-valued Fourier coefficientss. These two eigenfunction relations, along with the normal mode frequencies $\omega/\Omega_p$, for the [Alfvén ]{}and fast dispersion surfaces are plotted in Fig. \[fig:freq\_one\].
The electric field polarization changes sign between the parallel and perpendicular kinetic extensions of the [Alfvén ]{}solution, from left-handed ICWs to right-handed KAWs. The fast modes are nearly uniformly right-handed over this wavevector regime. Density and magnetic field fluctuations are strongly anti-correlated for oblique [Alfvén ]{}solutions, weakly correlated for parallel [Alfvén ]{}solutions, and strongly correlated for all fast mode solutions.
[fig14.pdf]{}
These two eigenfunction relations can be used to identify the presence of ICWs in our turbulent simulation using only single-point time series of measurements, similar to what is measurable with spacecraft missions. At each of the four spatial points examined in the main text, we Fourier transform in time to obtain the complex Fourier coefficients (as a function of frequency) for $E_x$, $E_y$, $\delta
n$, and $\delta B_\parallel$. From these complex Fourier coefficients, we compute the circular polarization using and the density-magnetic field correlation using as a function of normalized angular frequency $\omega/\Omega_p$ (solid lines in Fig. \[fig:pol\_one\]).
To compare to the predicted variation of these eigenfunction relations for the waves from linear kinetic theory, we compute the values Pol$_{E_{xy}}$ and $\left<\delta n, \delta B_\parallel\right>$ along particular trajectories through $(k_\perp,k_\parallel)$ wavevector space, indicated in Fig. \[fig:freq\_one\] by the gray arrows [^5]. For example, the “parallel” path (vertical gray arrow) transitions from the regime of [Alfvén ]{}waves to the regime of ICWs, whereas the “perpendicular” path (horizontal gray arrow) transitions from the regime of [Alfvén ]{}waves to the regime of KAWs. These predicted theoretical values are plotted in Fig. \[fig:pol\_one\] as dashed lines.
Examining first Pol$_{E_{xy}}$ in Fig. \[fig:pol\_one\], at the lowest frequencies $\omega/\Omega_p \le 0.4$ (which correspond only to the [Alfvén ]{}solutions, as all of the fast wave modes have higher frequencies $\omega/\Omega_p \ge 0.4$), we find Pol$_{E_{xy}}<0$ for three of the four spatial points. The only region for the [Alfvén ]{}or fast solutions that has Pol$_{E_{xy}}<0$ is the ICW regime, so we can conclude that, at those three points, there exists a significant contribution of ICW fluctuations. At $\omega/\Omega_p > 0.4$, we find Pol$_{E_{xy}} \ge 0$ at all four points, suggesting that the fluctuations at these frequencies are either KAWs or any of the fast mode fluctuations.
Turning next to $\left<\delta n, \delta B_\parallel\right>$ in Fig. \[fig:pol\_one\], again at the lowest frequencies $\omega/\Omega_p \le 0.4$ we find a $\left<\delta n, \delta
B_\parallel\right> > 0$, agreeing well with the prediction for ICWs (light blue, dashed line). Shifting to the frequency range $0.4 \le
\omega/\Omega_p \le 0.9$, we find $\left<\delta n, \delta
B_\parallel\right> < 0$ for three of the four spatial points. Since only the KAW regime has $\left<\delta n, \delta B_\parallel\right> <
0$, we conclude that a substantial fraction of the fluctuations in this frequency range are KAWs.
In conclusion, at the lowest frequencies $\omega/\Omega_p \le 0.4$, the combination of Pol$_{E_{xy}}<0$ and $\left<\delta n, \delta
B_\parallel\right> > 0$ provides strong evidence that we indeed observe ICWs in our turbulence simulation. Furthermore, looking at magnetic and electric frequency power spectra in Fig. \[fig:spectra\], there is significant power at these low frequencies, so we expect that ion cyclotron damping may indeed play a key role in the removal of energy from the turbulent fluctuations in the simulation. In addition, in the frequency range $0.4 \le
\omega/\Omega_p \le 0.9$, the combination of Pol$_{E_{xy}}>0$ and $\left<\delta n, \delta B_\parallel\right> < 0$ provides strong evidence for the presence of KAWs in the turbulence simulation. Therefore, we may expect to see signatures of ion Landau damping in our simulation.
[77]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
2019 [Hybrid-kinetic Simulations of Ion Heating in Alfv[é]{}nic Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**879**]{} (1), 53.
1966 [Collisionless Damping of Hydromagnetic Waves]{}. [ *Phys. Fluids*]{} [**9**]{}, 1483–1495.
1958 [Heating of a Confined Plasma by Oscillating Electromagnetic Fields]{}. [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**1**]{}, 301–307.
2016 [Subproton-scale Cascades in Solar Wind Turbulence: Driven Hybrid-kinetic Simulations]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**822**]{}, L12.
2010 [Alfv[é]{}n-wave Turbulence and Perpendicular Ion Temperatures in Coronal Holes]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**720**]{}, 548–554.
2010 [Perpendicular Ion Heating by Low-frequency Alfv[é]{}n-wave Turbulence in the Solar Wind]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [ **720**]{}, 503–515.
2016 [Recent progress in astrophysical plasma turbulence from solar wind observations]{}. [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**82**]{}, 535820602.
2013 [Nature of Subproton Scale Turbulence in the Solar Wind]{}. [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**110**]{} (22), 225002.
2019 Evidence for electron landau damping in space plasma turbulence. [*Nature Communications*]{} [ **10**]{} (1), 740.
2001 [On resonant heating below the cyclotron frequency]{}. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**8**]{}, 4713–4716.
1995 [Low-frequency fluctuations in the magnetosheath near the magnetopause]{}. [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{} [**100**]{}, 5665–5679.
2004 [Test Particle Energization by Current Sheets and Nonuniform Fields in Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**617**]{}, 667–679.
1986 Low-frequency waves in a high-beta collisionless plasma: polarization, compressibility and helicity. [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**35**]{} (03), 431–447.
1993 [*[Theory of Space Plasma Microinstabilities]{}*]{}.
1992 [Correlation function ratios and the identification of space plasma instabilities]{}. [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{} [ **97**]{}, 3103–3111.
2018 [Fully Kinetic Simulation of 3D Kinetic Alfv[é]{}n Turbulence]{}. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**120**]{}, 105101.
2011 [Possible Evidence of Alfv[é]{}n-cyclotron Waves in the Angle Distribution of Magnetic Helicity of Solar Wind Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**731**]{}, 85.
2015 [Evidence of Landau and Cyclotron Resonance between Protons and Kinetic Waves in Solar Wind Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**800**]{}, L31.
2016 [The Dynamical Generation of Current Sheets in Astrophysical Plasma Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, L28.
2017 [A prospectus on kinetic heliophysics]{}. [ *Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**24**]{} (5), 055907.
2012 [The Slow-mode Nature of Compressible Wave Power in Solar Wind Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**753**]{}, L19.
2006 [Astrophysical Gyrokinetics: Basic Equations and Linear Theory]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**651**]{}, 590–614.
2008 [Kinetic Simulations of Magnetized Turbulence in Astrophysical Plasmas]{}. [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} (6), 065004.
2017 Diagnosing collisionless energy transfer using field–particle correlations: Vlasov-poisson plasmas. [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**83**]{} (1).
2014 [Validity of the Taylor Hypothesis for Linear Kinetic Waves in the Weakly Collisional Solar Wind]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**789**]{}, 106.
2018 Spatially localized particle energization by landau damping in current sheets produced by strong alfvén wave collisions. [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [ **84**]{} (1), 905840105.
2013 [Alfv[é]{}n wave collisions, the fundamental building block of plasma turbulence. I. Asymptotic solution]{}. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**20**]{}, 072302.
2007 [Preferential Perpendicular Heating of Coronal Hole Minor Ions by the Fermi Mechanism]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**668**]{} (1), 546–556.
2001 [Stochastic ion heating at the magnetopause due to kinetic Alfv[é]{}n waves]{}. [*Geophys. Res. Lett.*]{} [**28**]{}, 4421–4424.
2013 [Coherent structures, intermittent turbulence, and dissipation in high-temperature plasmas]{}. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**20**]{} (1), 012303.
1966 [Velocity Space Diffusion from Weak Plasma Turbulence in a Magnetic Field]{}. [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**9**]{}, 2377–2388.
2013 [The kinetic plasma physics of solar wind turbulence]{}. PhD thesis, The University of Iowa.
2017 [Characterizing fluid and kinetic instabilities using field-particle correlations on single-point time series]{}. [ *Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**24**]{} (5), 055901.
2019 [\[Plasma 2020 Decadal\] Multipoint Measurements of the Solar Wind: A Proposed Advance for Studying Magnetized Turbulence]{}. [*arXiv e-prints*]{} p. arXiv:1903.05740.
2016 [Evolution of The Proton Velocity Distribution due to Stochastic Heating in the Near-Sun Solar Wind]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**820**]{}, 47.
2015 [Predicted impacts of proton temperature anisotropy on solar wind turbulence]{}. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [ **22**]{} (3), 032903.
2016 Measuring collisionless damping in heliospheric plasmas using field–particle correlations. [ *Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**826**]{} (2), L30.
2017 [Diagnosing collisionless energy transfer using field-particle correlations: gyrokinetic turbulence]{}. [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**83**]{} (4), 535830401.
2012 [Using Synthetic Spacecraft Data to Interpret Compressible Fluctuations in Solar Wind Turbulence]{}. [ *Astrophys. J.*]{} [**755**]{}, 159.
2014 [Physical Interpretation of the Angle Dependent Magnetic Helicity Spectrum in the Slow Wind: The Nature of Turbulent Fluctuations near the Proton Gyroradius Scale]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**785**]{}, 138.
1994 [Mode properties of low-frequency waves: Kinetic theory versus Hall-MHD]{}. [ *J. Geophys. Res.*]{} [**99**]{}, 5987–6009.
2018 [Astrophysical gyrokinetics: turbulence in pressure-anisotropic plasmas at ion scales and beyond]{}. [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**84**]{}, 715840201.
2015 [Inertial-range kinetic turbulence in pressure-anisotropic astrophysical plasmas]{}. [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [ **81**]{} (5), 325810501.
1995 [Waves in the Earth’s magnetosheath: Observations and interpretations]{}. [*Advances in Space Research*]{} [ **15**]{}, 329–340.
1946 [On the vibrations of the electronic plasma]{}. [*J. Phys.(USSR)*]{} [**10**]{}, 25–34, \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.16,574(1946)\].
2017 [Magnetic Pumping as a Source of Particle Heating and Power-law Distributions in the Solar Wind]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**850**]{}, L28.
2015 [Refined critical balance in strong Alfv[é]{}nic turbulence]{}. [ *Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**449**]{}, L77–L81.
2001 [Evidence for pitch angle diffusion of solar wind protons in resonance with cyclotron waves]{}. [ *J. Geophys. Res.*]{} [**106**]{}, 8357–8362.
1980 [Selective decay hypothesis at high mechanical and magnetic Reynolds numbers]{}. [*Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences*]{} [**357**]{}, 203–222.
2011 [Who Needs Turbulence?. A Review of Turbulence Effects in the Heliosphere and on the Fundamental Process of Reconnection]{}. [*Space Sci. Rev.*]{} [**160**]{}, 145–168.
1987 [Observation of fast stochastic ion heating by drift waves]{}. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **59**]{}, 1436–1439.
1981 [Helical and nonhelical turbulent dynamos]{}. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**47**]{}, 1060–1064.
2016 [Structure of Plasma Heating in Gyrokinetic Alfv[é]{}nic Turbulence]{}. [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**117**]{}, 245101.
2014 [Anisotropic Intermittency of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**783**]{}, L27.
2014 [Magnetic Reconnection and Intermittent Turbulence in the Solar Wind]{}. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**112**]{} (21), 215002.
2011 [Evidence for Inhomogeneous Heating in the Solar Wind]{}. [ *Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**727**]{}, L11.
1998 [Particle Heating by Alfvenic Turbulence in Hot Accretion Flows]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**500**]{}, 978.
2015 [A Statistical Study of the Solar Wind Turbulence at Ion Kinetic Scales Using the k-filtering Technique and Cluster Data]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**802**]{}, 2.
2013 [Kinetic Plasma Turbulence in the Fast Solar Wind Measured by Cluster]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**769**]{}, 58.
2010 [Three Dimensional Anisotropic k Spectra of Turbulence at Subproton Scales in the Solar Wind]{}. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**105**]{} (13), 131101.
2012 [Identification of Kinetic Alfv[é]{}n Wave Turbulence in the Solar Wind]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} [**745**]{}, L9.
2009 [Astrophysical Gyrokinetics: Kinetic and Fluid Turbulent Cascades in Magnetized Weakly Collisional Plasmas]{}. [*Astrophys. J. Supp.*]{} [**182**]{}, 310–377.
1996 [Low-frequency waves in the Earth[ś]{} magnetosheath: present status]{}. [*Ann. Geophys.*]{} [**14**]{}, 1134–1150.
2011 [Statistical association of discontinuities and reconnection in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence]{}. [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{} [**116**]{}, A09102.
1994 [Identification of low-frequency fluctuations in the terrestrial magnetosheath]{}. [ *J. Geophys. Res.*]{} [**99**]{}, 6011–6025.
1992 [*[Waves in plasmas]{}*]{}. American Institute of Physics.
1938 [The Spectrum of Turbulence]{}. [*Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A*]{} [**164**]{}, 476–490.
2012 [Evidence of critical balance in kinetic Alfv[é]{}n wave turbulence simulations]{}. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [ **19**]{} (5), 055901.
2012 [Interpreting Magnetic Variance Anisotropy Measurements in the Solar Wind]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**753**]{}, 107.
2010 [Structures in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence: Detection and scaling]{}. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**82**]{} (5), 056326.
2007 [A hybrid-Vlasov model based on the current advance method for the simulation of collisionless magnetized plasma]{}. [*J. Comp. Phys.*]{} [**225**]{}, 753–770.
2017 [On Kinetic Slow Modes, Fluid Slow Modes, and Pressure-balanced Structures in the Solar Wind]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**840**]{} (2), 106.
2019 [The Fluid-like and Kinetic Behavior of Kinetic Alfv[é]{}n Turbulence in Space Plasma]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**870**]{} (2), 106.
2017 [Energy transfer, pressure tensor, and heating of kinetic plasma]{}. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**24**]{}, 072306.
2015 [Temporal Intermittency of Energy Dissipation in Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence]{}. [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**114**]{} (6), 065002.
2013 [Statistical Analysis of Current Sheets in Three-dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**771**]{}, 124.
2019 [Composition of Wave Modes in Magnetosheath Turbulence from Sub-ion to Sub-electron Scales]{}. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**878**]{} (1), 48.
[^1]: The white triangle for $k_\perp \rho_p > k_\parallel \rho_p > 1$ represents the wavevector region where the [Alfvén ]{}mode is non-propagating with $\omega=0$, causing Eqn. \[eqn:power\] to be invalid.
[^2]: [The region where $\gamma_p>\omega$, and thus linear theory is formally invalid for the Alfvén solution, is shaded in grey.]{}
[^3]: We leave to a later work a discussion of the effects of different choices of mean velocity distributions $F_{0,s}$.
[^4]: [As discussed in Section 7.1 of [@Howes:2017a], whether our measurement of the plasma occurs at a single point, or along a single trajectory, it is sufficient for the correlation to be averaged over an interval longer than $2\pi$ of the phase of the wave, $\phi=\mathbf{k}
\cdot \mathbf{v} - \omega t$, in order to resolve the nature of the secular transfer of energy.]{}
[^5]: Note that the values of Pol$_{E_{xy}}$ from the second row and $\left<\delta n, \delta B_\parallel\right>$ from the third row are plotted against the corresponding frequency $\omega/\Omega_p$ from the first row.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper discusses the need for individualizing safety systems and proposes an approach including the Real-Time estimation of the distribution of brake response times for an individual driver. While maintaining high level of safety, the collision warning system should send “tailored” responses to the driver. This method could be the first step to show that safety applications would potentially benefit from customizing to individual drivers’ characteristics using VANET. Our simulation results show that, as one of the imminent and preliminary outcomes of the new improved system, the number of false alarms will be reduced by more than $40\%$. We think this tactic can reach to even beyond the safety applications for designing the future innovative systems.'
author:
- 'Ali Rakhshan, Evan Ray and Hossein Pishro-Nik, .[^1][^2][^3]'
title: A New Approach to Customization of Collision Warning Systems to Individual Drivers
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for Journals]{}
Intelligent Transportation Systems, VANET, Perception-Reaction (P-R) time, Collision avoidance, Safety.
Introduction[^4]
================
Despite the increases in safety introduced into the automobile, at latest count (2010) the number of deaths is over 30,000, the number of injuries is over two million, and the number of crashes is over ten million [@USDoT:TrafficFatalities]. Some of these accidents could have been prevented or reduced in severity if the drivers involved had been warned in time to slow down or steer away to avoid the accident. To address this problem, collision warning systems hold great promise, Fig. \[fig:system\]. The true potential of the various classes of warning systems to reduce crashes is seriously compromised by three interrelated factors:
- The algorithms used to trigger a warning are largely ineffective when they are not adapted to the individual driver and vehicles involved directly in a crash.
- Warning algorithms have relied for the most part on the behavior of threat vehicles immediately ahead and to the side.
- The driver often fails to trust the warning even when it is issued in time to avoid a crash.
![General Scheme: Collision Warning Systems[]{data-label="fig:system"}](First_figure.pdf){width="2.5in"}
Radical improvement in the effectiveness of collision warning systems are now possible due to the progress that is being made in vehicular ad hoc networks (VANET). Vehicular ad hoc networks potentially allow all vehicles to communicate with each other (V2V or vehicle to vehicle communication) and with technologies embedded in the infrastructure that transmit crash relevant information (V2I or vehicle to infrastructure communication). The effectiveness of warnings depends on how much time the driver needs to react. Therefore, to be as effective as possible, accident warning systems should be tailored to the specific characteristics of the driver. He or she could be vigilant or distracted; could perceive and react soon to an event or might have a longer perception-reaction time; could be aggressive in acceleration/deceleration or could be smoother in those. An important aspect of the specific characteristics of the driver is the distribution of brake response times (BRT) for each particular driver. The BRT is the time elapsed between a stimulus such as a lead car braking or traffic signal changing color and a braking response by the driver. Since existing collision warning algorithms don’t use the BRT distribution of individuals, drivers with different BRT in the same scenario receive the same warnings. Clearly, this approach isn’t optimal for design of safety systems. The most important contributions of this paper are:
1. Proposing a method for Real-Time estimation of the distribution of brake response times for an individual driver using data from a VANET system which has information about the positions, velocities, and accelerations of cars on the roads, road configurations, and the status and position of traffic signals.
2. Using the estimated distribution to customize warning algorithms to an individual driver’s characteristics.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[section:Related Work\] we review the relevant literature formally defining the BRT and related quantities, discussing factors that affect drivers’ BRTs, and outlining several methods that have been proposed to estimate a driver’s BRT. Section \[rtest\] and \[estimation\] outline methods that can be used to estimate BRTs and what the distribution of a driver’s BRTs would be if he or she did not intentionally delay braking, respectively. Our concluding remarks are discussed in section \[conc\].
Related Work {#section:Related Work}
============
Basic Ideas: Perception-Reaction Times and Brake Response Times
---------------------------------------------------------------
The time required to respond to a stimulus can be divided into several distinct phases. One such division is given by Koppa [@Koppa:HumanFactors]. He defines the perception time as the amount of time it takes for an individual to recognize that an event has occurred. The reaction time is then the time elapsed from detection of a stimulus to the start of a response. The response time includes the reaction time as well as the time required to complete the response. The perception-reaction time or brake reaction time is the time required to perceive and initiate a reaction to the stimulus. These divisions are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:KoppaPRTIllustration\].
There is some ambiguity in this definition of the reaction and response times in that we must specify what is meant by the response. Commonly in driving studies, the response is operationally defined to be the act of braking [@Green:HowLongToStop]. This operational definition is convenient because it is relatively easy to measure when the brakes have been applied. However, a difficulty with this definition is that a driver may intentionally delay braking, for instance if there is a large space between the driver and a traffic signal or leading car. This means that measured response times may be larger than the drivers’ “true” response times [@GohWong:DriverPRTDuringSignalChange], [@Rakha:DriBeh-conf]. This delay is illustrated in the data plot reproduced in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\], which is taken from an article by Goh and Wong [@GohWong:DriverPRTDuringSignalChange]. We have rotated the plot to clarify that we view time headway as the independent variable and response time as the dependent variable. In this plot, the horizontal axis shows the driver’s time headway to a traffic signal at the time it turned from green to yellow and the vertical axis shows the measured brake reaction time for drivers who braked (or the actual time to pass the signal for those drivers who ran the light). We see that when the driver is a larger distance from the traffic signal, their measured brake response time is larger – likely because they chose to delay braking.
In this paper we define the potential brake response time (PBRT) as the time that a driver could have braked in if he or she did not choose to delay braking, which is the relevant quantity for the purposes of an accident warning system. We will use the term “brake response time” (BRT) to refer to the observed quantity, the time elapsed between a stimulus such as a traffic signal color change and when the driver applies pressure to the brake pedal. These definitions are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:OurPRTIllustration\]. The estimation of BRT and PBRT both present technical difficulties. We review methods that have been proposed to estimate these quantities by previous researchers in the next two subsections.
Virtually every study to examine reaction times has found that the population distribution of reaction times is skewed right and several have shown that it is well approximated by a lognormal distribution [@Koppa:HumanFactors], [@Green:HowLongToStop], [@GohWong:DriverPRTDuringSignalChange], [@MaxwellWood:ReviewTrafficSignal], [@WortmanMatthias:EvalDriverBehavior], [@ZhangBham:EstDriverRT], [@Rakha:DriBeh]. A close examination of the plot in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\] above indicates that the distribution of BRTs is also skewed right at a fixed value of time headway. We will make use of this observation later in our data analysis.
Estimation of Brake Response Time from Car-Following Data {#litrev:BRTEst}
---------------------------------------------------------
Several previous studies have examined how BRT can be estimated from car-following data automatically. Here we review several of these methods, focusing in particular on the effectiveness of these algorithms for obtaining an accurate estimate of the BRTs to several distinct events and on the feasibility of implementing them with the limited computational resources available in an on-board computer system in a car.
The main ideas we build on in this paper were proposed by Zhang and Bham [@ZhangBham:EstDriverRT]. Their method is based on intuitive reasoning about the relationships between the distances, speeds, and accelerations of two cars when the following car reacts to an action taken by the lead car. The starting point in their algorithm is to identify two cars which go for a period of at least 4 seconds in which they are separated by less than or equal to 250 feet and their speeds are within 5 ft/s, or 1.52 m/s. These cars are said to be in a *steady state*. They then observe a time A when the the distance between the cars decreases or increases while the follower has an acceleration rate of $\leq 0.5 \text{ft/s}^2$. This change in distance between the cars is caused by acceleration or deceleration of the leader. Next they find the time B when the follower decelerates or accelerates at a rate $> 0.5 \text{ft/s}^2$. The difference between times A and B is then an estimate of the follower’s BRT. The advantages of this method are that it is intuitively reasonable, relatively easy to implement, and it yields reasonable reaction time estimates. However, the requirement that the cars be in steady state is restrictive. To obtain more information about drivers’ reaction times, it would be helpful to extend this approach to estimate reaction times in other situations than the steady state.
Another method for BRT estimation was proposed by Ma and Andréasson and is based on techniques designed to find the lag between two linearly related time series [@MaAndreasson:ReactionDelayEst]. The inputs to this technique are two time series $\{x_t\}$ and $\{y_t\}$– one which represents a stimulus, such as the difference in speed between the two cars, and another which captures the response of the follower, such as that car’s acceleration. The basic idea of the method is to examine the covariance between the time series in the frequency domain, as measured by the coherency. There are two major limitations to this approach that make it inappropriate for our purposes. First, the coherency measures linear association between the two time series. If acceleration is not a linear function of the difference in speeds between the cars, this approach may not measure the lag between the time series appropriately. Second, this method does not allow us to estimate separate BRTs to separate events in a natural way. Instead it views the entire output time series as being a linear function of the entire input time series and estimates an overall time delay. To estimate separate BRTs in order to build up a distribution of response times, we would have to manually divide the time series into shorter pieces corresponding to each reaction event.
A third approach was taken by Ahmed, who specified a reaction time distribution as part of a larger model of car-following behavior, and estimated all parameters of this model jointly through maximum likelihood techniques [@Ahmed:ModelingDrivers]. However, the maximum likelihood estimates had to be obtained numerically, which is computationally intensive due to the complexity of the model. Therefore, this method would not be practical to implement in an accident warning system where the BRT distribution must be obtained with limited computing resources. Furthermore, one of the desired requirements for the warning systems is to use the individual perception reaction time data online. In other words, the model needs to become more accurate as more information becomes available from VANET system. However, based on most of the current methods we cannot update the algorithm in Real-Time.
Estimation of Potential Brake Response Times from Observed Brake Response Times {#litrev:PRTEst}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three previous studies have addressed the problem of estimating the distribution of “true” reaction times based on observed brake response times. All of these studies examined this problem in the context of traffic signals, and focused on estimation of population distributions, rather than distributions of response times for a particular individual.
Maxwell and Wood simply used the mode response time as a point estimate for the average brake response time in a population, arguing that this measure would be less sensitive to large reaction times that include a delay [@MaxwellWood:ReviewTrafficSignal]. Goh and Wong take a more sophisticated approach [@GohWong:DriverPRTDuringSignalChange]. They define a transitional zone (TZ) based on the time headway between the driver and the traffic signal at the time that it changes to yellow. This TZ is “an empirically calibrated range of time headways suitable for identifying drivers with realistic stop-or-cross decisions" [@GohWong:DriverPRTDuringSignalChange]. Essentially, to estimate response times they limit the sample to those cars with a time headway of $\leq$ 4 seconds. Nearly all cars that chose not to stop at the light were within the 4-second threshold; thus, this threshold includes cars with a “real” choice between stopping and continuing on. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\] above.
This analysis does suffer from some limitations. First, by restricting the sample to those cars within the TZ, they lose the information contained in those other data points. This is a particularly critical problem in our application, where we wish to learn about response times for a particular driver. We may not have the chance to observe response times very frequently for a single driver; it would therefore be helpful to be able to use all observed data points rather than just those with a time headway of 4 seconds or less. Second, although the relationship between time headway and BRT is reduced when the sample is restricted to cars with time headway of $\leq$ 4 seconds, a relationship can still be seen in the plot in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\]. This suggests that some of the measured response times may still include a delay even within the TZ. In this paper, we pursue the idea that there is a significant relationship between BRT and these other variables, since multiple studies have supported this claim.
Proposed Method for Brake Response Time Estimation {#rtest}
==================================================
For the purposes of the accident warning system, we wish to learn about the distribution of response times for an individual when the car in front of them brakes. As discussed in section \[litrev:BRTEst\], Zhang and Bham have proposed an effective method for estimating BRT when the cars are in steady state. However, this situation may be relatively rare in real-life driving situations, so that we may not make many observations of the BRT for an individual driver under this setting. Therefore, in practice it could be difficult to learn about the distribution of response times using only the method proposed by Zhang and Bham. Our proposed approach is to establish relationships between the distributions of reaction times under different circumstances. This will allow us to use measures of a driver’s response times under a variety of circumstances to estimate the distribution of an individual’s response times when the car in front of them brakes.
We will attempt to measure brake response times in three settings:
1. The cars are in steady state and the leader brakes.
2. The cars are not in steady state, the follower is driving faster than the leader, and the leader brakes.
3. The car approaches a traffic signal which changes from green to yellow.
In this section we discuss specific ideas for reaction time estimation in each of these settings For now we concentrate on methods to obtain a point estimate for a driver’s BRT to a particular event. Methods to combine these point estimates to estimate the distribution of PBRTs will be discussed in the next section.
Although it is not mentioned in any of the algorithms below, we suggest that response times should only be recorded if the driver is travelling faster than some cutoff speed such as 20 miles per hour.
Steady State, Leader Brakes
---------------------------
In this case we use the algorithm developed by Zhang and Bham:
1. Identify when a pair of cars is in steady state for 4 seconds:
- Separated by $\leq 250$ ft.
- Speed and acceleration of leader and follower are equalized (speeds must be within $\pm 5\text{ft/s} = 1.52\text{m/s}$).
- In the text, it is not clear whether specific limits are placed on acceleration, but it seems clear that if the distance and speed conditions are satisfied for 4 or more seconds, the cars’ accelerations must be approximately equal. However, there does seem to be a limit on the follower’s acceleration of $0.5 \text{ft/s}^2$, from the second step below.
2. Observe a time A when the the distance between the cars starts to decrease while the follower has an acceleration rate of $\leq 0.5 \text{ft/s}^2$. This change in distance between the cars is caused by acceleration or deceleration of the leader.
3. Observe the time B when the follower decelerates at a rate $> 0.5 \text{ft/s}^2$.
Zhang and Bham do not specify how they determined when the distance between the cars had started to decrease for step 2 in this algorithm. Several methods are possible. One simple idea is to determine at each time point whether the distance between the cars is less than it was at the previous measurement. If this is sustained for a sufficient length of time (such as a quarter-second), the starting point A is the time at which the distance first started decreasing. If limitations of the measurement instrumentation mean that we may observe an increase or no change in the distances between the cars for one time point when they are actually decreasing, this approach could be replaced by regressing distance on time over a quarter-second period to determine if they have a negative association on average over that time.
Not In Steady State, Leader Brakes
----------------------------------
In theory, it seems likely that a similar technique to the above can be used when the drivers are not yet in steady state and the lead car brakes. Note that we might only expect to observe a response in this situation if the follower is travelling at a higher speed than the leader. Also, the follower and leader should be near enough to each other that the follower will need to respond to the leader’s braking action. For example, we could measure response times only if the time headway between the leader and the follower is less than 10 seconds at the time that the leader brakes.
The key problems are selecting what measures to use in determining that the leader has braked and that the follower has responded. For deciding whether the leader has braked, it may be easiest to make use of the vector of accelerations of the lead car, and use a threshold value to decide when the leader has braked. We could simply use the value $-0.5 ft/s^2$ which was used above to detect when the following car reacted in the steady state setting.
To determine when the follower has responded, we would recommend first finding when a response has occurred in driving simulation trials by manually looking at the speed and acceleration profiles. This should allow you to select what variables to use to measure the response. One possibility that seems reasonable is a reduction in the acceleration of the follower.
Once this or some other similar quantity is determined to be the appropriate variable to use to detect the follower’s response, we will again need to choose what cutoff value for that variable indicates that the response has occurred. For example, we would need the cutoff value $c$ such that when the reduction in acceleration is less than $c$, we say that the follower has responded. To find the value $c$ we could do a grid search, choosing $N$ candidate values $c_1, \ldots, c_N$ and running the classification code for each value $c_i$. For values of $c_i$ which are too close to 0, the threshold will be exceeded easily and the algorithm will say the response time was shorter than the manually determined value. For values of $c_i$ which are too far from 0, the threshold will be exceeded infrequently, and some of the manually determined responses will be missed. The objective is to select a value $c_i$ such that the results of the classification algorithm best match the manual classification results. This could be done informally, or formally by choosing $c$ to minimize a function such as the sum of squared differences between the manually determined response time and the algorithmically determined response time.
Traffic Signal Changes from Green to Yellow
-------------------------------------------
There are several factors to consider when estimating a driver’s brake response time to a traffic signal change. First, we should only expect the driver to respond to the signal change if they are within a reasonable distance of the signal. For that reason, we suggest a cutoff of 10 seconds in the time headway from the driver to the signal at the time it changes. Second, we should not record a response time if there is an intervening car between the driver and the traffic signal that also responds to the signal change. Finally, we should not record a response time if the driver turns at the intersection with the signal. This would not be an accurate measure of the driver’s response time since they would likely have been prepared to stop anyways.
We propose the following algorithm to estimate response times to traffic signal changes:
1. Log the time when the next traffic signal in front of the driver changes from green to yellow.
2. If the time headway between the driver and the traffic signal at the time of the signal change is large (e.g., over 10 seconds), stop looking for a reaction time.
3. If the leading car is also before the light, check to see if it decelerates. If it does, stop looking for a reaction time.
4. Check to see if the car decelerates. The difference between the time when the car decelerates and when the signal changed is the response time.
5. Follow up to see if the car turns at the intersection. If it does, ignore the measured reaction time.
In order to be successful in tuning ITS algorithms to individual drivers, we will need a model which provides us with an estimate of the average driver’s brake reaction time as well as the individual driver’s response time. The mix of drivers on the road is constantly changing, with new drivers joining and other, usually older, drivers leaving. Thus when there is no information on an individual, the average response times can be used. As more information about an individual driver’s response times becomes available, the system can switch from the general estimate of brake response time to the individual driver’s estimated brake response time.
Estimating the Distribution of Potential Brake Response Times {#estimation}
=============================================================
General Discussion
------------------
In this section we discuss the construction of a statistical model for the distribution of brake response times, and how this model can be used to estimate the distribution of potential brake response times for a particular individual.
As discussed earlier, previous researchers have consistently found that reaction times are skewed right and are approximated well by a lognormal distribution. The plot of brake reaction times reproduced in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\] above confirms that for a fixed value of time headway, the distribution of brake reaction times across individuals is skewed right. It is reasonable to assume that brake reaction times are skewed right within individuals as well. We therefore adopt a lognormal model for brake reaction times, modelling the logarithm of the observed BRT as normally distributed conditional on the time headway.
This lognormal model also has the advantage of automatically correcting for some differences in the variance of the BRT distribution at different time headways and across individuals. From the plot in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\], we can see that as the time headway increases, the mean BRT and the variance of the BRTs both increase. Similarly, it seems likely that some individuals have lower or higher mean reaction times than other drivers, and that the variance in the BRT distribution varies across individuals as well. Specifically, it is likely that individuals with a low mean reaction time also have a low variance in their reaction times, whereas individuals with a high mean reaction time also have a high variance in their reaction times. These differences in the variance of brake reaction times will be approximately corrected by modelling the logarithm of the BRT.
It also seems likely that the mean and variance of the brake response time distribution depend on several other variables. An important factor that will be accounted for in our model is the stimulus type (e.g. traffic signal vs. lead car decelerates). Reaction times also depend on a large number of other factors such as weather conditions and demographic characteristics of the driver. However, these variables will not generally be available to the accident warning system, so their effects will be absorbed into the error term of our model.
The Model
---------
Using just the time headway as an explanatory variable, the general ideas above can be formalized in the following model:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \by_{d} &\sim N(X\beta + X\gamma_{d}, \sigma^2 I ) \nonumber \\
\gamma_{d} &\sim N(0, \Sigma_\gamma) \label{ModelStatement}\end{aligned}$$
In this model,
- $d$ indexes the driver
- $\by_{d}$ is a vector of the logarithms of observed reaction times for a particular driver.
- $X$ is a matrix of covariates, detailed further below.
- $\beta$ is a fixed vector of unknown coefficients.
- $\sigma^2$ is an unknown scalar.
- $\gamma_d$ is a random vector of unknown coefficients.
- $\Sigma_\gamma$ is an unknown matrix.
The basic idea of this model is that, conditional on the time headway, the distribution of BRTs for an individual driver has a mean which is given by an overall population mean, $X\beta$, plus an offset due to the particular characteristics of that driver, $X\gamma_d$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:ModelIllustrationSim\]. It is assumed that the parameters $\gamma_d$ determining the individual’s offset to the overall mean follow a multivariate Normal distribution in the population. This is a linear mixed effects model; three recommended references with further information about these models are McCulloch et al., Ravishanker and Dey, and Searle et al [@McCullochetal:GLMM], [@Searleetal:VC], [@RavishankerDey:LMT]. A key assumption made in this model specification is that after the log transformation, the covariance matrix ${\textrm{Cov}}[\by_{d}]$ has the simple form $\sigma^2 I$. This assumption could fail to hold in a number of ways, but it makes the calculations much easier.
We now consider the form of the mean $X(\beta + \gamma_d)$ in more detail. From the plot in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\], we saw that the mean brake reaction time was an increasing function of time headway. Since the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function, it follows that the logarithm of the BRT is also an increasing function of time headway. For flexibility, we allow the possibility that the log BRTs are a quadratic function of time headway. We also allow for the possibility that the relationship between time headway and BRT is slightly different for each of the different stimulus types. For instance, it could be that drivers have a faster BRT at low time headways and the average BRT increases more rapidly as a function of time headway when the stimulus is a lead car braking than when it is a traffic signal changing to yellow. These considerations lead to the following possible form of the mean log-BRT as a function of time headway: $$\nonumber E[y_{dsi}] =$$ $$\label{quad}
\beta_{s,0} + \beta_{s,1} t_{dsi} + \beta_{s,2} t_{dsi}^2 + \gamma_{d,s,0} + \gamma_{d,s,1} t_{dsi} + \gamma_{d,s,2} t_{dsi}^2$$ In equation (\[quad\]), $d$ indexes the driver, $s$ indexes the stimulus type, and $i$ indexes the observation (so if we have 5 different BRT observations for a particular driver and stimulus type, $i$ will vary from 1 to 5). As before, $y_{dsi}$ is the log brake reaction time, and $t_{dsi}$ is the time headway at the time of the stimulus. The subscript $s$ on the $\beta$ and $\gamma$ terms indicate that the values of those coefficients depend upon the stimulus type $s$. To make this concrete, if this mean function is adopted and there are $S = 3$ different stimulus types under consideration with $n_{ds}$ observations for driver $d$ under stimulus type $s$, $\beta$ and $\gamma_d$ are $9 \times 1$ vectors and the portion of the $X$ matrix corresponding to observations for driver $d$ will be of the following form:
$$\begin{bmatrix} \centering
1 & t_{d11} & t_{d11}^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & t_{d12} & t_{d12}^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
1 & t_{d1n_{d1}} & t_{d1n_{d1}}^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & t_{d21} & t_{d21}^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & t_{d2n_{d2}} & t_{d2n_{d2}}^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & t_{d31} & t_{d31}^2 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & t_{d3n_{d3}} & t_{d3n_{d3}}^2
\end{bmatrix}$$
Training the Model: A Fit Using Data from Driving Simulations
-------------------------------------------------------------
For training the model, we assume data are gathered for $D$ subjects in a driving simulation. If possible, we prefer to gather data from real drivers on the road, but this is likely to be too difficult to be feasible. This being the case, we will take precautions to address concerns about using results from a driving simulation to learn about response times for drivers in real life driving situations. The subjects in the study will be a representative sample of the overall population of drivers who will be using the accident warning system. Brake responses for each subject will be elicited at a variety of levels of expectancy. To improve the statistical analysis, responses will also be collected at a range of time headways for each stimulus type. To separate the effects of expectancy and any other variables that may be included in the model, the combinations of these factors will be randomized (for example, we will have some observations where the braking stimulus was more and less surprising at different levels of the time headway variable).
For each driver, we have multiple observations of reaction times for each stimulus type. These data can be used to estimate the unknown quantities $\beta$, $\sigma^2$, and $\Sigma_\gamma$ in this model using standard statistical techniques implemented in the lmer function of the lme4 library in R. We will use a subscript of $(tr)$ to indicate quantities obtained from this training data set; in particular, let $X_{(tr)}$ be the covariate matrix obtained using data from this data set and denote the estimates by $\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}$, $\widehat{\sigma}^2_{(tr)}$, and $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\gamma(tr)}$. $\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}$ can be written as $\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)} = (X_{(tr)}' V_{(tr)}^{-1} X_{(tr)} )^{-} X_{(tr)}' V_{(tr)}^{-1} \by_{(tr)}$, where $V_{(tr)} = {\textrm{Cov}}(\by_{(tr)}) = X_{(tr)} \Sigma_\gamma X_{(tr)}' + \sigma^2 I$ and the superscript $^{''-''}$ denotes a generalized inverse. The estimates $\widehat{\sigma}^2_{(tr)}$ and $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\gamma(tr)}$ can be found through numerical maximum likelihood techniques. A study conducted by McGehee et al. has found that the population average brake response time was about 0.3 seconds faster in driving simulations than it was in real life driving studies [@McGeheeetal:DriverRTSimvsReal]. This difference was found at time headways of approximately 2 seconds. It is difficult to account for this effect in a rigorous way, especially since this observed difference may be due in part to methodological differences between the simulator trials and the real car driving trials. One ad hoc solution would be to increase the estimated value of $\widehat{\beta}_{0, (tr)}$ by an amount such that the estimated population mean reaction time at a time headway of 2 seconds increases by 0.3 seconds.
Real Time Estimation of the PBRT Distribution for One Driver {#subsubsec:FreqRealTimeReactionDistEst}
------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the distribution of PBRTs for a particular driver in two steps. First, we establish the relationship between the covariates and BRT for that driver. Then we use this relationship to estimate the distribution of PBRTs by using values of the covariates at which the BRT does not include an intentional delay to braking.
### Estimating the Relationship Between Time Headway and BRT for One Driver
As data are gathered in real time for an individual driver $d^*$, our goal is to estimate the driver’s offset $\gamma_{d^*}$ to the population-average regression coefficients $\beta$. This is estimated by the Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (BLUP).
Intuitively, we might expect that if a particular driver has a higher than average brake response time in one stimulus type, they are likely to have a higher than average brake response time in other stimulus types as well. Similarly, if they are particularly sensitive to the time headway in one situation, they are more likely to be sensitive to the time headway with other stimulus types. This intuition suggests that the covariance matrix $\Sigma_\gamma$ will have non-zero off-diagonal entries; that is, there is some degree of correlation among the $\gamma_d$ coefficients. Because of this correlation, observations from one stimulus type can give us information about the coefficients in the other stimulus types. For example, if we make some observations of driver brake response times in the traffic light setting which give positive estimates of the $\gamma_d$ coefficients for that stimulus, a positive correlation between the coefficients might lead to positive estimates of the coefficients for other stimuli as well.
To reduce the computational complexity of computing the BLUP, we assume that the information about the unknowns $\beta$, $\sigma^2$, and $\Sigma_\gamma$ that is provided by the training data set from the driving simulator is much greater than the information provided by the data from this individual driver. That is, the estimates $\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}$, $\widehat{\sigma}^2_{(tr)}$, and $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\gamma(tr)}$ obtained from the training data set above are very similar to what we would obtain if we estimated them using the combined training data set with the observations for this driver. If this assumption holds, we can approximate the BLUP using the estimates of these quantities found with the training data set, which saves the computational effort of re-fitting the model every time we observe a new reaction time.
Let $X_{d^*}$ be the covariate matrix $X$ as in the full model, but formed using only the data from driver $d^*$. The BLUP of $\gamma_{d^*}$ is $$\nonumber \tilde{\gamma}_{d^*} = \Sigma_\gamma X_{d^*}' V_{d^*}^{-1} (\by_{d^*} - X_{d^*} \widehat{\beta})$$ where $V_{d^*} = {\textrm{Cov}}(\by_{d^*}) = X_{d^*} \Sigma_\gamma X_{d^*}' + \sigma^2 I$. Ordinarily $\widehat{\beta}$ would be estimated from all of the data, but by our assumption above we will instead use the estimate $\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}$. The formula for the BLUP still involves the unknowns $\sigma^2$ and $\Sigma_\gamma$. We estimate the BLUP by plugging in the estimates of these quantities obtained from the training data above. Denoting this estimated BLUP by $\hat{\gamma}_{d^*}$, we have: $$\nonumber \hat{\gamma}_{d^*} = \widehat{\Sigma}_{\gamma(tr)} X_{d^*}' \widehat{V}^{-1}_{d^*} (\by_{d^*} - X_{d^*} \widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}),$$ where $ \widehat{V}_{d^*} = X_{d^*} \widehat{\Sigma}_{\gamma(tr)} X_{d^*}' + \widehat{\sigma}^2_{(tr)} I.$ The covariance matrix of the BLUP $\tilde{\gamma}_{d^*}$ is given by
$$\nonumber {\textrm{Cov}}(\tilde{\gamma}_{d^*}) = {\textrm{Cov}}(\Sigma_\gamma X_{d^*}' V_{d^*}^{-1} (\by_{d^*} - X_{d^*} \widehat{\beta}))$$
$$\nonumber = \Sigma_\gamma X_{d^*}' V_{d^*}^{-1} (V_{d^*} - X_{d^*} {\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}) X_{d^*}') V_{d^*}^{-1} X_{d^*} \Sigma_\gamma$$
To estimate the covariance matrix of $\hat{\gamma}_{d^*}$, we plug our approximation to $\widehat{\beta}$, $\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}$, and our estimates of $\sigma^2$, $\Sigma_\gamma$, and ${\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)})$ into this formula. Denote this estimated covariance matrix by $\widehat{\Sigma}_{\hat{\gamma}_{d^*}}$.
When no data have been gathered yet, the best predictor is just the vector 0, with covariance matrix $\Sigma_\gamma$. In this case, the estimated mean for the individual is equal to the estimated mean for the population of all drivers.
### Obtaining the Estimated PRBT Distribution
The final step is to estimate the distribution of potential brake response times for an individual driver, not including any delays. For the suggested model form above using a quadratic function of time headway, the intuitive idea is to pick a specific time headway value $t^*$ at which the driver does not have enough time to delay braking, and use that time headway value to evaluate the mean function. Based on the plots in Fig. \[fig:GohWongRTPlot\], it appears that $t^* = 1.5$ might be an appropriate value. We can then estimate the mean of the driver’s log-RTs by plugging $t^* = 1.5$ into the estimated mean function: $\hat{\mu} = \hat{\beta}_{0} + \hat{\gamma}_{d^*, 0} + t^* (\hat{\beta}_{1} + \hat{\gamma}_{d^*, 1}) + (t^*)^2 (\hat{\beta}_{2} + \hat{\gamma}_{d^*, 2})$. This provides an estimated mean for the log-reaction time. There are several options for estimating the variance of the log-PBRT distribution. One simple idea would be to use the estimate $\widehat{\sigma}^2_{(tr)}$ of the quantity $\sigma^2$ in the model statement \[ModelStatement\]. However, this does not take into account the uncertainty in our estimate $\hat{\mu}$. This uncertainty is captured by the prediction error, $(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)} + \hat{\gamma}_{d^*}) - (\beta + \gamma_{d^*})$. It can be shown that ${\textrm{Cov}}((\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)} + \hat{\gamma}_{d^*}) - (\beta + \gamma_{d^*})) = {\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}) + {\textrm{Cov}}(\hat{\gamma}_{d^*} - \gamma_{d^*}) - {\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}, \gamma_{d^*}') - {\textrm{Cov}}(\gamma_{d^*}, \widehat{\beta}_{(tr)})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber{\textrm{Cov}}(\hat{\gamma}_{d^*} - \gamma_{d^*}) &= \Sigma_{\gamma} - {\textrm{Cov}}(\hat{\gamma}_{d^*})\\
\nonumber {\textrm{Cov}}(\hat{\gamma}_{d^*}) &=\\
\nonumber\Sigma_{\gamma} X_{d^*}' ( V^{-1}_{d^*} - V^{-1}_{d^*} X_{d^*} {\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)})&X_{d^*}' V^{-1}_{d^*} )X_{d^*} \Sigma_{\gamma} $$ $$\nonumber {\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}, \gamma_{d^*}') = {\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)}) X_{d^*}' V^{-1}_{d^*} X_{d^*} \Sigma_{\gamma}$$ This covariance can be estimated by plugging in estimates of the unknown quantities $V_{d^*}$, ${\textrm{Cov}}(\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)})$, and $\Sigma_{\gamma}$. An estimate of the variance of the distribution of log-PBRTs which takes into account our uncertainty about the value of the mean is then $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \begin{bmatrix} 1 & t^* & t^{*2} \end{bmatrix} \widehat{{\textrm{Cov}}}((\widehat{\beta}_{(tr)} + \hat{\gamma}_{d^*}) &- (\beta + \gamma_{d^*}))\begin{bmatrix} 1 & t^* & t^{*2} \end{bmatrix}'\\
\nonumber &+ \hat{\sigma}^2_{(tr)}\end{aligned}$$ When we do not yet have any data, the adjusted variance estimate is $$\nonumber \begin{bmatrix} 1 & t^* & t^{*2} \end{bmatrix} \widehat{\Sigma}_\gamma \begin{bmatrix} 1 & t^* & t^{*2} \end{bmatrix}'+ \hat{\sigma}^2_{(tr)}.$$ The plot in Fig. \[fig:SimRTDistEst\] shows the resulting distribution estimates obtained in a simulation when these variance estimates are used as the parameters of the distribution of PBRTs. From this plot we can see that the estimates taking into account uncertainty in the coefficient estimates are more conservative. On the scale of these simulation results, the difference in the percentiles obtained from these estimates is just a fraction of a second, but the difference could be more significant with real data. We will use the more conservative value for the estimated variance since it more accurately reflects what we know about the distribution of response times based on the available data.
Fig. \[fig:SimRTDistEstvsSampleSize\] shows how the estimated reaction time distribution changes with the sample size and the allocation of the sample among the different stimulus types. These results are dependent upon the parameter values used in the simulation, but they illustrate that observed reaction times for the stimulus type that is used in estimating the PBRT distribution contribute more information than observations in other stimulus types. This will generally be the case, but our simulation likely shows an extreme example since the correlation among the gamma coefficients for different stimulus types is very low in the simulation. It could be helpful to run a simulation like this once the training data has been gathered to determine what sample sizes are necessary to get good estimates of the “true” PBRT distribution.
We note that computation of the estimated PBRT distribution requires only the operations of matrix inversion and matrix multiplication. The matrix which must be inverted is $\widehat{V}_{d^*}$, which has dimension $n_{d^*}$, the number of observations for driver $d^*$. The inversion operation has computational complexity $O(n_{d^*}^3)$. All of the matrix multiplication operations are between matrices of dimension $9 \times 1$, $9 \times 9$, $9 \times n_{d^*}$, $n_{d^*} \times 1$, or $n_{d^*} \times 1$. Because multiplying an $n \times m$ matrix by an $m \times k$ matrix has complexity $O(nmk)$, this implies that the complexity of the “worst” matrix multiplication operation is $O(9n_{d^*}^2)$ (for the product $X_{d^*}' \widehat{V}_{d^*}^{-1}$). Therefore the whole computation has complexity $O(n_{d^*}^3)$ when $n_{d^*} > 9$.
Estimated PRBT Distribution vs Population Distribution {#subsec:FreqRealTimeReactionDistEst}
------------------------------------------------------
Our goal in this section is to make a comparison between two types of systems.
1. Conventional systems which use the population distribution.
2. Customized systems which use an individual driver’s distribution.
We described our method [@Rakhshan] for estimating the PBRT distribution which can then be entered into collision warning algorithms. Next, we want to relate this distribution to the distribution of PRTs for the population to show how collision warning algorithms benefit from taking the estimated distribution for an individual driver into account. As discussed earlier, previous researchers have consistently found that reaction times are skewed right and are approximated well by a lognormal distribution. It is reasonable to assume that brake reaction times are skewed right within individuals as well.$$\label{eq:trunc}
f{(x|\mu)}=\frac{1}{ x\sigma\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-\frac{(\ln{x}-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}
\qquad \textrm{for} \qquad x\geq0$$ In equation \[eq:trunc\], we let $X$ be a random variable representing the PRT for an individual driver. Also, to analyze the situation, we let the mean of the distribution for an individual driver, denoted by $\mu$ , be a random variable. This assumption will represent the fact that different drivers in the population have different PRT means, and that more drivers have means within certain ranges than others. For our model of driver PRTs to be reasonable, the marginal distribution $f_X(x)$ should closely match the log-normal distribution for the overall population found in the literature. Once a distribution for a driver’s reaction time has been established, we would like to use this information to improve safety and minimize the rate of false alarms. One simple method for doing this would be to give the driver a warning when they are approaching an obstacle, and there will not be enough time for them to react otherwise. As we mentioned, [@Koppa:HumanFactors] established that the distribution of PRTs of drivers reacting to surprise events follows a log-normal curve with parameters $\mu= 0.17$ and $\sigma = 0.44$. Since failing to give a warning when one is needed could be very dangerous, we will assume that the percentage of possible collisions that the system fails to provide warning for is fixed at a small number (e.g. at 1%), and then try to minimize the frequency of false alarms that the system gives subject to this constraint. If the system detects that the driver has less than his or her PRT to react to an obstacle, it should give the driver a warning. We can only state the probability that any PRT is above or below a certain value. Thus, the constraint states that we must calculate some threshold $T_t$ above which there is only $1\%$ chance that a PRT will be , and send a warning whenever a driver has less than this amount of time to react. Therefore, we can calculate the threshold to send the warnings using the distribution for the entire population: $$\nonumber P(X \leq T_t)=\Phi\left(\frac{\ln(T_t)-0.17}{0.44}\right)=1- \text{prob. of accident}\\$$ $$\nonumber \text{If probability of accident=1\%}
\quad\Rightarrow T_t=e^{1.9} \approx 3.3$$ Also, we can calculate warning threshold using the distribution for an individual driver: $$\nonumber P(X \leq T_t)=\Phi\left(\frac{\ln(T_t)-\mu}{\sigma}\right)=1- \text{prob. of accident}\\$$ Now that we have established the thresholds for sending collision warnings, we can calculate the false alarm rates that will result from using the different systems. A false alarm occurs whenever a warning is sent, but it is not needed. To best explain this problem, let us consider the scenario that a vehicle is following another vehicle on a one-lane roadway when the lead vehicle suddenly begins to decelerate to avoid an unexpected obstacle. Suppose that the system has calculated that the following driver has $t$ seconds to react, and that $t$ is less than $T_t$, therefore a warning has been sent. Then, the false alarm rate is the probability that the driver’s reaction time, X, will be less than $t$. Let $F_X(x)$ denote the cumulative distribution function for this distribution then $F_X(t)$ is the total false alarm rate.
$$\label{eq:FAR_total}
\nonumber P(X \leq T) \:=\int_{0}^{T_t} \int_{0}^{t} \frac{1}{ x\sigma\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-\frac{(\ln{x}-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}\frac{1}{T_t} dxdt\\$$
It is clear from Fig. \[fig:FAR\_POA\] that when we use the population brake reaction the false alarm rate is higher by almost a factor of two than when we use the individual driver’s brake reaction time. Therefore, safety applications could potentially take full advantage of being customized to an individual’s characteristics. Regardless, there is an observable tradeoff between the false alarm rate and the probability of an accident, one that cannot be remediated by obtaining estimates of an individual’s brake reaction time. It’s worth mentioning that false alarms are not evenly distributed across the population. Drivers with fast reaction times will have very high false alarm rates, but drivers with slow reaction times will have lower rates. If the warnings turn out to be false alarms too frequently, drivers may begin to ignore them, and since novice drivers receive the most false alarms, the danger to ignore the safety system is higher for them. While it is known that collision warnings can offer a great help to older drivers, our method benefits novice drivers as well. If it were simply the case that novice drivers were careless, warnings might be of little use. But, the existing research suggests that many novice drivers are clueless, not careless, e.g. in [@Pollatsek]. Thus, it is of vital importance to minimize false alarms so that the system sends warnings only when it is needed. Also, we need to take into account the estimation errors since in real life our estimations are not accurate. Fig. \[fig:FAR\_POA\] shows that by increasing the error (equation \[eq:Error\]) of the estimated distribution, the individual curve approaches the population curve. Our error model can be described as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Error}
\nonumber \hat{X}&=X+e\\
e &\sim N(0,\kappa^2I)\end{aligned}$$ High level of errors in estimating the distribution of individual drivers is almost equivalent to the case when no individual sample is available; thus, the system uses the population distribution similar to the conventional systems.
Conclusion And Future Work {#conc}
==========================
In this paper we discussed the need to adapt collision warning systems to drivers’ individual characteristics and proposed a method for doing this customization by estimating the distribution of potential brake response times for an individual driver in real time. Collision warning systems generally rely solely on the distribution of the entire population of drivers, thereby ignoring the distinct characteristics of individual drivers. They may frustrate the drivers with the overly high numbers of false alarms, causing them to ignore warnings or even disable the system. If drivers are distracted by overly frequent warnings, the safety benefits of the system are compromised or even lost.
Our proposed method uses a statistical model that was developed based on previously published results about the population-level brake response times. This model has not yet been validated with data that includes multiple reaction times for each driver. However, we demonstrated why employing this method will result in reducing the rate of traffic collisions, thereby dramatically improving the safety benefits for all drivers. In our future work, we will collect this data, fine-tune the model, and apply it to a collision warning system.
[1]{}
United States Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration *Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2011.*1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: DOT HS 811 604. Washington, DC, 2012.
R.J. Koppa, *Human Factors*, In Nathan H. Gartner, Carroll J. Messer, and Ajay K. Rathi (Eds.)., Revised Monograph on Traffic Flow Theory (Ch.3).,.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/, 2005.
M. Green, *How long does it take to stop?*, Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times, ,.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Transportation Human Factors,2(3), 195-216, 2000.
P. Goh, and Y. D.Wong, *Driver perception response time during the signal change interval*1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Appl Health Econ Health Policy, 2004.
J.R. Setti, H. Rakha, and I. El-Shawarby *Analysis of Brake Perception-Reaction Times on High-Speed Signalized Intersection Approaches*1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, ITSC ’06. IEEE, 2006.
A. Maxwell, and K. Wood, *Review of Traffic Signals on High Speed Road. Paper presented at the Europian Transport Conference*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/review-of-traffic-signals-on-high-speed-roads, Accessed 12/2/12.
R.H. Wortman, and J.S. Matthias, *An Evaluation of Driver Behavior at Signalized Intersections*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation, 1983.
X. Zhang, and G.H. Bham, *Estimation of driver reaction time from detailed vehicle trajectory data.*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Proceedings of the 18th IASTED International Conference: modeling and simulation,574-579, 2007.
H. Rakha, I. El-Shawarby, and J.R. Setti, *Characterizing Driver Behavior on Signalized Intersection Approaches at the Onset of a Yellow-Phase Trigger.*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,Volume:8 , Issue: 4, 630 - 640, 2007.
X. Ma, and Ingmar Andréasson, *Driver reaction delay estimation from real data and its application in gm-type model evaluation*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1965, 130 - 141, 2006.
K.I. Ahmed, *Modeling drivers’ acceleration and lane changing behavior*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006.
C.E. McCulloch, S.R. Searle, and J.M. Neuhaus *Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley, 2008.
S.R. Searle, G. Casella, and C.E. McCulloch*Variance Components*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: New York: Wiley, 1992.
N. Ravishanker, and D.K. Dey, *A First Course in Linear Model Theory*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em: Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2002.
D.V. McGehee, E.N. Mazzae, and G.H.S. Baldwin, *Driver Reaction Time in Crash Avoidance Research: Validation of a Driving Simulator Study on a Test Track.*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emProceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 2000 Conference, 320-323., 2000.
A. Pollatsek, D. Fisher, and A.K. Pradhan, *Identifying and Remediating Failures of Selective Attention in Younger Drivers*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 15,255-259, 2006.
A. Rakhshan, H. Pishro-Nik, and E. Ray, *Real-Time Estimation of the Distribution of Brake Response Times for an Individual Driver Using Vehicular Ad Hoc Network*,1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2014.
A. Rakhshan, H. Pishro-Nik, M. Nekoui and D. Fisher, *Tuning Collision Warning Algorithms to Individual Drivers for Design of Active Safety Systems*, Globecom 2013 Workshop – Vehicular Network Evolution (GC13 WS – VNE), 1342-1346, 2013.
[Ali Rakhshan]{} is currently pursuing a Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. With a broader scope of communication systems, his main field of interest is Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs).
[Evan Ray]{} is a Ph.D. student in the Statistics program at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He previously earned a M.S. in Statistics from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a B.S. in Mathematics from the University of Massachusetts, Boston. His research interests include state-space models and measurement error.
[Hossein Pishro-Nik]{} is an Associate Professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He received a B.S. degree from Sharif University of Technology, and M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the Georgia Institute of Technology, all in electrical and computer engineering. His research interests include the mathematical analysis of communication systems, in particular, error control coding, wireless networks, and vehicular ad hoc networks. His awards include an NSF Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award, an Outstanding Junior Faculty Award from UMass, and an Outstanding Graduate Research Award from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
[^1]: A. Rakhshan and H. Pishro-Nik are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, (e-mails: [arakhshan, pishro]{}@ecs.umass.edu) MA, 01002 USA.
[^2]: E. Ray is with the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^3]:
[^4]: This work was supported by the NSF under CCF 0844725.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Microscopic swimming particles, which dissipate energy to execute persistent directed motion, are a classic example of a non-equilibrium system. We investigate the non-interacting Ornstein–Uhlenbeck Particle (OUP), which is propelled through a viscous medium by a force which is correlated over a finite time. We obtain an exact expression for the steady state phase-space density of a single OUP confined by a quadratic potential, and use the result to explore more complex geometries, both through analytical approximations and numerical simulations. In a “Casimir”-style setup involving two narrowly-spaced walls, we describe a particle-trapping phenomenon, which leads to a repulsive effective interaction between the walls; while in a two-dimensional annulus geometry, we observe net stresses which resemble the Laplace pressure.'
author:
- Cato Sandford
- 'Alexander Y. Grosberg'
- 'Jean-François Joanny'
title: 'Pressure and Flow of Exponentially Self-Correlated Active Particles'
---
Introduction
============
Recent investigation of “swimming” particles has provided many new insights into non-equilibrium phenomena. These swimmers exhibit a persistent Brownian motion, which violates detailed balance and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, and results in a range of behaviours not observed in passive systems [@E+G13; @C+T15; @F+M12; @ESS13; @LWG07].
An “Ornstein–Uhlenbeck Particle” (OUP) swimmer is driven by a combination of a memory-less friction, and an exponentially correlated propulsion force with finite correlation time $\tau$. This model has already received significant attention, as it offers both a basic theoretical system for exploring non-equilibrium phenomena, and an accurate description of certain swimmer experiments [@Mag++14]. The OUP is furthermore closely related to two popular stochastic swimmer models (the active Brownian particle and the run-and-tumble particle), and complements them with different noise statistics.
Despite its relative simplicity, the OUP model is not generally solvable, and so a number of approximate methods have been developed to study their steady state densities – for example the “Unified Coloured Noise Approximation” [@J+H87; @Mag++15] or perturbative expansions close to equilibrium [@Fod++16; @HDL89].
In this paper we start with a simple exactly solvable model of an OUP confined in a one-dimensional harmonic potential, and discuss the crossover from an energy-equipartition dominated regime close to equilibrium, to a force-balance dominated regime far from equilibrium. We use the results to interpret simulation data on more subtle OUP interactions with external potentials, including flows generated by asymmetric potentials, attractive and repulsive Casimir forces and Laplace-like pressure on a curved surface.
Consider an OUP moving under an external force $\vec f(\vec x)$ arising from a potential $U(\vec x)$, $\vec f = - \nabla U$. In one dimension (easily generalised to higher dimensions), the microscopic equation of motion for the OUP’s coordinate $x(t)$ is the Langevin equation in which the propulsion force $\eta(t)$ plays the role of a coloured noise and has exponential correlations with a finite relaxation time $\tau$. To treat this problem, we imagine that fluctuations of $\eta(t)$ itself are governed by a hidden white noise variable $\xi(t)$, such that the system as a whole is described by coupled Langevin equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta\dot x = \eta + f(x)
\label{eqn:LE_dim_x} \\
\tau\dot\eta = -\eta + \xi(t)
\label{eqn:LE_dim_eta}
\end{aligned}$$
\[eqn:LE\_dim\]
where $\left<\xi(t)\right>=0$ and $\left<\xi(t)\xi(t^\prime)\right>=2T\zeta\delta(t-t^\prime)$, with temperature $T$ (in energy units). The amplitude of the correlation function is such that for a particle with no memory, $\tau=0$, the fluctuation-dissipation theorem is satisfied and equation (\[eqn:LE\_dim\]) describes the dynamics of a passive Brownian particle, with equilibrium density determined by the Boltzmann distribution $\sim e^{-U(x)/T}$. The second equation ensures the exponential correlation of the propulsion force: $\left<\eta(t)\eta(t^\prime)\right> = \frac{T \zeta}{\tau} e^{-\left| t-t^\prime \right|/\tau}$.
The main novelty of our work is that of a *method*: instead of viewing noise process $\eta$ as a nuisance to be integrated out as soon as possible, we retain this propulsion force as a phase-space variable. This enables calculation of phase-space currents and pressure formulae, on which all our results hinge.
The introduction of the hidden variable $\xi(t)$ allows us to recast the Langevin dynamics (\[eqn:LE\_dim\]) in the form of a Fokker–Planck equation for the density $\rho(x,\eta)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \rho = - \frac{1}{\zeta} \partial_x \left[ \left(\eta + f(x)\right) \rho \right] + \frac{1}{\tau} \partial_{\eta} \left[ \eta \rho \right] + \frac{\zeta T}{\tau^2} \partial^2_{\eta} \left[ \rho \right] \ .
\label{eqn:FPE}\end{aligned}$$ The first two terms on the right-hand side represent the advection in $x$ and $\eta$, and the last term is diffusion in $\eta$.
Exact steady state
==================
Consider an OUP confined in a one-dimensional harmonic potential $U(x)=\frac{1}{2}kx^2$. The solution of the steady state Fokker–Planck equation (\[eqn:FPE\]) reads [@Sza14] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(x,\eta) \propto \exp\left[-\frac{k}{2T}\left(\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}+1\right)\left[x^2 + \frac{k\tau}{\zeta}\left(\frac{\eta}{k}-x\right)^2\right]\right] \ ,
\label{eqn:rho}\end{aligned}$$ where $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$ is the dimensionless relaxation (or correlation) time. The steady state currents in phase-space, according to Eq. (\[eqn:FPE\]), have components $j_x = \frac{1}{\zeta}(\eta-kx)\rho$ and $j_{\eta} = \frac{1}{\tau}\eta\rho + \frac{\zeta T}{\tau^2}\partial_\eta[\rho]$. Current lines form closed loops on the $(x,\eta)$ plane, as shown in Fig. \[fig:rho\_E2\] in appendix \[app:DensityAndCurrents\]. While phase space loops in equilibrium systems may be observed for the pairs of phase-coordinates having opposite time-reversal signatures (such as position and velocity for an under-damped harmonic oscillator), our non-equilibrium system is different. The driving force $\eta(t)$, viewed as a phase-space variable, does not possess negative (velocity-like) time-reversal signature – hence, this system violates detailed balance.
Integrating equation (\[eqn:rho\]) over all $\eta$ gives a Gaussian spatial density $n(x)$ with RMS displacement $\ell_{\mathrm OUP} = \sqrt\frac{T}{k}\left(\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}+1\right)^{-1/2}$, as has already been found by other means [@J+H87; @Mag++15; @Sza14]. Thus, excursions of an OUP into the confining potential are smaller than those of its passive counterpart, $\ell_{\mathrm OUP} \leq \ell_{\mathrm passive} = \sqrt\frac{T}{k}$. This is the outcome of competition between two effects: more persistent particles explore the potential more efficiently, but at fixed temperature the increased persistence of $\eta$ is associated with a decreased amplitude [^1].
It is worth emphasising the physical origin of this penetration formula, which can be most easily apprehended by examining two limits. When $\frac{\tau k}{\zeta} \ll 1$ (close to equilibrium), the penetration is controlled by *energy balance* $\frac{1}{2}kx^2 \simeq \frac{1}{2}T$. In the opposite limit $\frac{\tau k}{\zeta} \gg 1$, it is controlled by *force* $\eta \simeq kx$, such that the particle stalls when the characteristic propulsion force $\eta =\sqrt{T\zeta/\tau}$ balances the potential force.
An active system’s departure from equilibrium may also be identified with its rate of dissipation. For a quadratically confined OUP, it turns out that this dissipation is related to the OUP’s average potential energy. To show this, we start with the equation of motion (\[eqn:LE\_dim\_x\]), multiply by a factor of $\dot{x}$ and average over time. The term which arises from the potential is a total time derivative, and vanishes in the steady state. Hence we are left with $\left< \zeta \dot{x}^2\right> = \left<\eta\dot{x}\right>$, which has a straightforward interpretation: the average power dissipated to friction equals the average power provided by the propulsion force.
The task now is to calculate what this power is in terms of the system parameters. Given the statistics of $\eta$, we may explicitly compute (see appendix \[app:PowerBalance\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\left<\zeta\dot{x}^2\right> = \frac{1}{\tau}\frac{T}{1+\frac{k \tau}{\zeta}} \ .
\label{eqn:DissipationRate}\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $\frac{T/k}{1+\tau k/\zeta}$ is known to be equal to the mean-squared displacement of the OUP, so that $\frac{T}{1+\tau k/\zeta}$ may be thought of as an effective temperature (for a thorough discussion, see [@Sza14] and also [@Mag++14]). Equation (\[eqn:DissipationRate\]) therefore shows that an amount of energy equal to this effective temperature is dissipated on the correlation time-scale $\tau$. Put another way, equation (\[eqn:DissipationRate\]) becomes $\left<\zeta\dot{x}^2\right>=\frac{1}{\tau}\left<kx^2\right>$ – the energy dissipated by the system in time $\tau$ is equal to twice the average potential energy.
Note that these calculations can be generalised to the case of a *massive* particle propelled by and Ornstein–Uhlenbeck force (appendix \[app:PowerBalance\]); this yields further insights – quantifying, for instance, the extent to which the Virial Theorem is violated.
Pumping by an asymmetric potential
==================================
We already noted the existence of currents in phase-space. Correlated dynamics may also produce currents in real space if they experience a potential landscape which breaks left-right symmetry – something which has been observed in theoretical, experimental and biological systems [@Mag93; @Kou++13; @KML14; @IBRR97; @DLT97; @Bar97]. In principle, these currents offer a way of extracting work from systems of active swimmers.
As a specific example, consider an OUP in a one-dimensional potential $U(x)$ which is piecewise quadratic, asymmetric and periodic. We define the potential landscape $U(x) = U_0\, x^2/L^2$ for $-L \leq x \leq 0$ and $U(x) = U_0\, x^2/\ell^2$ for $0 \leq x \leq \ell$, with period $L+\ell$. Numerical results for this system are presented in Fig. \[fig:rectify\]; a subfigure illustrates the force landscape, which is more relevant than the potential landscape because, unlike the classical case of an *energy* barrier, OUPs must overcome a *force* barrier [@Mag93; @DLT97]. Particles therefore move to the right (or left) on the $(x,\eta)$ plane only when $\eta > -f(x)$ (or $\eta < -f(x)$), since there is no diffusion along $x$, only drift.
These results can be understood quantitatively by considering the limit of small penetration into either side of the potential, such that the current along $x$ is small. In this case, we can use the density given by Eq. (\[eqn:rho\]). The total current in the $+x$ direction over the [force barrier]{} at $x= \ell$ is obtained by integrating the current $j_x$ over all $\eta$ larger than the force barrier $2U_0/\ell$. A similar calculation yields the current in the $-x$ direction, and the sum of these two contributions is the net current $J$. This prediction compares reasonably well with simulations in Fig. \[fig:rectify\]. As stated, this procedure is justified when the penetration depth is small compared to the sizes of the force barriers. In this case, the overall current is also small. We do not attempt in this work to analyse the applicability limits more accurately and to estimate the possible corrections. We note nevertheless that, judging by our limited numerics, this approximation appears to hold qualitatively well beyond the low-current regime.
![ **Main figure:** Net current $J$ as a function of the correlation time (both measured in convenient units) for an OUP in a periodic, asymmetrical potential in 1D. Solid lines with markers show simulation results for several degrees of asymmetry, while dashed lines show the approximate prediction described in the text. For these data, the height of the potential $U_0/T=1$, meaning the approximation described in the text is not fully applicable: yet it still captures the general behaviour. **Inset:** Contours of phase-space density. The solid straight lines show $-f(x)$. Current-lines are sketched and adorned with arrows.[]{data-label="fig:rectify"}](WIND_u1-0.pdf){width="\wid\linewidth"}
Pressure
========
Further consequences of the non-equilibrium character of OUPs can be found in their production of mechanical stresses. This idea was investigated already in [@Sol++15], where it was found that the pressure exerted by an ideal gas of active Brownian particles depends on torques exerted on them by the confining potential. [We here consider point-like particles, so torque is not an issue.]{}
Since every particle located at coordinate $x$ exerts a force $f(x)$ on the source of the potential $U(x)$, the total average force is obtained by integration of $n(x)f(x)$. We now show how this quantity is connected to the statistics of $\eta$. We derive equations for the first and second moments of $\eta$ by multiplying Eq. (\[eqn:FPE\]) by the appropriate power of $\eta$ and integrating over all $\eta$ [@KML14]. This gives (for arbitrary spatial dimension and with summation over repeated indices):
$$\begin{aligned}
f_{i}(\vec{x}) & = - \left< \eta_{i} \right>(\vec{x}) \label{eq:average_eta_equals_force_D} \\
f_{j}(\vec{x}) n(\vec{x}) & = \partial_{x_{i}} \sigma_{ij}(\vec{x}) \ , \label{eq:equation_for_second_moment_of_eta_D} \\ \ \sigma_{ij}(\vec{x}) & = \frac{\tau}{\zeta} \left[ \left( \left< \eta_{i} \eta_{j} \right> - \left< \eta_{i}\right> \left< \eta_{j} \right> \right) n(\vec{x}) \right] \ , \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
where Eq. (\[eq:average\_eta\_equals\_force\_D\]) encapsulates the steady-state balance of propulsion an potential forces on a single OUP, and Eq. (\[eq:equation\_for\_second\_moment\_of\_eta\_D\]) encapsulates the net balance of stresses on the OUPs’ medium.
If the potential $U(x)$ depends on one coordinate only, representing a “wall” of the container, then the pressure on this wall is obtained by line integration of $f(x)n(x)$ in the direction perpendicular to the wall – i.e. along $x$: $$\begin{aligned}
P = -\int_\text{bottom of wall}^\text{top of wall} f(x)n(x) \operatorname{d\!}x,
\label{eqn:P}\end{aligned}$$ where “bottom of wall” and “top of wall” enclose a region with nonzero $f(x)$. In general, however, the right-hand side of equation (\[eq:equation\_for\_second\_moment\_of\_eta\_D\]) is not a potential vector field. This means the line integral (\[eqn:P\]) depends on the integration path, and the concept of pressure is ill-defined beyond simple planar or spherical geometries. Yet it turns out that even in these situations there are interesting physical effects.
We begin by considering one-dimensional geometry, for which Eqs (\[eq:equation\_for\_second\_moment\_of\_eta\_D\]) and (\[eqn:P\]) imply the pressure on a wall $P = \frac{\tau}{\zeta} \left(\left[ \left< \delta \eta_x^2 \right> n(x) \right]_{\text{bottom}} - \left[ \left< \delta \eta_x^2 \right> n(x) \right]_{\text{top}}\right)$, where $\left< \delta \eta_x^2 \right> \equiv \left<\eta_x^2 \right> - \left< \eta_x \right>^2$. If the wall can be treated as infinitely high [[potential barrier]{}]{}, the second term contributing to the pressure vanishes. Moreover, if there is a region between two confining walls where $f=0$ (as in the Fig. \[fig:PA\_CAR\_DL\] inset), the quantity $\left[\left< \delta \eta_x^2 \right> n \right]_{\text{bottom}}$ can be evaluated anywhere in this “bulk”. Thus the pressure exerted on the walls depends solely [[on]{}]{} bulk quantities, and OUPs in 1D obey an equation of state.
We might imagine that when the width of the bulk, $L$, is much larger than the persistence length over which a free OUP loses its $\eta$ correlation, $\sqrt{\tau T/\zeta}$, particles leaving one wall forget its influence by the time they reach the other one. More quantitatively, one can show that the variance of the propulsion force far from any walls is $T\zeta/\tau$. Combining this with the expression for the pressure, we obtain the familiar ideal gas law $P=n_0 T$, where $n_0$ is the density evaluated deep in the bulk.
Thus, in the limit $L \to \infty$, memory-driven active particles are no different from passive particles. The opposite limit, $L\to 0$, can be taken from the exact solution above. Fig. \[fig:PA\_CAR\_DL\] shows numerical results for intermediate cases.
![Pressure as a function of the dimensionless correlation time $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$, for several bulk widths $L$. The prediction for $L=0$ is shown as a dashed line (obscured by data), and the prediction for $L\to\infty$ is a constant. The pressure exerted by an ideal gas of passive particles, $P^{\mathrm passive}$ is calculated by substituting the Boltzmann distribution into Eq. (\[eqn:P\]).[]{data-label="fig:PA_CAR_DL"}](PAS_R100-0_loglog.pdf){width="\wid\linewidth"}
Repulsive “depletion” forces in a Casimir potential
===================================================
In this section, we consider a periodic “Casimir”-style potential sketched in the lower inset of Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\]. The potential consists of two narrowly-spaced walls, with a channel between them and a large (essentially infinite) bulk on either side. The walls themselves are permeable to OUPs which acquire sufficient propulsion to overcome the force barrier [^2]; and while we restrict ourselves here to 1D, similar results are obtained from analogous setups in higher dimensions.
We find numerically that the net pressure on the two interior walls does not in general vanish for OUPs: the solid lines in Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\] [referring to the left ordinate axis]{} show they experience an effective repulsion. This is interesting because narrowly-separated walls typically *attract*, due to the depletion of thermal or quantum fluctuations in the gap between them. The OUP case is different as a result of two competing effects.
![ **Main figure:** [The main figure plots two sets of data. The pressure on the inner and outer portions of the Casimir potential (circles, solid lines, left ordinate axis), and the total probability of finding the OUP in each region (triangles, dashed lines, right ordinate axis), both as a function of the dimensionless correlation time $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$.]{} Here, ${P_\text{in}}>{P_\text{out}}$ and $M_\text{in}>M_\text{out}$; the height of the potentials is ${T/2}$ and their half-width is $\sqrt{{T}/{k}}$. **Upper inset:** A representative probability distribution of $\eta$ between the walls, which is narrower than the distribution in the [large bulk]{} ($p^\text{large}_\text{bulk}(\eta)\propto\exp\left[-\frac{\tau}{2T\zeta}\eta^2\right]$). **Lower inset:** Sketch of the piecewise-quadratic potential, whose the walls are penetrable for OUPs with sufficiently high $\eta$. For these data, the maxiumum height of the potential is $\frac{1}{2}T$, and the distance between the peaks is $2\sqrt{T/k}$. []{data-label="fig:PMa_Casimir"}]({PMa_CAR_CL_R8_S2_T0}.pdf){width="\wid\linewidth"}
To understand the first effect, consider an OUP in-between the two inner walls. If the gap is small, the particle does not have time to change its propulsion force $\eta$ before coming in contact with one of the walls. Particles with a large $\eta$ can cross the force barrier and escape, while particles with a small $\eta$ do not cross the force barrier and get trapped for at least a time $\tau$. As a consequence, the gap between the inner walls is populated mostly by lackadaisical particles and the probability distribution in the gap is strongly peaked around $\eta=0$. This is indeed observed – see the upper inset of Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\], which compares the distribution of $\eta$ [between]{} the two interior walls with the distribution in a large bulk. This is somewhat analogous to the conventional Casimir effect, and it consequently *lowers* the interior pressure $P_\text{in}$ relative to the exterior pressure $P_\text{out}$ (since low-$\eta$ particles don’t penetrate far into the wall region). Yet in Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\], we observe $P_\text{in}>P_\text{out}$ – the walls *repel* each other – so this effect cannot be dominant.
Concomitant with the low magnitude of $\eta$ is a disproportionate *accumulation* of particles in the region between the walls: once they reach this region, it is difficult for them to leave, because the narrowly-spaced walls constantly sap the particles’ propulsion force. [This is illustrated by the dashed lines referring to the right ordinate axis in Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\].]{} The narrow gap between interior walls therefore acts as a trap, concentrating the particle density and raising the pressure to an extent that outweighs the diminished penetration effect discussed in the previous paragraph. This effect has no analogy in the [regular]{} Casimir scenario.
To explore the physics further, we consider a slightly different periodic potential that is more amenable to explicit calculations. Similar to the original Casimir potential depicted in Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\], this new potential features two narrowly-spaced steep walls flanked by a broad region where the potential force is relatively small: therefore we may expect to see some of the same physics at play. The new potential is piecewise-quadratic, with one piece possessing smaller curvature than the other: $U(x)=U_0\left(\frac{x}{L}+1\right)^2$ for $-2L\leq x\leq 0$ and $U(x)=U_0\left(\frac{x}{\ell}-1\right)^2$ for $0\leq x\leq 2\ell$, with $L\gg \ell$ ensuring that the second region is narrow compared to the first. The period of $U(x)$ is then $2L+2\ell$ (see Fig. \[fig:CasimirPotential\] in appendix \[app:CasimirModel\] for an illustration).
At the steady state, the flux out of the narrow interior region is balanced by the flux into it, a fact which can be expressed as $M_{\mathrm in}k_{\mathrm in\to out}=M_{\mathrm out}k_{\mathrm out\to in}$ (where the $M$s are the total probability in the inner and outer regions, and the $k$s are rate constants). For this potential, $k_{\mathrm in\to out}$ and $k_{\mathrm out\to in}$ differ, because the *height* of the force barriers and the force *gradient* are both direction-dependent. This is similar to the particle-pumping potential in Fig. \[fig:rectify\], and the difference between the rate constants can be investigated using the same machinery: choosing parameters such that the OUP penetration into any wall is relatively shallow, we use the density equation (\[eqn:rho\]) as an approximation for each potential well. Combining these densities with the zero-flux condition, we show in appendix \[app:CasimirModel\] that even for moderate values of $\tau$, OUPs are highly confined to the narrow region between the two walls, in agreement with Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\].
We stress that the potential used for this calculation is somewhat different from our original Casimir potential. There, OUP accumulation between the walls was due to the reinforcement of correlations in $\left< \eta^2 \right>$ by the proximity of the walls. In the case just considered the heights of the force barriers are in addition direction-dependent. This scenario is therefore a little closer to the one considered in [@Sol++15], where ABPs interacted with different potentials on either side of a hard piston.
The non-monotonicity of the OUP pressure exerted on the Casimir potential can be explained by a competition between varying penetration into the walls and enhanced accumulation between them. When $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$ increases from $0$, the pressure initially follows the average penetration and decreases below the thermal value. However, the force-controlled accumulation of particles with low $\eta^2$ begins to dominate around $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}\gtrsim 1$. Finally, when $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$ is large enough that the penetration is smaller than the half-width of the interior wall, each region becomes increasingly isolated, and we are back to (multiple copies of) the situation in Fig. \[fig:PA\_CAR\_DL\].
Active Laplace pressure
=======================
Interior walls are not the only way to break spatial symmetry and induce pressure gradients. Swimmers interact with *curved* walls in a nontrivial manner, as has been observed in ABP simulations [@FBH14; @S+L15; @Nik++16] and experimental systems [@Gal++07; @PhysRevE.89.032720]. The simplest setup involving both positive and negative curvature, but avoiding ambiguities in the definition of pressure, is an annular geometry.
![ **Main figure:** The pressure difference $(P_\text{out}^\text{OUP}-P_\text{in}^\text{OUP})/(P_\text{out}^\text{flat}\sqrt\frac{k\tau}{\zeta})$ for an annular potential, as a function the wall position $R$ and for several values of the dimensionless correlation time $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$. (We divide the pressure difference by the pressure for a flat wall in order to fix normalisation as $R$ changes, and we also divide by the free-particle persistence length $\sqrt\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$ for better comparison of curves.) The bulk is of zero width and located at $r=R$; and the line $1/R$ is indicated by dots. **Inset:** Schematic of the annular potential in 3D, with the foot of the wall indicated.[]{data-label="fig:DP_polar"}](DPRA_AG_loglog.pdf){width="\wid\linewidth"}
Even in this highly symmetrised setting, explicit results are forthcoming on neither the radial density profile nor the pressure on the inner and outer walls [^3]. Thus, we examine numerically the statistics of an OUP confined in the potential $U(r)=\frac{1}{2}k(r-R)^2$, where $R$ is a parameter which determines both the curvature of the annulus and the position of the (zero-width) bulk. We observe that OUPs tend to collect in the “concave” outer wall region (see movie in the supplementary material). This is consistent with what has been found previously for simulations of ABPs confined by hard walls [@FBH14; @S+L15; @Nik++16], and is also intuitively reasonable: persistent particles in the inner convex region may escape by changing their direction just a little (or not at all), while those in the concave outer region must make a more drastic change to their direction to escape. The difference in density between the inner and outer regions leads to a difference in pressure on the inner and outer walls, with $P_\text{outer}>P_\text{inner}$. Numerical results for the pressure difference $\Delta P$ as a function of $R$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig:DP\_polar\]. As expected, when $R\to \infty$ and the curvature asymmetry between the walls vanishes, $\Delta P$ does too. Moreover, when $R$ is large enough to make the potential effectively infinite at $r=0$, we find $\Delta P\propto 1/R$. This is reminiscent of a Laplace pressure, with effective surface tension depending on the dimensionless correlation time $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$.
Concluding remarks
==================
In this paper we examined how non-equilibrium flows and pressure imbalances develop in systems of non-interacting particles driven by a stochastic correlated force, $\eta(t)$. The exact steady-state density $\rho(x,\eta)$ for a single OUP confined in a one-dimensional quadratic potential reveals two distinct regimes. *Low* values of the dimensionless correlation time $\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}$ lead to an equilibrium-like regime of approximately passive particles, while *high* values are associated with the balance between $\vec\eta$ and the potential force.
We show how potential barriers [and force barriers]{} influence the spatial distribution of OUP propulsion forces, and how this phenomenon can be exploited to produce net currents and unbalanced mechanical pressures. In one dimensional simulations, two narrowly-separated walls (reminiscent of a Casimir setup) experience an effective repulsion. This arises because the potentials sap the particles’ propulsion and act as traps. This phenomenon was further investigated with an analytic approximation, which gives similar results. Curved boundaries also induce pressure imbalances. For propelled particles confined in an annular geometry, we find the difference in pressures on the outer and inner confining walls is proportional to the boundary curvature, as in Laplace’s law.
This work was supported primarily by the MRSEC Program of the National Science Foundation under Award Number DMR-1420073. AYG acknowledges useful discussions with M. Kardar.
Exact solution for an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Particle in a 1D quadratic potential {#app:ExactSolution}
=============================================================================
In this section, we shall assume length is meaured in units of $\sqrt{T/k}$, force in units of $\sqrt{Tk}$, and time in units of $\zeta/k$. We may then re-write the OUP model (Eqs (\[eqn:LE\_dim\]) and (\[eqn:FPE\]) of the main text) in terms of the dimensionless correlation time $\alpha\equiv \tau k/\zeta$.
Derivation of steady state density from Langevin equation
---------------------------------------------------------
Here we obtain equation (\[eqn:rho\]) of the main text directly from the (non-dimensional) stochastic equations. Combining equations (\[eqn:LE\_dim\]) of the main text into a single vector equation for $\vec x\equiv\begin{pmatrix}x & \eta\end{pmatrix}^{\mathrm T}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\vec x} = A\vec x + \vec\xi(t) \ ,
\label{eqn:LE_vec}\end{aligned}$$ where $A=\begin{pmatrix}-1&1\\0&-1/\alpha\end{pmatrix}$ and $\left<\vec\xi(t)\vec\xi(t^\prime)\right>=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1/\alpha^2\end{pmatrix}\delta(t-t^\prime)$. Equation (\[eqn:LE\_vec\]) can be “solved” as an integral over the stochastic force $$\begin{aligned}
\vec x(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{t} \exp[A(t-s)]\vec\xi(s) \operatorname{d\!}s \ ,\end{aligned}$$ and the covariance matrix $ C(t,t^\prime)\equiv \left< \vec x(t)\vec x(t^\prime)\right>$ $$\begin{aligned}
C(t,t^\prime) = \int_{-\infty}^t \exp[A(t-s)]\left<\vec\xi(t)\vec\xi(t^\prime)\right>\exp[A^{\mathrm T}(t^\prime-s)] \operatorname{d\!}s\end{aligned}$$ which can be computed given the self-correlation of $\vec\xi$. Since equation (\[eqn:LE\_vec\]) is a linear equation driven by a Gaussian process, its steady state density must be a bivariate Gaussian of the form $\rho(x,\eta)\propto\exp\left[-\vec x C^{-1}\vec x^{\mathrm T}\right]$. Performing the matrix exponentiation, multiplication and inversion, gives $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\rho(x,\eta) = &\frac{\sqrt\alpha(\alpha+1)}{2\pi}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha+1)^2x^2+\right.\\
&\left.\quad-\frac{1}{2}\alpha(\alpha+1)\eta^2+\alpha(\alpha+1)x\eta\right] \ .
\end{split}
$$
Density and currents in phase space {#app:DensityAndCurrents}
-----------------------------------
From equations (\[eqn:FPE\]) and (\[eqn:rho\]) in the main text, we find that steady-state currents exist in the full phase space, but cancel out when considering the $x$-coordinate alone (see Fig. \[fig:rho\_E2\]).
![**Upper panel (a):** Density distribution in $(x,\eta)$ phase space. Elliptical level lines illustrate the exact solution (\[eqn:rho\]). **Lower panel (b):** Currents in $(x,\eta)$ phase space. Arrows represent *velocity*, while the contours are magnitude of *current*.[]{data-label="fig:rho_E2"}]({E2density}.pdf "fig:"){width="\wid\linewidth"} ![**Upper panel (a):** Density distribution in $(x,\eta)$ phase space. Elliptical level lines illustrate the exact solution (\[eqn:rho\]). **Lower panel (b):** Currents in $(x,\eta)$ phase space. Arrows represent *velocity*, while the contours are magnitude of *current*.[]{data-label="fig:rho_E2"}]({E2quiver}.pdf "fig:"){width="\wid\linewidth"}
The spatial density $n(x)$ can be found from equation (\[eqn:rho\]) by integrating over $\eta$: $$\begin{aligned}
n(x) = \sqrt\frac{\alpha+1}{2\pi} \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha+1)x^2\right].
\label{eqn:Q}\end{aligned}$$ This exact solution, which agrees with approximations from the literature [@Mag++15; @Fod++16], has exponential form and hence can be mapped to a Boltzmann distribution by invoking an effective temperature $T_{\mathrm eff}\equiv\frac{T}{\alpha+1}$ (in dimensionful units).
It is clear from the solution in equation (\[eqn:rho\]) that the level curves of the density in Fig. \[fig:rho\_E2\] are concentric ellipses. Their eccentricity is $$\begin{aligned}
e = \sqrt{\frac{2 \sqrt{1 + 4 \alpha^2}}{1 + 2 \alpha + \sqrt{1 + 4 \alpha^2}}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ This tends to unity in both $\alpha \to 0$ and $\alpha \to \infty$ limits, with a minimum of $e\approx 0.91$ at $\alpha=1/2$.
Non-stationary mean-squared displacement {#app:dispplacement}
----------------------------------------
From the overdamped Langevin equation, we can compute mean square displacement of an OUP. Using units of $\sqrt{T/k}$ for $x$, $\zeta/k$ for time $t$, and with $\alpha = k \tau/\zeta$ being the dimensionless correlation time, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\left< \left[ x(t) - x(0) \right]^2 \right> = \frac{1 - e^{- \left( \alpha + 1 \right) t}}{ \alpha + 1 } + \frac{1 - e^{ \left( \alpha - 1 \right) t}}{ \alpha - 1 } e^{- 2 \alpha t} \ ,
\label{eqn:MSD}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with limits $$\begin{aligned}
\left< \left[ x(t) - x(0) \right]^2 \right> \simeq \left\{ \begin{array}{lcr} \alpha t^2 & \mathrm{for} & t \to 0 \\ \\ \frac{1}{\alpha + 1} & \mathrm{for} & t \to \infty \end{array} \right. \end{aligned}$$ The long time asymptotic corresponds to the confinement length which is implicit in the density distributions (\[eqn:rho\]) or (\[eqn:Q\]). The short time asymptotic, which is not diffusive but ballistic, reflects the fact that these particles are driven by the active propulsion force.
The relaxation time is controlled by the longer of the two time-scales in equation (\[eqn:MSD\]), namely $1/(\alpha+1)$ and $1/2\alpha$.
Calculation of the Dissipation from a Quadratically Confined OUP {#app:PowerBalance}
================================================================
For a non-overdamped OUP of mass $m$, the equation of motion (ie, the balance of forces) reads $$m \ddot{x} + \zeta \dot{x} + kx = \eta \ , \label{eq:main_equation_only_colored}$$ with $\left< \eta \right> =0 $ and $\left< \eta(t) \eta(t^{\prime}) \right> = 2 \zeta T \exp \left[ - \frac{\left| t - t ^{\prime} \right|}{\tau} \right] $ as before. To obtain the balance of *powers*, multiply both sides by $\dot{x}$ to arrive at $$\frac{\operatorname{d\!}}{\operatorname{d\!}t} \left[ \frac{kx^2}{2} + \frac{m\dot{x}^2}{2} \right] + \zeta \dot{x}^2 = \eta \dot{x} \ .$$ Averaging, we note that the first term vanishes in the steady state, so $$\left< \zeta \dot{x}^2 \right> = \left< \eta \dot{x} \right> \ , \label{eq:Power_Balance}$$ which simply means that the average power of dissipation by friction (the left hand side) is equal to the average power input provided by the propulsion force (the right hand side). We shall explicitly compute this power; but first we compute the mean squared-displacement for the massive OUP. Fourier transforming and performing a contour integral, $$\left< x^2(t) \right> \equiv \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \left( x^2 \right)_{\omega} \frac{\operatorname{d\!}\omega}{2 \pi} = \frac{T}{k} \frac{1 + \frac{\tau \zeta}{m}}{1 + \frac{\tau \zeta}{m} + \frac{\tau^2 k}{m}} \ .
\label{eqn:MSD_with_intertia}$$ From this formula we recognise two familiar limits. For a system driven by white noise ($\tau \to 0$), $\left< x^2 \right> = T/k$ as required by equipartition. For the no-inertia case ($m \to 0$) considered in the main text we recover the previous finding $\left< x^2 \right> = \frac{T}{k} \frac{1}{1+ \frac{k \tau}{\zeta}}$.
The dissipation can be computed by considering either the right- or left-hand side of equation (\[eq:Power\_Balance\]): $$\left< \zeta \dot{x}^2 \right> \equiv \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} -\zeta \omega^2 \left(x^2 \right)_{\omega} \frac{\operatorname{d\!}\omega}{2 \pi} = \frac{1}{\tau} \frac{T}{1+ \frac{k \tau}{\zeta} + \frac{m}{\tau \zeta}} \ .
\label{eq:Power_General}$$ Once again, two limits can be readily identified. When $\tau \to 0$, $\left< \zeta \dot{x}^2 \right> = \zeta T/m$, or $\left< m\dot{x}^2 \right> = T$, as expected from classical equipartition. For the no-inertia case, $m \to 0$, we arrive at equation (\[eqn:DissipationRate\]) from the main text.
Combining equation (\[eq:Power\_General\]) with equation (\[eqn:MSD\_with\_intertia\]), we find a modified form of the Virial Theorem: $$\left( 1 + \frac{\tau \zeta}{m} \right) \left< \frac{m \dot{x}^2}{2} \right> = \left< \frac{k x^2}{2} \right> \ .
\label{eqn:ModifiedVirialTheorem}$$ Deviations from the classical result are clearly parameterised by the non-equilibrium correlation time $\tau$.Taking the no-inertia limit of equation (\[eqn:ModifiedVirialTheorem\]) we find once more that the average potential energy is dissipated in time $\tau/2$.
Calculations for OUP pumping in an asymmetrical potential
=========================================================
We use formula (\[eqn:rho\]) of the main text as an approximation for the density. In original units, we denote the un-normalised density in a quadratic potential with spring constant $\kappa$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
& p_{\kappa}(x,\eta) \equiv \\ & \exp \left[ - \frac{\kappa}{2T} \left( \frac{\kappa \tau}{\zeta} + 1 \right) \left[ x^2 + \frac{\kappa \tau}{\zeta} \left( \frac{\eta}{\kappa} - x \right)^2 \right] \right]
\end{split}\ . \label{eqn:standard}\end{aligned}$$ Let the two different spring constants in the problem be $$\begin{aligned}
k = \frac{2 U_0}{\ell^2} \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ K = \frac{2 U_0}{L^2} \ , \label{eq:Definitions_of_k_and_K}\end{aligned}$$ with $L\geq\ell$. Then we approximate $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(x,\eta) \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{lcr} A\, p_{K}(x,\eta) & \mathrm{for} & -L < x < 0 \\ & & \\ a\, p_{k}(x,\eta) & \mathrm{for} & 0 < x < \ell \end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ The ratio of the pre-factors $A$ and $a$ we fix by the (approximate) condition that the spatial distribution $n(x)$ is continous at the junction of the two potentials (at $x=0$): $$\begin{aligned}
A \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p_{K}(x=0,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}\eta = a \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} p_{k}(x=0,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}\eta \ ,\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{A}{\sqrt{\frac{K \tau}{ \zeta}+1}} = \frac{a}{\sqrt{\frac{k \tau}{ \zeta}+1}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ As a second condition, we assume (arbitarily) that the density is normalised in every period of the potential, $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \left[ A \int_{-L}^{0} p_{K}(x,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}x + a \int_{0}^{\ell} p_{k}(x,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}x \right] \operatorname{d\!}\eta = 1 \ .\end{aligned}$$ Thus we obtain simple (but cumbersome) expressions for amplitudes $A$ and $a$. We may then compute the current according to $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
J &= a \int_{k\ell}^{\infty} p_{k}(x=\ell,\eta) \frac{\eta - k\ell}{\zeta} \operatorname{d\!}\eta \ + \\
&\quad + A \int^{-KL}_{-\infty} p_{K}(x=L,\eta) \frac{\eta + KL}{\zeta} \operatorname{d\!}\eta
\end{split} \label{eqn:current} \end{aligned}$$ where the first integral represents current to the right over the steep force barrier, and the second integral, which is negative, represents current to the left over the shallow force barrier. In the end, dropping for clarity the normalization factor, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
J \propto \frac{\exp \left[ - \frac{U_0}{T} \left(\frac{k \tau}{\zeta}+1 \right) \right]}{\sqrt{\frac{k \tau}{\zeta}+1}} - \frac{\exp \left[ - \frac{U_0}{T} \left(\frac{K \tau}{\zeta}+1 \right) \right]}{\sqrt{\frac{K \tau}{\zeta}+1}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Remembering definitions of spring constants $k$ and $K$, and letting $\ell = \lambda (L + \ell)$ and $L=(1-\lambda)(L+\ell)$, we finally arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
J \propto \frac{\exp \left[ - \frac{U_0}{T} \left(\frac{ \alpha}{\lambda^2}+1 \right) \right]}{ \sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{\lambda^2}+1}} - \frac{\exp \left[ - \frac{U_0}{T} \left(\frac{\alpha}{(1-\lambda)^2}+1 \right) \right]}{ \sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{(1 -\lambda)^2}+1}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ with dimensionless parameters in the problem being $U_0/T$ and $\alpha = 2U_0 \tau/(L+\ell)^2 \zeta$. This current is plotted against $\alpha$ in Fig. \[fig:rectify\] of the main text, for various values of $\lambda$ (assuming $U_0/T = 1.0$ as an example).
Approximation for the Casimir Potential {#app:CasimirModel}
=======================================
In the main text, we described how the exact result for the OUP density in a quadratic potential may be used to gain some insight into the observed accumulation between narrowly-spaced walls. We consider the potential $$\begin{aligned}
U(x) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2}K(x+L)^2 &\quad \text{for } -2L\leq x\leq 0\\
\frac{1}{2}k(x-\ell)^2 &\quad \text{for } 0\leq x\leq 2\ell \ ,
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:Casimir_U}\end{aligned}$$ with $K$ and $k$ defined as in equation (\[eq:Definitions\_of\_k\_and\_K\]), and $U_0$ the height of the energy barrier. The upper panel of Fig. \[fig:CasimirPotential\] compares this potential with the original Casimir potential considered in the main text.
![**Upper panel (a):** Schematic of the original Casimir potential from the main text (solid blue line), and the approximation to it considered here (green, dashed). **Lower panel (b):** The mass $M$ in the narrow region of the Casimir potential, as a function of the potential-stiffness ratio $k/K$, for several values of the potential height $U_0/T$.[]{data-label="fig:CasimirPotential"}](CasimirPotential.pdf "fig:"){width="\wid\linewidth"} ![**Upper panel (a):** Schematic of the original Casimir potential from the main text (solid blue line), and the approximation to it considered here (green, dashed). **Lower panel (b):** The mass $M$ in the narrow region of the Casimir potential, as a function of the potential-stiffness ratio $k/K$, for several values of the potential height $U_0/T$.[]{data-label="fig:CasimirPotential"}](CasimirMass.pdf "fig:"){width="\wid\linewidth"}
\[fig:CasimirMass\]
Using the notation of equation (\[eqn:standard\]), the density in either well is approximated as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(x,\eta) \simeq
\begin{cases}
& A \cdot p_{K}(x+L,\eta) \\
&\qquad\qquad \text{for } -2L\leq x\leq 0\\
&a \cdot p_{k}(x-\ell,\eta) \\
&\qquad\qquad \text{for } 0\leq x\leq 2\ell \ ,
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:Casimir_rho}\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ and $a$ are factors to be determined. In the steady state, the net current over the force barrier at $x=0$ must be zero. Similar to equation (\[eqn:current\]), this gives one condition between amplitudes $A$ and $a$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
0 &= A \int_{KL}^{\infty} p_{K}(L,\eta) \frac{\eta - KL}{\zeta} \operatorname{d\!}\eta + \\
&\quad + a \int^{-k\ell}_{-\infty} p_{k}(\ell,\eta) \frac{\eta + k\ell}{\zeta} \operatorname{d\!}\eta
\end{split} \label{eqn:current_Casimir} \end{aligned}$$ The second condition which fixes amplitudes $A$ and $a$ is the normalization: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
1 &= A \int_{-2L}^{0} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} p_{K}(x+L,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}\eta \operatorname{d\!}x + \\
&\quad+ a \int_{0}^{2\ell} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p_{k}(x-\ell,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}\eta \operatorname{d\!}x \ .
\label{eqn:norm_Casimir}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
![The net repulsive pressure $P$ on the interior walls of the Casimir potential, as a function of the potential-stiffness ratio $k/K$, for several values of the potential height $U_0/T$.[]{data-label="fig:CasimirPressure"}](CasimirPressure.pdf){width="\wid\linewidth"}
The total probability, $M$, to find the OUP in the narrow well can then be found as $$\begin{aligned}
M &= a \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{2\ell} p_{k}(x-\ell,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}x \operatorname{d\!}\eta \\
&= \frac{1}{ 1+ \left(\frac{ \frac{K\tau}{\zeta}+1}{\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}+1} \right)
\frac{\exp\left[{\frac{U_0}{T}\frac{K\tau}{\zeta}}\right]}{\exp\left[{\frac{U_0}{T}\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}}\right]}
\frac{\operatorname{erf}\left[\sqrt{\frac{U_0}{T}\left(\frac{K\tau}{\zeta}+1\right)}\right]}{\operatorname{erf}\left[\sqrt{\frac{U_0}{T}\left(\frac{k\tau}{\zeta}+1\right)}\right]} } \ .
\label{eqn:CasimirMass}\end{aligned}$$ This is plotted in Fig. \[fig:CasimirMass\].
The total force on the wall is equal and opposite to the pressure. This is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
-P &= A \int_{-L}^{0} K (x+L) \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} p_{K}(x+L,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}\eta \operatorname{d\!}x + \\ &\quad+ a \int_{0}^{\ell} k (x-\ell) \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p_{k}(x-\ell,\eta) \operatorname{d\!}\eta \operatorname{d\!}x \ . \label{eqn:pressure_Casimir}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The expression is a little longer than equation (\[eqn:CasimirMass\]), so we merely plot it in Fig. \[fig:CasimirPressure\]. Note that in this model, the net force exerted by OUPs on the walls always pushes them apart, as in the simulations of the Casimir potential in Fig. \[fig:PMa\_Casimir\] of the main text.
Position Trajectory for the Annular Geometry
============================================
Fig. \[fig:traj\_POL\_DL\_DR0\] shows a segment of an OUP trajectory trace in an annular potential with zero bulk. The trace is colour-coded according to time, with later times shaded darker. See also the movie in the supplementary material.
![A sample trajectory trace in the annular geometry. Shaded according to time, with later times shaded darker. The solid black circle marks $r=R$.[]{data-label="fig:traj_POL_DL_DR0"}](traj_a10_R2_S2_t3.pdf){width="\wid\linewidth"}
Simulation Notes {#app:Simulation}
================
Numerical simulation of equations \[eqn:LE\_dim\] was implemented using an Euler–Maruyama scheme. The equations of motion were cast into dimensionless form using the prescription in appendix \[app:ExactSolution\]. (When there are multiple spring constants in the problem, we choose the largest, which gives the smallest unit of time.) We typically used the time-step $\Delta t=0.01$; although when the dimensionless correlation time $\alpha$ is small ($\alpha\lesssim 0.1$), it is prudent to employ a smaller increment in order to forestall issues with the convolution in constructing $\eta(t)$. Each data point shown here was generated from fifty runs of $100,000$ or so time-steps, which ensured that the steady state was reached and the initial condition had negligible influence on the final results. For simulations with relatively high force barriers, longer simulation times were occasionally needed to achieve steady state.
To avoid crowding in the plots of simulation results, we have omitted error bars. Deviation in the outcome of repeated runs was small, seldom more than the size of the plot markers.
[10]{}
J. Elgeti and G. Gompper. Wall accumulation of self-propelled spheres. , 101:48003, February 2013.
M.-E. Cates and J. Tailleur. Motility-induced phase separation. , 6:219–244, March 2015.
Y. Fily and M. C. Marchetti. Athermal phase separation of self-propelled particles with no alignment. , 108(23):235702, June 2012.
B. Ezhilan, M. J. Shelley, and D. Saintillan. Instabilities and nonlinear dynamics of concentrated active suspensions. , 25(7):070607–070607, July 2013.
E. Lushi, H. Wioland, and E. Goldstein. Fluid flows created by swimming bacteria drive self-organization in confined suspensions. , 111:9733–9738, June 2014.
Claudio Maggi, Matteo Paoluzzi, Nicola Pellicciotta, Alessia Lepore, Luca Angelani, and Roberto Di Leonardo. Generalized energy equipartition in harmonic oscillators driven by active baths. , 113:238303, Dec 2014.
P. Jung and P. Hanggi. Dynamical systems – a unified colored-noise approximation. , 35:4464–4466, May 1987.
C. Maggi, U. M. B. Marconi, N. Gnan, and R. [di Leonardo]{}. Multidimensional stationary probability distribution for interacting active particles. , 5:10742, May 2015.
. Fodor, C. Nardini, M.-E. Cates, J. Tailleur, P. Visco, and F. [van Wijland]{}. How far from equilibrium is active matter? , 117(3):038103, July 2016.
P. S. Hagan, C. R. Doering, and C. D. Levermore. The distribution of exit times for weakly colored noise. , 54:1321–1352, March 1989.
G. [Szamel]{}. . , 90(1):012111, July 2014.
Marcelo O. Magnasco. Forced thermal ratchets. , 71:1477–1481, Sep 1993.
N. [Koumakis]{}, A. [Lepore]{}, C. [Maggi]{}, and R. [di Leonardo]{}. . , 4:2588, October 2013.
N. [Koumakis]{}, C. [Maggi]{}, and R. [Di Leonardo]{}. . , 10:5695, July 2014.
L. [Ibarra-Bracamontes]{} and V. [Romero-Roch[í]{}n]{}. . , 56:4048–4051, October 1997.
T. E. [Dialynas]{}, K. [Lindenberg]{}, and G. P. [Tsironis]{}. . , 56:3976–3985, October 1997.
R. [Bartussek]{}. . In L. [Schimansky-Geier]{} and T. [P[ö]{}schel]{}, editors, [*Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag*]{}, volume 484 of [*Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag*]{}, page 68, 1997.
A. P. Solon, Y. Fily, A. Baskaran, M. E. Cates, Y. Kafri, M. Kardar, and J. Tailleur. Pressure is not a state function for generic active fluids. , 11:673–678, August 2015.
Y. Fily, A. Baskaran, and M. F. Hagan. Dynamics of self-propelled particles under strong confinement. , 10:5609–5617, 2014.
F. Smallenburg and H. L[ö]{}wen. Swim pressure on walls with curves and corners. , 92(3):032304, September 2015.
N. Nikola, A. P. Solon, Y. Kafri, M. Kardar, J. Tailleur, and R. Voituriez. Active particles with soft and curved walls: Equation of state, ratchets, and instabilities. , 117(9):098001, August 2016.
P. Galajda, J. Keymer, P. M. Chaikin, and R. Austin. A wall of funnels concentrates swimming bacteria. , 189:8704–8707, December 2007.
A. Guidobaldi, Y. Jeyaram, I. Berdakin, V. V. Moshchalkov, C. A. Condat, V. I. Marconi, L. Giojalas, and A. V. Silhanek. Geometrical guidance and trapping transition of human sperm cells. , 89:032720, Mar 2014.
[^1]: \[fnt:ABP-RTP\] The “temperature” $T$ which appears in these equations was introduced in Eq. (\[eqn:LE\_dim\_eta\]) in order to construct the exponentially-correlated driving force; it may or may not have anything to do with the ambient temperature. Nevertheless, for our purposes it is natural to assume that $T$ is fixed, and thus the amplitude and correlation of $\eta(t)$ are simultaneously controlled by $\tau$
[^2]: While the use of permeable walls is perhaps not typical for a Casimir experiment, and while they do change the physics of the situation slightly, the general thrust of the following discussion is not affected by them.
[^3]: Previous approximate work on OUPs in a radially-symmetric geometry [@Mag++15] did accurately describe some phenomena, for instance that the probability distribution peak is offset towards regions of low curvature.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a (hopefully) novel calculation of the vacuum energy in expanding FLRW spacetimes based on the renormalization of quantum field theory in non-zero backgrounds. We compute the renormalized effective action up to the $2-$point function and then apply the formalism to the cosmological backgrounds of interest. As an example we calculate for quasi de Sitter spacetimes the leading correction to the vacuum energy given by the tadpole diagram and show that it behaves as $\sim H_0^2\Lambda_{\rm pl}$ where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant and $\Lambda_{\rm pl}$ is the Planck constant. This is of the same order of magnitude as the observed dark energy density in the universe.'
author:
- |
Badis Ydri [^1], Adel Bouchareb [^2]\
Institute of Physics, BM Annaba University, BP 12, 23000, Annaba, Algeria.
title: On the Problem of Vacuum Energy in FLRW Universes and Dark Energy
---
Introduction
============
In recent years it has been established, to a very reasonable level of confidence, that the universe is spatially flat and is composed of $4$ per cent ordinary mater, $23$ per cent dark matter and $73$ per cent dark energy. This state of affair is summarized in the cosmological concordance $\Lambda$CDM model [@Beringer:1900zz]. The dominant component, dark energy, is believed to be the same thing as the cosomlogical constant introduced by Einstein in $1917$ which in turn is believed to originate in the energy of the vacuum [@Weinberg:1988cp]. We note that dark energy is characterized mainly by a negative pressure and no dependence on the scale factor and its density behaves as $\sim H_0^2\Lambda_{\rm pl}$ where $H_0$ is the Hubble parameter and $\Lambda_{\rm pl}=1/\sqrt{8\pi G}$ is the Planck mass [@Carroll:2000fy]. More precisely we have (with $\Omega_{\Lambda}\simeq 0.73$) [^3] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\Lambda}=3\Omega_{\Lambda}H_0^2\Lambda_{\rm pl}^2
&\simeq &39\Omega_{\Lambda}(10^{-12}{\rm GeV})^4.\label{observation}\end{aligned}$$ The reality of the energy of the vacuum is exhibited, as is well known, in a dramatic way in the Casimir force. See for example [@milton] for a systematic presentation of this subject.
In this article we will adopt the usual line of thought outlined in [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Carroll:2000fy] and identify dark energy with vacuum energy.
The calculation of vacuum energy in curved spacetimes such as FLRW universes and de Sitter spacetime requires the use of quantum field theory in the presence of a non zero gravitational background [@Birrell:1982ix; @Fulling:1989nb]. de Sitter spacetime is of particular interest since we know that both the early universe as well as its future evolution is dominated by vacuum, i.e. FLRW universes may be understood as a perturbation $V$ of de Sitter spacetime which vanishes in the early universe as well as in the limit $a\longrightarrow \infty$. The main difficulties in doing quantum field theory on curved background is the definition of the vacuum state and renormalization.
In an expanding de Sitter spacetime and also in quasi de Sitter spacetimes a natural choice of the vacuum is given by the so-called Euclidean or Bunch-Davies state [@Bunch:1978yq; @Mottola:1984ar; @Allen:1985ux]. It can be shown [@angus; @inprogress] that the vacuum energy in de Sitter spacetime with the Bunch-Davies state behaves in the right way as $\sim H_0^2\Lambda_0^2$ where $H_0$ is the de Sitter Hubble parameter and $\Lambda_0$ is a physical cutoff introduced for example along the lines of [@Kempf:2000ac]. As discussed above FLRW spacetimes may be treated as quasi de Sitter spacetimes. The usual in-out formalism may then be used to extend the calculation of vacuum energy to these spacetimes [@inprogress].
A more systematic and more fundamental approach to the calculation of vacuum energy in FLRW spacetimes is based on the renormalization of quantum field theory in non-zero backgrounds. This is the approach we will discuss in this article which is inspired by the recent original work on the Casimir force found in [@Jaffe:2005vp; @Graham:2003ib; @Milton:2002vm] in which the starting point is a renormalizable quantum field theory in a non-zero background. The main ingredients of this approach are as follows:
- We reinterpret scalar field theory coupled to FLRW metric as a scalar field theory in a flat spacetime interacting with a particular time-dependent (effective graviton) background.
- We regularize and then renormalize the resulting scalar field theory for arbitrary backgrounds in the usual way. Renormalization, if possible, removes all divergences from all proper vertices of the effective action.
- We compute the vacuum energy for arbitrary backgrounds.
- We substitute the particular background found in $1)$.
- There is always the possibility that the vacuum energy still diverges for particular profiles of the background configuration. This is indeed the case for the Casimir force [@Graham:2003ib] as well as for the FLRW spacetimes considered here. We thus regularize with a cutoff to obtain an estimate for the vacuum energy.
Although we think that this approach is novel, potential and possible overlap with other approaches is certainly expected. A systematic investigation of this point is still underway.
The Main Result
===============
In the following we will be interested in spatially flat Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) universes with line elements given by
$$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=&-dt^2+a^2(t)d\vec{x}^2\nonumber\\
&=&a^2(\eta)(-d\eta^2+d\vec{x}^2).\end{aligned}$$
The $x_i$ are the comoving coordinates, $\eta$ is the conformal time and $a$ is the scale factor. The action of a real massless scalar field coupled to this metric is given by $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\phi}&=& \int d^4x\sqrt{-{\rm det}g}~\bigg(-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\phi\nabla_{\nu}\phi-\frac{1}{2}\xi R\phi^2\bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&\int d^4x \frac{a^2}{2}~\bigg(\phi^{'2}-(\partial_i\phi)^2-\xi a^2 R\phi^2\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ The scalar curvature is given by $R=6a^{''}/a$ where the prime stands for the derivation with respect to $\eta$. The path integral and the expectation values of the theory are $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal O}_{\phi}=\frac{1}{Z}\int {\cal D}\phi~{\cal O}(\phi)~e^{iS_{\phi}}~,~Z=\int {\cal D}\phi~e^{iS_{\phi}}.\end{aligned}$$ We perform the change of variable $\phi\longrightarrow \chi =a\phi$ where $\chi$ is the comoving field. The action $S_{\phi}$ becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\chi}
&=&\int d^4x \frac{1}{2}~\bigg(\chi^{'2}+\frac{a^{''}}{a}\chi^2-(\partial_i\chi)^2-\xi a^2 R\chi^2\bigg).\label{actionchi}\end{aligned}$$
The path integral and the expectation values of the theory in terms of $\chi$ are $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal O}_{\chi}=\frac{1}{Z}\int {\cal D}\chi~{\cal O}(\chi)~e^{iS_{\chi}}~,~Z=\int {\cal D}\chi~e^{iS_{\chi}}.\end{aligned}$$ In general ${\cal O}_{\phi}\neq {\cal O}_{\chi}/a$. We can check for example that the Hamiltonians in terms of $\phi$ and $\chi$, which are defined using the stress-energy-momentum tensor in the usual way, are related by $$\begin{aligned}
{H}_{\phi}=\frac{1}{a}{H}_{\chi}-\frac{1}{2a}\bigg[\frac{a^{''}}{a}M_{\chi}+\partial_{\eta}(\frac{a^{'}}{a}M_{\chi})\bigg].\label{fundamental}\end{aligned}$$ The second moment is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\chi}=<\int d^3x\chi^2>.\end{aligned}$$ The goal now is to compute $H_{\chi}$ and $M_{\chi}$. This requires the quantization of the scalar field $\chi$ in a time dependent (effective graviton) background $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma=(\xi-1/6)a^2R.\label{sub}\end{aligned}$$ The action is of course given by (\[actionchi\]) which can also be rewritten including a mass $M$ for the field $\chi$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{\chi}
&=&\int d^4x ~\bigg(-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\chi\partial^{\mu}\chi-\frac{1}{2}M^2\chi^2-\frac{1}{2}\sigma\chi^2\bigg).\label{actionS}\end{aligned}$$
In the following we will first assume an arbitrary background and then substitute the particular background (\[sub\]) at the end. It is natural to expect that UV divergences arise in the quantum theory which warrants therefore regularization and renormalization. The theory given by the action (\[actionS\]) is renormalizable. In fact it can be used to construct an inductive proof for the renormalizability of phi-four theory [@ZinnJustin:2002ru]. We observe that only the $1-$point and the $2-$point functions are superficially divergent in the theory given by the action (\[actionS\]). All higher order correlation functions are finite. We will use dimensional continuation as a regulator. Despite the fact that the energy is time dependent in our case as opposed to the Casimir energy a counter term of the form ${\cal L}_{\rm ct}=\delta_1\sigma+\delta_2\sigma^2$ along the lines of [@Jaffe:2005vp; @Graham:2003ib] is sufficient to remove all divergences. Thus in order to renormalize the theory we add the counterterm action $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm ct}=\int d^4x (\delta_1\sigma+\delta_2\sigma^2).\label{ct}\end{aligned}$$ In the spirit of normal ordering instead of computing $H_{\chi}[\sigma]$ and $M_{\chi}[\sigma]$ we compute the shift in these expectation values with the respect to the case with zero background [@Fulling:1989nb]. We have then $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\chi}[\sigma]&=&H_{\chi}[\sigma]-H_{\chi}[0]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\int d^3x~\big(\partial_0^x\partial_0^y-(\partial_0^y)^2\big)<x|\big(D_{\sigma}-D_{0}\big)|y>.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{\chi}[\sigma]&=&M_{\chi}[\sigma]-M_{\chi}[0]\nonumber\\
&=&-2\int d^3x \bigg[\frac{\delta W}{\delta\sigma(x)}[\sigma]-\frac{\delta W_{}}{\delta\sigma(x)}[0]\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ The two-point function $D_{\sigma}$ is the inverse of the Laplacian $i(\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}-M^2-\sigma)$ while $W[\sigma]$ is the vacuum energy (the generating energy functional of all connected Green’s functions) given by $W=-i \ln Z$.
Generically ${\cal H}_{\chi}$ and ${\cal M}_{\chi}$ are time-dependent. Let $\tilde{\cal H}_{\chi p}$ and $\tilde{\cal M}_{\chi p}$ be the Fourier transforms of ${\cal H}_{\chi}$ and ${\cal M}_{\chi}$ respectively defined by (with $p=(p^0,0,0,0)$) $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\cal H}_{{\chi} p}=\int d\eta {\cal H}_{\chi}~e^{-ip x}~,~\tilde{\cal M}_{{\chi} p}=\int d\eta {\cal M}_{\chi}~e^{-ip x}.\end{aligned}$$ The diagrammatic expansion of ${\cal H}_{\chi}$ and ${\cal M}_{\chi}$ is given by the sum of all one-loop Feynman diagrams with at least one external leg $\sigma$. See Figure (\[graph\]). Both the $1-$ and $2-$point functions contributions to ${\cal H}_{\chi}$ are divergent at $d=4$ while only the $1-$point function contribution to ${\cal M}_{\chi}$ is divergent at $d=4$. We note that the $1-$point function contribution to ${\cal H}_{\chi}$ is also divergent for $d<4$.
![The Feynman diagrams contributing to the vacuum energy. []{data-label="graph"}](fig.ps){width="8cm"}
In order to subtract the divergences arising in this theory we need to tune the counterterms $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ introduced (\[ct\]) appropriately. In our case here we will employ a combination of modified minimal subtraction and renormalization conditions. We introduce a mass scale $\mu^2$ and require that the $1-$point proper vertex $\Gamma^{(1)}(p)=<\tilde{\sigma}(p)>_{1{\rm PI}}$ vanishes at this scale, viz $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{(1)}(p)|_{p^2=-\mu^2}=0.\end{aligned}$$ We also require that the $2-$point proper vertex $\Gamma^{(2)}(p,k_2)=<\tilde{\sigma}(-k_2+p)\tilde{\sigma}(k_2)>_{1{\rm PI}}$ vanishes at $p=0$ and $k_2^2=-\mu^2$, viz $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{(2)}(p,k_2)|_{p=0,k_2^2=-\mu^2}=0.\end{aligned}$$ In the case of a time independent background configuration this reduces to the usual condition $\Gamma^{(2)}(k_2)|_{k_2^2=-\mu^2}=0$. The mass scale $\mu^2$ in the above two equations may not be necessarily the same.
By computing the $1-$point and the $2-$point functions, taking into account the counterterms and imposing the above renormalization conditions we obtain after some calculation the values of the counterterms. We find explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1&=&\frac{M^2}{32\pi^2}\bigg(\frac{2}{\epsilon}+1-\gamma+\ln 4\pi\bigg)-\frac{1}{32\pi^2}\bigg[\frac{1}{6}\mu^2+\int ds \big(M^2+s(3s-2)\mu^2\big)\ln \big(M^2-s(1-s)\mu^2\big)\bigg].\label{CT1}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_2
&=&-\frac{1}{64\pi^2}\bigg(\frac{2}{\epsilon}-\gamma+\ln 4\pi \bigg)+\frac{1}{32\pi^2} \int_0^1 ds \bigg[(1-s)\ln \big(M^2-s(1-s)\mu^2\big)+ \frac{2s(s-1)\mu^2}{M^2-s(1-s)\mu^2}\bigg].\label{CT2}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ We observe that the $1-$point function (tadpole) contribution to ${\cal H}_{\chi}$ vanishes identically in the limit $M^2\longrightarrow 0$ for any value of $\mu^2$. We end up with the result $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\cal H}_{\chi p}[\sigma]
&=&\frac{1}{32\pi^2} \int_0^1 ds_1\int_0^{1-s_1}ds_2\int_{k_2}\bigg[\ln \frac{\Delta}{s_2(s_2-1)\mu^2}+\frac{\Delta^{'}}{\Delta}\bigg]\tilde{\sigma}(-k_2+p)\tilde{\sigma}(k_2)+O(\sigma^3).\label{x1x2x3}\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ The second important observation is that the same counterterm $\delta_2$ given by (\[CT2\]) is sufficient to cancel the divergence arising in the $1-$point function contribution to ${\cal M}_{\chi}$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\cal M}_{\chi p}[\sigma]&=&\bigg[\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\ln\frac{(p^0)^2}{\mu^2}-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\bigg]\tilde{\sigma}(p)\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{32\pi^2} \int_0^1 ds_1\int_0^{1-s_1} ds_2\int_{k_2}\frac{1}{\Delta}\tilde{\sigma}(-k_2+p)\tilde{\sigma}(k_2).\end{aligned}$$ In the above equations $\Delta$ and $\Delta^{'}$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta=s_1p^2+s_2k_2^2-(s_1p+s_2k_2)^2.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{'}=2(s_1p^0+s_2k_2^0)^2-3p^0(s_1p^0+s_2k_2^0)+(p^0)^2.\end{aligned}$$
Phenomenological Application
============================
As a phenomenological application let us use the above formulas to estimate the vacuum energy density in de Sitter spacetime and in FLRW spacetimes thought of as perturbed de Sitter spacetime. For simplicity we will only use the leading correction given by the tadpole diagram and as a consequence only ${\cal M}_{\chi}$ contributes to the vacuum energy ${\cal H}_{\phi}$.
In the remainder we will take the scale factor to be given by the ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
a=-\frac{e^{V}}{H_0\eta}.\label{scale}\end{aligned}$$ For $V=0$ we obtain precisely de Sitter spacetime. This is the unperturbed solution. We will think of the FLRW universe given by the scale factor (\[scale\]) as a perturbation of de Sitter spacetime in the following sense. In all inflationary models the early exponential expansion of the universe corresponds to a spacetime which is very close to de Sitter spacetime. In the language of the $S-$matrix the “in” solution is therefore de Sitter spacetime in the infinite past $\eta\longrightarrow -\infty$. On the other hand observations of distant supernovae indicate that the universe is currently undergoing accelerated expansion driven by a small positive cosmological constant. By excluding the possibility of recollapse we can argue that vacuum energy will dominate over matter in the limit $a\longrightarrow \infty$ and thus FLRW universe will approach de Sitter spacetime in this limit [@Carroll:2004st]. The “out” solution is therefore also de Sitter spacetime in the infinite future $\eta\longrightarrow 0$. The interaction potential which connects between the “in” and “out” solutions is essentially given by the function $V$ in equation (\[scale\]).
The vacuum energy (\[fundamental\]) with the scale factor (\[scale\]) takes now the form
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\phi}[\sigma]&=&-\frac{1}{a}\big[\frac{a^{''}}{a}-2\frac{a^{'2}}{a^2}\big]{\cal M}_{\chi}-\frac{a^{'}}{2a^2}{\cal P}_{\chi}\nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{a}\big[2V^{''}-{\cal V}\big]{\cal M}_{\chi}+\frac{1}{2a}(\frac{1}{\eta}-V^{'}){\cal P}_{\chi}.\end{aligned}$$
The potential ${\cal V}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal V}=V^{''}-\frac{2}{\eta}V^{'}+(V^{'})^2.\end{aligned}$$ ${\cal M}_{\chi}$ and ${\cal P}_{\chi}$ are given explicitly by (by omitting also the subscript $0$ on the momentum) $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{\chi}
&=&\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\frac{v}{a^3}(1-6\xi)\int dp p\big(\ln\frac{(p)^2}{\mu^2}-4\big)\cos p\eta\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\frac{v}{a^3}(1-6\xi)\int \frac{dp}{2\pi}\tilde{\cal V}(p)\big(\ln\frac{(p)^2}{\mu^2}-4\big)e^{-ip\eta}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}_{\chi}
&=&-\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\frac{v}{a^3}(1-6\xi)\int dp (p)^2\big(\ln\frac{(p)^2}{\mu^2}-4\big)\sin p\eta\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{i}{16\pi^2}\frac{v}{a^3}(1-6\xi)\int \frac{dp}{2\pi}p\tilde{\cal V}(p)\big(\ln\frac{(p)^2}{\mu^2}-4\big)e^{-ip\eta}.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ In the above equation $v$ is the physical volume of spacetime which stems from our use of box normalization and $\tilde{\cal V}(p)$ is the Fourier transform of the potential ${\cal V}(\eta)$. For de Sitter spacetime the vacuum energy reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\phi}
&=&-\frac{1}{16\pi^2 \eta}\frac{v}{a^4}(1-6\xi)\int_0^{\infty} dp~ p^2\bigg(\ln\frac{p^2}{\mu^2}-4\bigg)\sin p \eta.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ This expression is well defined in the infrared limit $p\longrightarrow 0$ but divergent in the ultraviolet limit $p\longrightarrow \infty$. This can be traced to the fact that the Fourier transform of the effective graviton configuration given by $a^{''}/a$ does not vanish sufficiently fast for large momenta. Let us then introduce a hard comoving cutoff $\Lambda$. We are then interested in the integral $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\Lambda} dp~ p^2\bigg(\ln\frac{p^2}{\mu^2}-4\bigg)\sin p \eta.\end{aligned}$$ The comoving cutoff $\Lambda$ is related to the physical cutoff $\Lambda_0$ by $\Lambda=a\Lambda_0$ [@Kempf:2000ac]. Since on de Sitter $a=-1/(H_0\eta)$ we have $\Lambda=\Lambda_0/(|\eta|H_0)$ and $|\eta|\Lambda=\Lambda_0/H_0$. The limit of interest $\Lambda\longrightarrow \infty$ may then be achieved by letting $\Lambda_0/H_0\longrightarrow \infty$.
We take the value of the Hubble parameter of de Sitter spacetime to be the value of the Hubble parameter of the universe at the current epoch, viz $$\begin{aligned}
H_0\simeq 14.91\times 10^{-43} {\rm GeV}.\label{par1}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore by assuming that quantum field theory calculations are valid up to the Planck scale $M_{\rm pl}=1/\sqrt{8\pi G}$ we can take [@Weinberg:1988cp] $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_0=M_{\rm pl}\simeq 2.42\times 10^{18} {\rm GeV}.\label{par2}\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that with these parameters we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Lambda_0}{H_0}>>1.\end{aligned}$$ We can then approximate the above integral by [^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\Lambda} dp~ p^2\bigg(\ln\frac{p^2}{\mu^2}-4\bigg)\sin p \eta &\simeq &\eta a^4H_0^2\Lambda_0^2\bigg[4-\ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}\bigg]\cos\frac{\Lambda_0}{H_0}.\end{aligned}$$ The energy density becomes then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\cal H}_{\phi}}{v}
&=&\frac{1}{16\pi^2 }(1-6\xi)H_0^2\Lambda_0^2\bigg[\ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2} -4\bigg]\cos\frac{\Lambda_0}{H_0}.\end{aligned}$$ The mass scale $\mu^2$ is also comoving and therefore the physical mass scale must be defined by $\mu^2=\mu_0^2a$. The energy density is then time independent given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\cal H}_{\phi}}{v}
&=&(1-6\xi)\frac{H_0^2\Lambda_0^2}{16\pi^2 }\bigg[\ln\frac{\Lambda_0^2}{\mu_0^2} -4\bigg]\cos\frac{\Lambda_0}{H_0}.\end{aligned}$$ The mass scale $\mu_0^2$ may be taken to be of the order of particle physics mass scale, say $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_0\simeq 10^2{\rm GeV}.\label{par3}\end{aligned}$$ By using the parameters (\[par1\]), (\[par2\]) and (\[par3\]) we obtain a numerical estimation for the vacuum energy density given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\cal H}_{\phi}}{v}
&=&(1-6\xi)\big(0.08\times \big(10^{-12}{\rm GeV}\big)^4\big)(71.45)(0.94)\nonumber\\
&=&(1-6\xi)\big(5.37\times \big(10^{-12}{\rm GeV}\big)^4\big).\end{aligned}$$ This is of the same order of magnitude as the experimental value (\[observation\]). Corrections due to deviation from a perfect de Sitter spacetime are of order $V$ while corrections due to the contribution of the $2-$point function are of the order of $(1-6\xi)^2$. A quantitative discussion of these effects will be discussed elsewhere [@inprogress].
Conclusion
==========
In this article we have presented a new calculation of the vacuum energy in a certain class of FLRW spacetimes which can be viewed as perturbed de Sitter spacetime. This calculation is based on the renormalization of quantum field theory in non-zero (effective graviton) backgrounds in analogy with the recent treatment of the Casimir force found in [@Jaffe:2005vp; @Graham:2003ib]. It is found that the vacuum energy still diverges, after renormalization of the quantum field theory proper vertices, for the time-dependent cosmological backgrounds of interest. Indeed these backgrounds do not vanish sufficiently fast for large momenta. By introducing an appropriate comoving cutoff [^5] an estimation of the vacuum energy is obtained which is compared favorably with the experimental value.
#### Acknowledgments:
This research was supported by “The National Agency for the Development of University Research (ANDRU)” under PNR contract number U23/Av58 (8/u23/2723).
[10]{}
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], “Review of Particle Physics (RPP),” Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 010001 (2012).
S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 1 (1989).
S. M. Carroll, “The Cosmological constant,” Living Rev. Rel. [**4**]{}, 1 (2001) \[astro-ph/0004075\]. K.A. Milton, “The Casimir Effect: Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Energy ,” World Scientific (2001).
N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum Fields In Curved Space,” Cambridge, Uk: Univ. Pr. ( 1982) 340p.
S. A. Fulling, “Aspects Of Quantum Field Theory In Curved Space-time,” London Math. Soc. Student Texts [**17**]{}, 1 (1989).
T. S. Bunch and P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum Field Theory in de Sitter Space: Renormalization by Point Splitting,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**360**]{}, 117 (1978). E. Mottola, “Particle Creation in de Sitter Space,” Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{}, 754 (1985). B. Allen, “Vacuum States in de Sitter Space,” Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 3136 (1985). Angus Prain, “Vacuum Energy in Expanding Spacetime and Superoscillation Induced Resonance,” Master thesis (2008).
Work in progress.
A. Kempf, “Mode generating mechanism in inflation with cutoff,” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 083514 (2001) \[astro-ph/0009209\].
R. L. Jaffe, “The Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum,” Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 021301 (2005) \[hep-th/0503158\].
N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe, V. Khemani, M. Quandt, O. Schroeder and H. Weigel, “The Dirichlet Casimir problem,” Nucl. Phys. B [**677**]{}, 379 (2004) \[hep-th/0309130\].
K. A. Milton, “Calculating casimir energies in renormalizable quantum field theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 065020 (2003) \[hep-th/0210081\].
J. Zinn-Justin, “Quantum field theory and critical phenomena,” Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys. [**113**]{}, 1 (2002). S. M. Carroll, “Spacetime and geometry: An introduction to general relativity,” San Francisco, USA: Addison-Wesley (2004) 513 p.
[^1]: Email:[email protected], [email protected].
[^2]: Email:[email protected].
[^3]: The vacuum energy density is a constant which can be expressed as something which is proportional to the square of the Hubble parameter at the current epoch (Hubble constant). We are not saying that the vacuum energy density falls with the square of the Hubble parameter.
[^4]: We remark that although $\Lambda_0/H_0 >>1$ the cosine remains bounded and therefore the remaining divergence, which is due to the special cosmological shapes, is really quadratic.
[^5]: A comoving cutoff breaks Lorentz invariance but we are only here trying to obtain a rough, albeit reasonable, estimation of the vacuum energy density.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, Andrews and Berkovich introduced a trinomial version of Bailey’s lemma. In this note we show that each ordinary Bailey pair gives rise to a trinomial Bailey pair. This largely widens the applicability of the trinomial Bailey lemma and proves some of the identities proposed by Andrews and Berkovich.'
author:
- |
S. Ole Warnaar[^1]\
\
*Department of Mathematics, University of Melbourne\
*Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia**
date: 'February, 1997'
title: 'A note on the trinomial analogue of Bailey’s lemma'
---
The trinomial Bailey lemma {#the-trinomial-bailey-lemma .unnumbered}
--------------------------
In a recent paper, Andrews and Berkovich (AB) proposed a trinomial analogue of Bailey’s lemma [@AB]. As starting point AB take the following definitions of the $q$-trinomial coefficients $$\binom{L;B;q}{A}_2 = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \frac{q^{j(j+B)}(q)_L}
{(q)_j(q)_{j+A}(q)_{L-2j-A}}$$ and $$T_n(L,A,q) = q^{\frac{L(L-n)-A(A-n)}{2}} \binom{L;A-n;q^{-1}}{A}_2.$$ Here $(a)_{\infty}=\prod_{n=0}^{\infty}(1-aq^n)$ and $(a)_n=(a)_{\infty}/(aq^n)_{\infty}$, $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. To simplify equations it will also be convenient to introduce the notation $$Q_n(L,A,q) = T_n(L,A,q)/(q)_L.$$ We note that the $q$-trinomial coefficients are non-zero for $-L\leq A \leq
L$ only.
A pair of sequences $\tilde\alpha=\{\tilde\alpha_L\}_{L\geq 0}$ and $\tilde\beta=\{\tilde\beta_L\}_{L\geq 0}$ is said to form a trinomial Bailey pair relative to $n$ if $$\tilde\beta_L=\sum_{r=0}^L
Q_n(L,r,q)\, \tilde\alpha_r .$$ The trinomial analogue of the Bailey lemma is stated as follows [@AB].
If $(\tilde\alpha,\tilde\beta)$ is a trinomial Bailey pair relative to $0$, then $$\sum_{L=0}^{\infty} (-1)_L \, q^{L/2} \tilde\beta_L =
(-1)_{M+1} \sum_{L=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\tilde\alpha_L}{q^{L/2}+q^{-L/2}} \: Q_1(M,L,q).$$ Similarly, if $(\tilde\alpha,\tilde\beta)$ is a trinomial Bailey pair relative to $1$, then $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{L=0}^{\infty} \big(-q^{-1}\big)_L\, q^L \tilde\beta_L \\
= (-1)_M \sum_{L=0}^{\infty} \tilde\alpha_L \biggl\{ Q_1(M,L,q)
-\frac{Q_1(M-1,L+1,q)}{1+q^{-L-1}}
-\frac{Q_1(M-1,L-1,q)}{1+q^{L-1}} \biggr\}.\end{gathered}$$
As a corollary of their lemma, AB obtain the identities $$\label{Cor1}
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{L=0}^{\infty} (-1)_L \, q^{L/2} \tilde\beta_L =
\frac{(-q)^2_{\infty}}{(q)^2_{\infty}} \sum_{L=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\tilde\alpha_L}{q^{L/2}+q^{-L/2}},$$ for a trinomial Bailey pair relative to $0$, and $$\label{Cor2}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{L=0}^{\infty} \big(-q^{-1}\big)_L\, q^L \tilde\beta_L
= \frac{(-q)^2_{\infty}}{(q)^2_{\infty}} \sum_{L=0}^{\infty}
\tilde\alpha_L
\biggl\{\frac{1}{1+q^{L+1}} -\frac{1}{1+q^{L-1}}\biggr\},$$ for a trinomial Bailey pair relative to $1$.
From binomial to trinomial Bailey pairs {#from-binomial-to-trinomial-bailey-pairs .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
In ref. [@AB], the equations and are used to derive several new $q$-series identities. As input AB take trinomial Bailey pairs obtained from polynomial identities which on one side involve $q$-trinomial coefficients. Among these identities is an identity by the author which was stated in ref. [@W] without proof, and therefore AB conclude “We have checked that his conjecture implies” followed by their equation (3.21), which is an identity for the characters of the $N=2$ superconformal models $SM(2p,(p-1)/2)$.
We now point out that equation (3.21) is a simple consequence of lemma \[lemma\] stated below. First we recall the definition of the ordinary (i.e., binomial) Bailey pair. A pair of sequences $(\alpha,\beta)$ such that $$\label{BP}
\beta_L=\sum_{r=0}^L
\frac{\alpha_r}{(q)_{L-r}(aq)_{L+r}}$$ is said to form a Bailey pair relative to $a$.
\[lemma\] Let $(\alpha,\beta)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $a=q^{\ell}$, where $\ell$ is a non-negative integer. For $n=0,1$, the following identity holds: $$\label{eqlemma}
\sum_{\substack{s=0 \\ s \equiv L+\ell {\; (\bmod\, 2)}}}^{L-\ell}
\frac{q^{s(s-n)/2}}{(q)_{\ell} (q)_s} \beta_{(L-s-\ell)/2} =
\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} Q_n(L,2r+\ell,q) \, \alpha_r .$$
For $\ell>L$ the above of course trivializes to $0=0$.
Before proving lemma \[lemma\] we note an immediate consequence.
\[cor\] Let $(\alpha,\beta)$ form a Bailey pair relative to $a=q^{\ell}$ with non-negative integer $\ell$. Then $(\tilde\alpha,\tilde\beta)$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde\alpha_0,\dots,\tilde\alpha_{\ell-1}=0, &\qquad
\tilde\alpha_{2L+\ell} = \alpha_L, \qquad
\tilde\alpha_{2L+\ell+1} = 0, \qquad L\geq 0 \notag \\
\tilde\beta_0,\dots,\tilde\beta_{\ell-1}=0, & \qquad
\tilde\beta_{L+\ell} =
\sum_{\substack{s=0 \\ s \equiv L {\; (\bmod\, 2)}}}^L
\frac{q^{s(s-n)/2}}{(q)_{\ell}(q)_s} \beta_{(L-s)/2}, \qquad L\geq 0\end{aligned}$$ forms a trinomial Bailey pair relative to $n=0,1$.
The proof is trivial once one adopts the representation of the $q$-trinomial coefficients as given by equations (2.58) and (2.59) of ref. [@ABa], $$Q_n(L,A,q) = \frac{T_n(L,A,q)}{(q)_L} =
\sum_{\substack{s=0 \\ s\equiv L+A {\; (\bmod\, 2)}}}^{\infty}
\frac{q^{s(s-n)/2}}
{(q)_{\frac{L-A-s}{2}}(q)_{\frac{L+A-s}{2}}(q)_s}\: , \qquad n=0,1.$$
Now take the defining relation of a Bailey pair with $a=q^{\ell}$ and make the replacement $L\to (L-s-\ell)/2$ where $s$ is an integer $0\leq s \leq L-\ell$ such that $s\equiv L+\ell {\; (\bmod\, 2)}$. After multiplication by $q^{s(s-n)/2}/(q)_s$ this becomes $$\frac{q^{s(s-n)/2}}{(q)_s} \beta_{(L-s-\ell)/2} =
(q)_{\ell} \sum_{r=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\alpha_r q^{s(s-n)/2}}
{(q)_{\frac{L-s-\ell}{2}-r} (q)_{\frac{L-s+\ell}{2}+r} (q)_s}.$$ Summing over $s$ yields equation .
Returning to AB’s paper, we note that their equation (3.21) simply follows from corollary \[cor\] and the “$M(p-1,p)$ Bailey pairs” which arises from the $M(p-1,p)$ polynomial identities proven in refs. [@B; @W]. Of course, an equivalent statement is that the “conjecture of ref. [@W]”, is proven using lemma \[lemma\] and the $M(p-1,p)$ Bailey pairs. To make this somewhat more explicit we consider the special case $p=3$. Then the $M(2,3)$ Bailey pairs are nothing but the entries A(1) and A(2) of Slater’s list [@Sl]. Specifically, A(1) contains the following Bailey pair relative to $1$: $$\alpha_L = \begin{cases}
q^{6j^2-j}, & L=3j \geq 0 \\
q^{6j^2+j}, & L=3j >0 \\
-q^{6j^2-5j+1}, & L=3j-1 >0 \\
-q^{6j^2+5j+1}, & L=3j+1 >0
\end{cases} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\beta_L = \frac{1}{(q)_{2L}}.$$ By application of corollary \[cor\] this gives the trinomial Bailey pair $$\tilde\alpha_L = \begin{cases}
q^{6j^2-j}, & L=6j \geq 0\\
q^{6j^2+j}, & L=6j >0 \\
-q^{6j^2-5j+1}, & L=6j-1 >0 \\
-q^{6j^2+5j+1}, & L=6j+1 >0
\end{cases} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\tilde\beta_L = \!
\sum_{\substack{s=0 \\ s \equiv L {\; (\bmod\, 2)}}}^L \!
\frac{q^{s(s-n)/2}}{(q)_s (q)_{L-s}}.$$ Likewise, using entry A(2), we get $$\tilde\alpha_L = \begin{cases}
q^{6j^2-j},& L=6j-1 >0 \\
q^{6j^2+j},& L=6j+1 >0 \\
-q^{6j^2-5j+1}, & L=6j-3 >0 \\
-q^{6j^2+5j+1}, & L=6j+3 >0
\end{cases} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\tilde\beta_L = \!
\sum_{\substack{s=0 \\ s \not\equiv L {\; (\bmod\, 2)}}}^L \!
\frac{q^{s(s-n)/2}}{(q)_s(q)_{L-s}}.$$ Setting $n=0$ and summing up both trinomial Bailey pairs, we arrive at the trinomial Bailey pair of equations (3.18) and (3.19) of [@AB]. (Unlike the case $p\geq 4$, this trinomial Bailey pair was actually proven by AB, using theorem 5.1 of ref. [@A].) Very similar results can be obtained through application of Slater’s A(3) and A(4), A(5) and A(6), and A(7) and A(8).
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
----------
We conclude this note with several remarks. First, it is of course not true that each trinomial Bailey pair is a consequence of an ordinary Bailey pair. The pairs given by equations (3.13) and (3.14) of ref. [@AB] being examples of irreducible trinomial Bailey pairs. Second, if one replaces $Q_n(L,r,q)$ by its $q$-multinomial analogue [@S; @Wb] and takes that as the definition of a $q$-multinomial Bailey pair, it becomes straightforward to again construct multinomial Bailey pairs out of ordinary ones. Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the Bailey flow from the minimal model $M(p,p+1)$ to the $N=2$ superconformal model $SM(2p,(p-1)/2)$ as concluded by AB could now be replaced by $M(p-1,p)\to N=2~SM(2p,(p-1)/2)$. Perhaps better though would be to write $M(p-1,p)\to M(p,p+1)\to
N=2~SM(2p,(p-1)/2)$, where the first arrow indicates the flow induced by corollary \[cor\] and the second arrow the flow induced by and .
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I thank Alexander Berkovich for helpful comments. This work is supported by the Australian Research Council.
[99]{}
G. E. Andrews, [*Euler’s “Exemplum memorabile inductionis fallacis” and $q$-trinomial coefficients*]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**3**]{} (1990), 653–669.
G. E. Andrews and R. J. Baxter, [*Lattice gas generalization of the hard hexagon model. III. $q$-Trinomial coefficients*]{}, J. Stat. Phys. [**47**]{} (1987), 297–330.
G. E. Andrews and A. Berkovich, [*A trinomial analogue of Bailey’s lemma and $N=2$ superconformal invariance*]{}, q-alg/9702008. Submitted to Commun. Math. Phys.
A. Berkovich, [*Fermionic counting of RSOS-states and Virasoro character formulas for the unitary minimal series $M(\nu,\nu+1)$. Exact results*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**431**]{} (1994), 315–348.
A. Schilling, [*Multinomials and polynomial bosonic forms for the branching functions of the $\widehat{su}(2)_M \times \widehat{su}(2)_N / \widehat{su}(2)_{N+M}$ conformal coset models*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**467**]{} (1996), 247–271.
L. J. Slater, [*A new proof of Rogers’s transformations of infinite series*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) [**53**]{} (1951), 460–475.
S. O. Warnaar, [*Fermionic solution of the Andrews–Baxter–Forrester model. II. Proof of Melzer’s polynomial identities*]{}, J. Stat. Phys. [**84**]{} (1996), 49–83.
S. O. Warnaar, [*The Andrews–Gordon identities and $q$-multinomial coefficients*]{}, q-alg/9601012. To appear in Commun. Math. Phys.
[^1]: e-mail: [[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
and Edward Shuryak\
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook NY 11794-3800, USA\
E-mail: ,
title: 'Nuclear correlations and modifications of the nucleon-nucleon potential due to the QCD critical mode'
---
Motivation
==========
In the present and past editions of the CPOD conference, have been reported many ways to access the signatures of a possible QCD critical point (CP) by performing heavy-ion collisions at different collision energies [@Stephanov:1998dy; @Stephanov:1999zu]. The common origin of these proposals are the peculiarities of the second-order phase transition happening at the critical point, and the probability distribution function of the critical mode, the $\sigma$ field [@Stephanov:2004wx]. In an ideal system (static and infinite) the critical region is dominated by the large fluctuations of $\sigma$ and their correlations. Because this field should couple to the baryon number, it is a potentially good starting point to look for empirical signs of the critical behavior [@Stephanov:2008qz].
A well-known proposal [@Stephanov:2011pb] is to look at high-order moments of the net-proton distribution, and its related cumulants like the (scaled) skewness and kurtosis. These observables can be extracted from protons and antiprotons detected in the experiment within some particular kinematic cut. When plotted as a function of the collision energy, theoretical predictions indicate that a nonmonotonous behavior should be expected for energies close to the critical region. Preliminary results from STAR collaboration [@Luo:2015ewa] in the context of the Beam Energy Scan (BES) program provided an interesting evidence of this behavior for protons and antiprotons with $p_\perp \in (0.4,2.0)$ GeV at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) in the most central collisions.
These cumulants will be re-evaluated at even smaller energies with more statistics at the second phase of the BES and FXT programs of RHIC. In addition, other detectors will also dedicate efforts to study the physics of the critical point like the CBM experiment at FAIR, MPG experiment at NICA and the upgraded NA61 at CERN. All these experiments will explore collisions at low energies for which the associated baryochemical potentials are large, and the antibaryons are much suppressed with respect to baryons. Therefore, the dynamical effects are supposed to be dominated by the latter, like nucleons.
From the idea of measuring (net-)proton correlations we have focused our attention to the possible modifications of their interaction (the $NN$ potential) under the influence of the QCD CP. The main idea of this work is the following: the attractive part of the nuclear potential at inter-particle distances around $r=1$ fm is dominated by the $\sigma$ exchange, the excitation of the critical mode. When these excitations become very light (ideally massless) close to the CP, the nucleons will experience a stronger attraction of longer range (of the order of $1/m_\sigma$). Therefore important correlations between several nucleons, encoded in the higher-order cumulants, would build up close to $T_c$. Even more, if the hadronic evolution spends enough time in the vicinity of critical region, this attraction would be able to bound several nucleons and form light nuclei like $^3$H, $^3$He or $^4$He. It would be very remarkable if nuclear physics is able to guide us in the search of the QCD CP.
Critical mode and $NN$ interaction
==================================
The main properties of the $NN$ potential can be described with the simple Serot-Walecka model [@Serot:1984ey]. In this model the nuclear interaction is described in terms of isoscalar mesons exchanges. At short inter-nucleon distances the repulsion forbidding collapse is mediated by the vector $\omega$ meson. At large distances the attraction due to the $\sigma$ mode allows nuclear matter to be bound. The $NN$ potential in this model reads, $$V_A(r)=- \frac{g_\sigma^2}{4\pi r}e^{-m_\sigma r}+ \frac{g_\omega^2}{4\pi r}e^{-m_\omega r} \ , \label{eq:VA}$$ where $r$ is the inter-nucleon distance, and the label $A$ denotes the use of parameters fixed at mean field in [@Serot:1984ey]. These read $m_N=938$ MeV, $m_\sigma=500$ MeV, $g_\sigma^2 = 267.1 m_\sigma^2/m_N^2$, $m_\omega=782$ MeV, and $g_\omega^2 = 195.9 m_\omega^2/m_N^2$. The $NN$ potential presents a minimum at $r \sim 0.6$ fm, and it is shown in a black solid line in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:Walecka\_Bonn\].
![Left panel: $NN$ potential in the original Serot-Walecka model $(V_{A})$ [@Serot:1984ey]; with a 40% increased repulsion $(V_{A'})$ [@Shuryak:2018lgd]; and the Bonn potential [@Machleidt:2000ge]. Right panel: Different versions of the $NN$ potential (scaled by $r^3$) in the vicinity of the QCD CP, where the mass of the $\sigma$ mode is reduced. The definitions of these potentials are given in Eqs. (\[eq:pot1\],\[eq:pot2\],\[eq:pot3\],\[eq:pot4\]).[]{data-label="fig:Walecka_Bonn"}](Walecka_Bonn "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Left panel: $NN$ potential in the original Serot-Walecka model $(V_{A})$ [@Serot:1984ey]; with a 40% increased repulsion $(V_{A'})$ [@Shuryak:2018lgd]; and the Bonn potential [@Machleidt:2000ge]. Right panel: Different versions of the $NN$ potential (scaled by $r^3$) in the vicinity of the QCD CP, where the mass of the $\sigma$ mode is reduced. The definitions of these potentials are given in Eqs. (\[eq:pot1\],\[eq:pot2\],\[eq:pot3\],\[eq:pot4\]).[]{data-label="fig:Walecka_Bonn"}](pots_times_r3 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
Our initial potential $V_{A'}$ [@Shuryak:2018lgd] has the same form of Eq. (\[eq:VA\]), but we do not attach to the mean-field parameters, and increase the $g^2_\omega$ coupling by 40% so that the resulting potential is more shallow and closer to the Bonn potential [@Machleidt:2000ge] (see Fig. \[fig:Walecka\_Bonn\]). Notice that when working beyond mean field one does not require a very deep potential like $V_{A}$, because many-body dynamics will generate the necessary correlations to bound nuclear matter.
The main idea in our analysis is that the properties of the medium formed at HICs might alter the parameters of this potential, especially close to $T_c$ (the critical temperature). In particular, the critical mode $\sigma$ [@Stephanov:1998dy; @Stephanov:1999zu] suffers strong modifications and its mass becomes small close to $T_c$, $$m_\sigma \sim \frac{1}{\xi} \sim \left( \frac{|T-T_c|}{T_c} \right)^{\nu} \ ,$$ where $\xi$ is the correlation length of the critical mode.
The implications of this mass reduction in the $NN$ potential are crucial. The attraction between nucleons gets enhanced and long ranged (to distances of the order $\xi$). This attraction is not compensated by a similar increase of the repulsion, and the precise cancellation between them in cold nuclear matter does not hold anymore. In a realistic system (with finite boundaries and a limited influence of the critical dynamics) the mass cannot go all the way to zero, and we should only expect a moderate reduction. In the first study performed in [@Shuryak:2018lgd] we examine several potentials, where the $\sigma$ mass is considered at most, a factor $\sqrt{6}$ less than its vacuum value.
In addition to the potential $V_A$ (with mean-field parameters) and $V_{A'}$ (with increased repulsion) we will consider 3 more versions, each one with more degree of criticality: $V_{B_1}$ is obtained from $V_{A'}$ by reducing both $m_\sigma^2$ and $g^2_\sigma$ a factor 2; $V_{B_2}$ from $V_{A'}$ by decreasing the $m_\sigma^2$ a factor 2 but keeping the same coupling; and finally, a 1-parameter potential $V_C(x)$ which interpolates between $V_{B_2}$ and one with a very light critical mode $m^2_\sigma \rightarrow m_\sigma^2/6$,
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{A'} &=& V_{A} (g_\omega^2 \rightarrow 1.4 g_\omega^2) \ , \label{eq:pot1} \\
V_{B_1} &=& V_{A'} (m_\sigma^2 \rightarrow m_\sigma^2/2 ; g_\sigma^2 \rightarrow g_\sigma^2/2) \ , \label{eq:pot2} \\
V_{B_2} &=& V_{A'} (m_\sigma^2 \rightarrow m_\sigma^2/2) \ , \label{eq:pot3} \\
V_C (x) &=& (1-x) V_{B_2} + x \ V_{A'} (m^2_\sigma \rightarrow m^2_\sigma/6) \quad x\in(0,1) \ . \label{eq:pot4}\end{aligned}$$
These potentials (multiplied by $r^3$) are plotted in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:Walecka\_Bonn\]. The increasing attraction of the $NN$ interaction is evident as long as the critical dynamics is dominating more and more ($V_{A'} \rightarrow V_{B_1} \rightarrow V_{B_2} \rightarrow V_{C}$).
A simple preliminar calculation in a mean-field approach gives the binding energy of a nuclear drop as a function of its size and the $NN$ potential used. The results can be seen in [@Shuryak:2018lgd], and they simply confirm the expected effect: the “noncritical” potentials $V_A, V_{A'},V_{B_1}$ cannot bound nuclear matter of smaller size, and the bigger ones are only slightly bound. Only the most critical potentials are able to hold these nuclear drops, even the smallest ones (cf. Fig. 3 in [@Shuryak:2018lgd]). Nevertheless, this calculation is not fully consistent because such a strong attraction would generate two-body correlations, which are neglected at mean-field level. Therefore, we need to consider a many-body approach able to describe nuclear correlations.
For this goal we solve a classical nonrelativistic Molecular Dynamics scheme [@Gelman:2006sr] with a finite number of nucleons interacting through a pairwise potential. The temperature of the system is fixed by the light degrees of freedom (thermal bath), which we encode in a Langevin dynamics. Therefore, in the equations of motion we include a stochastic force for the nucleons as well as a drag force $\lambda$, proportional and opposed to the nucleon momentum, $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dfrac{ d \vec x_i}{dt} & = & \dfrac{\vec p_i}{m_N} \ , \\
\\
\dfrac{ d \vec p_i}{dt} & = & - \sum\limits_{j\neq i} \dfrac{ \partial V (|\vec x_i- \vec x_j|)}{\partial \vec x_i} -\lambda \vec p_i + \vec \xi_i \ ,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $i=1,..,N$, and $\vec \xi$ is the random noise following a white Gaussian distribution, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \vec \xi_i (t) \rangle &=& 0 \ , \\
\langle \xi^a_i (t) \xi^b_j (t') \rangle &=& 2T\lambda m_N \delta^{ab} \delta_{ij} \delta(t-t') \ ,
\end{aligned}$$ with $a,b=1,2,3$. Making use of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem we relate $\lambda$ with the variance of the noise. In [@Shuryak:2018lgd] we used $\lambda=0.256$ fm$^{-1}$.
Examples of cold configurations ($T=10^{-3}$ MeV) with few nucleons can serve to test the numerical routine and check well-known expectations from symmetry arguments. For example, for $N=4$ and $N=12$ the dynamics places the nucleons at the vertices of Platonic solids, viz. tetrahedron and icosahedron. The analysis of the relative distances and angles confirm these shapes. In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:N4\] we show a snapshot of the configuration of $N=4$ nucleons at some time after thermalization under the influence of $V_{A'}$. In the right panel, a probability distribution function of the mutual distances shows the consistency with the tetrahedral configuration. The single peak of the distribution coincides exactly with the minimum of the potential. In Fig. \[fig:N13\] we repeat the calculation for a medium size system $N=13$ at $T=10^{-3}$ MeV and the same potential. The probability distribution function of distances matches exactly the icosahedral distribution (+1 particle in the center). Small temperatures still preserve the geometrical shapes but broaden the peaks of the distributions, due to the thermal motion of the nucleons.
![Left panel: Cold ($T=10^{-3}$ MeV) configuration for $N=4$ nucleons interacting through the potential $V_{A'}$. Right panel: Probability distribution function of the inter-particle distances. As expected [@Shuryak:2018lgd], the single peak is located at the minimum of the pairwise potential.[]{data-label="fig:N4"}](confN4_T0001 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Left panel: Cold ($T=10^{-3}$ MeV) configuration for $N=4$ nucleons interacting through the potential $V_{A'}$. Right panel: Probability distribution function of the inter-particle distances. As expected [@Shuryak:2018lgd], the single peak is located at the minimum of the pairwise potential.[]{data-label="fig:N4"}](PDF_N4_T0001 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
![Left panel: Cold ($T=10^{-3}$ MeV) configuration for $N=13$ nucleons interacting via potential $V_{A'}$. Right panel: Probability distribution function of the inter-particle distances. As expected [@Shuryak:2018lgd], one finds 4 peaks at distances with ratios $1:\sqrt{2-2/\sqrt{5}}:\sqrt{2+2/\sqrt{5}}:2$.[]{data-label="fig:N13"}](confN13_T0001 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Left panel: Cold ($T=10^{-3}$ MeV) configuration for $N=13$ nucleons interacting via potential $V_{A'}$. Right panel: Probability distribution function of the inter-particle distances. As expected [@Shuryak:2018lgd], one finds 4 peaks at distances with ratios $1:\sqrt{2-2/\sqrt{5}}:\sqrt{2+2/\sqrt{5}}:2$.[]{data-label="fig:N13"}](PDF_N13_T0001 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
![Results of a simulation with $N=128$ nucleons at $T=120$ MeV. Top-left panel: “Temperature” of the system versus time. Top-right panel: Potential, kinetic and total energies per nucleon as a function of time. Bottom-left panel: Configuration of nucleons after thermalization. Bottom-right panel: Internal distribution of nucleons $dN/dV$ measured from the centroid of the cluster.[]{data-label="fig:N128"}](temp_N128_T120 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Results of a simulation with $N=128$ nucleons at $T=120$ MeV. Top-left panel: “Temperature” of the system versus time. Top-right panel: Potential, kinetic and total energies per nucleon as a function of time. Bottom-left panel: Configuration of nucleons after thermalization. Bottom-right panel: Internal distribution of nucleons $dN/dV$ measured from the centroid of the cluster.[]{data-label="fig:N128"}](energies_N128_T120 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Results of a simulation with $N=128$ nucleons at $T=120$ MeV. Top-left panel: “Temperature” of the system versus time. Top-right panel: Potential, kinetic and total energies per nucleon as a function of time. Bottom-left panel: Configuration of nucleons after thermalization. Bottom-right panel: Internal distribution of nucleons $dN/dV$ measured from the centroid of the cluster.[]{data-label="fig:N128"}](coorfinN128 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Results of a simulation with $N=128$ nucleons at $T=120$ MeV. Top-left panel: “Temperature” of the system versus time. Top-right panel: Potential, kinetic and total energies per nucleon as a function of time. Bottom-left panel: Configuration of nucleons after thermalization. Bottom-right panel: Internal distribution of nucleons $dN/dV$ measured from the centroid of the cluster.[]{data-label="fig:N128"}](densityN128_T120 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
To approach the physical scenario we run a large system with $N=128$ nucleons at a temperature close to freeze-out $T=120$ MeV. This is a strongly correlated system where the nuclear potential is felt by all 8256 mutual distances. The combined effect of all these interactions produces nuclear clustering after thermalization. In Fig. \[fig:N128\] we observe a summary of the results for this many-body case. In the top left panel we present the “temperature” of the system versus time. The “temperature” is a measure of the average kinetic energy per particle multiplied by 2/3, so that in equilibrium it would correspond to the true temperature ($T=120$ MeV). In the top right panel we plot the kinetic, potential and total energies per nucleon versus time. Notice that the system is dissipative and the total energy is not conserved. In addition, note the huge potential energy developed in the system. In the bottom left panel we show the 3D configuration of the system, for some particular time after equilibration. Clustering is evident. Finally, the internal structure of the cluster $dN/dV$ is shown in the bottom right panel. It resembles a shell-like structure with peaks at regular distances from the center of the cluster. This explicitly shows that strong correlations are generated between nucleons and a mean-field approach would be simply inadequate.
Higher-order (net-)proton moments and cumulants
===============================================
We are ready to apply our model to a system simulating heavy-ion collision at BES energies as measured by STAR collaboration [@Adamczyk:2017iwn]. We will consider two different kinematic cuts which have been applied in the analyses of these data. We will denote [*Cut 1*]{} as the one with rapidity $|y|<0.5$ and $0.5 \textrm{ GeV}/c < p_\perp < 0.8 \textrm{ GeV}/c$ [@Adamczyk:2013dal]; whereas [*Cut 2*]{} has the same rapidity range but extends the $p_\perp$ coverage up to 2 GeV$/c$ [@Luo:2015ewa].
To mimic the conditions of the BES as measured by STAR we set a calculation with $N=32$ nucleons in a medium at temperature $T=150$ MeV (average temperature between hadronization and freeze-out) with a baryonic density of $n=0.3$ fm$^{-3}$ [@Adamczyk:2017iwn; @Ivanov:2018vpw]. The duration of the simulation is set to $\Delta t=5$ fm, which is a conservative time for low-energy collisions. We do not include the effects of the fireball expansion in the evolution, but we perform a final mapping of the kinematic variables to fit the experimental $p_\perp$ and a flat distribution in rapidity. We repeat the simulation a number of events $10^5$ to achieve similar statistics as in experiment. For more details on these numbers and their justification we refer the reader to our publication [@Shuryak:2018lgd]. We use the results at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV as a baseline for a non-critical scenario. In our simulation this is achieved by the potential $V_{A'}$ (no $\sigma$-mass modifications).
The only parameter which is not fixed a priori is $N$, as experimentally we only know the average number of protons in a given kinematic cut. Focusing on the [*Cut 1*]{} we compare our value of $C_1$ (average number of protons) and compare it to the experimental result. Then, we use the ratio between the two to rescale all our proton moments by the same amount. Once this is done, we are able to generate all other moments for both [*Cut 1*]{} and [*Cut 2*]{}.
For this particular energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV (where no critical dynamics are expected), the results are summarized in Fig. \[fig:Corr\]. We observe a reasonable agreement (both in the moments and their error bars) between the experimental data and our simulations with the noncritical potential $V_{A'}$.
![Moments of the proton distribution obtained in our simulation with a non-critical potential $V_{A'}$ compared to the experimental results of STAR at a collision energy of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV. Left and right panels show the result for the [*Cut 1*]{} and [*Cut 2*]{}, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Corr"}](cumucut1 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Moments of the proton distribution obtained in our simulation with a non-critical potential $V_{A'}$ compared to the experimental results of STAR at a collision energy of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV. Left and right panels show the result for the [*Cut 1*]{} and [*Cut 2*]{}, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Corr"}](cumucut2 "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
Using the cumulants we can finally compute the scaled skewness ($S\sigma$) and kurtosis ($\kappa \sigma^2$), defined by $$S\sigma = \frac{C_3}{C_2} \quad , \quad \kappa \sigma^2 = \frac{C_4}{C_2} \ ,$$ and repeat our simulations using different potentials $V_{B_1},V_{B_2},V_{C}$. To isolate the effect of the interaction potential, we do not modify any other parameter in the simulation. The rationale behind this exercise is that once the proton moments for the collision energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=19.6$ GeV are compatible with Poissonian fluctuation (no critical dynamics), there should be lower energy for which the system evolves close to the critical point. As long as one approaches that collision energy, the $NN$ potential becomes more and more critical. We want to study how the higher-order cumulants are continuously modified as long as we approach that energy. Unfortunately we cannot match each potential with a corresponding collision energy without more modeling.
![Left panel: Theoretical scaled kurtosis as a function of the $NN$ potential. The critical enhancement increases from right to left in the OX axis. Right panel: Experimental scaled kurtosis from STAR measurements as a function of the collision energy.[]{data-label="fig:Kur"}](KurTH "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"} ![Left panel: Theoretical scaled kurtosis as a function of the $NN$ potential. The critical enhancement increases from right to left in the OX axis. Right panel: Experimental scaled kurtosis from STAR measurements as a function of the collision energy.[]{data-label="fig:Kur"}](KurEXP "fig:"){width=".5\textwidth"}
The results for the scaled kurtosis are shown in Fig. \[fig:Kur\]. In the left panel we present our results as functions of the $NN$ potential (we approach the critical region going from right to left along the OX axis). In the right panel we plot the experimental data from STAR at the lowest collision energies. The numbers obtained in our simulations are realistic in spite of the crude model used. In both panels, notice that for the [*Cut 1*]{} (solid symbols) the increase of $\kappa \sigma^2$ is very mild, but in the [*Cut 2*]{} (open symbols) there is an increase of several units. Our conclusion is that (at least part of) the increase of the scaled kurtosis seen in experimental data is compatible with the effect of $NN$ potential modification close to $T_c$ [@Bzdak:2016jxo].
Light nuclei formation at the CP
================================
If the fireball spends enough time in the vicinity of $T_c$ it will be possible for the attractive $NN$ potential to bind nucleons and form nuclear clusters. While the statistical thermal model works very nicely at high energies for particles as heavy as $^4$He [@Andronic:2017pug], the presence of the QCD CP would increase the multiplicity of light nuclei due to nuclear clustering.
In our simulation we look for clusters of 4 nucleons close in phase space, which are understood as potential candidates for $^4$He nuclei. We have scanned the final state for isolated sets of 4 nucleons with inter-particle distance $\Delta r <2$ fm and $\Delta p<0.22$ GeV (for each momentum component). The number of 4-nucleon clusters per event is plotted in Fig. \[fig:pre4He\] as a function of the $NN$ potential. This number increases with the attraction (criticality) of the potential, up to the point in which the attraction becomes so large for $V_C$ that nucleons start forming part of bigger clusters, in fact, producing a decrease.
![Number of 4-nucleon clusters per event as a function of the $NN$ potential. The approach to the critical region is understood as going from right to left along the OX axis. For the most attractive potentials the number of 4-nucleon clusters actually decreases, because the nucleons are in fact contained in bigger clusters.[]{data-label="fig:pre4He"}](pre4He){width=".5\textwidth"}
The immediate global observable one would consider to test this prediction is the light-nuclei yield with respect to the statistical thermal expectations [@Andronic:2017pug] as a function of the collision energy. A maximum of this yield at some energy would indicate a strong nuclear attraction due to the critical point. As this overpopulation of light-nuclei is a tiny fraction of the total yield, it makes more sense to consider ratios of light-nuclei multiplicities. For example, take the ratio [@Sun:2017xrx] $\frac{N_t N_p}{N_d^2}$, which combines the yield of tritons, protons, and deuterons. Applying ideal Boltzmann statistics this ratio produces a trivial factor $g=0.27$ coming from the spin and isospin degeneracies, $$\left. \frac{N_t N_p}{N_d^2} \right|_{ideal\ gas} \simeq g \ .$$ with a cancellation of the nucleon-mass and temperature dependences.
However if the interaction potential is nonneglibible, in the statistical weight one finds that the Boltzmann factor contains 3 powers of $V$ for triton, but only one power for each deuteron. The ratio should be sensible to a thermal average of the $NN$ potential, $$g^{-1} \frac{N_t N_p}{N_d^2} \sim \langle e^{-V/T} \rangle \ . \label{eq:ratio}$$ Close to $T_c$ where the $NN$ potential is considerably deep the typical distances are distributed around the minimum of the potential, where $V<0$. Therefore we predict that this ratio should increase at the critical point.
In Fig. \[fig:Ratio\] we collect preliminar results from NA49 collaboration [@Anticic:2016ckv] adapted in [@Sun:2017xrx] and STAR experiment [@Liu:2019ppd] and plot them on the same figure. Both collaborations present a ratio which depends on the collision energy with a maximum at some particular energy. Notice that STAR data covers a wider range and the maximum is larger. Also notice that at the highest STAR energy the ratio is compatible with 1, pointing to a situation in which the $NN$ potential is negligible with respect to the temperature. Of course, at that energy the system is known to be close to the crossover transition and far from the possible critical point. In the context of our model it would be interesting to explore different combinations of ratios with extra powers of the nuclear potential for example $N_{^4He}/N_d^2 \sim \langle e^{-4V/T} \rangle$. In this case, the predicted effect would be more spectacular.
![Ratio of light nuclei as defined in Eq. (\[eq:ratio\]) scaled down by the trivial degeneracy factor $g$. We have adapted the preliminar experimental data from NA49 [@Anticic:2016ckv] and STAR collaborations [@Liu:2019ppd]. For the former, we use data collected in [@Sun:2017xrx].[]{data-label="fig:Ratio"}](Ratio){width=".7\textwidth"}
Finally, notice that what we call “clusters” are statistical correlation/association of few nucleons which survive the freeze-out. Their energy has large uncertainty (proportional to $T_f$) and they might well decay into $N$ unbound nucleons at the post-freeze-out stage. Experimental evidence for cluster formation should come from the observed multiplicity distribution of light nuclei in low-energy heavy-ion collisions, at much lower temperatures (cf. Fig. \[fig:Ratio\]). How many of our clusters can feed down the final light-nuclei yield is the subject of an on-going work.
Conclusions
===========
In our work [@Shuryak:2018lgd] we have studied the influence of the critical behavior of the $\sigma$ field on the $NN$ potential, and its implications on the dynamics of nucleons in baryon-rich heavy-ion collisions. We have observed that the attractive part of the nuclear potential gets enhanced, and strong nuclear correlations build up during the transit of the fireball close to the QCD CP.
Although the expansion of the system and its limited time evolution tend to diminished this effect, we have obtained that for the experimental conditions of the STAR experiment in the context of the BES program, this nuclear attraction generates an increase at midrapidity of the higher-order proton cumulants, like the scaled kurtosis.
A second implication of the $NN$ potential modification is the increase with respect to the thermal equilibrium of the yields of light nuclei, such as d, t, $^3$He, $^4$He, for the collision energies where the system evolves close to the critical region. While preliminary results from NA49 and STAR collaborations have shown such an increase for some multiplicity ratio involving triton, deuteron and proton yields, here we propose to measure alternative ratios where the effect of the modified potential is larger, for example, involving the $^4$He yield, like $N_{^4He}/N_d^2$.
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG-88ER40388.
[99]{}
M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal and E. V. Shuryak, *Signatures of the tricritical point in QCD*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**81**]{}, 4816 (1998) \[[hep-ph/9806219]{}\]. M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal and E. V. Shuryak, *Event-by-event fluctuations in heavy ion collisions and the QCD critical point*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**60**]{}, 114028 (1999) \[[hep-ph/9903292]{}\].
M. A. Stephanov, *QCD phase diagram and the critical point*, *Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.* [**153**]{}, 139 (2004) \[*Int. J. Mod. Phys. A* [**20**]{}, 4387 (2005)\] \[[hep-ph/0402115]{}\]. M. A. Stephanov, *Non-Gaussian fluctuations near the QCD critical point*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**102**]{}, 032301 (2009) \[[arXiv:0809.3450 \[hep-ph\]]{}\].
M. A. Stephanov, *On the sign of kurtosis near the QCD critical point,* *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**107**]{}, 052301 (2011) \[[arXiv:1104.1627 \[hep-ph\]]{}\].
X. Luo \[STAR Collaboration\], *Energy Dependence of Moments of Net-Proton and Net-Charge Multiplicity Distributions at STAR*, (2015) \[[arXiv:1503.02558 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\].
B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, *The Relativistic Nuclear Many Body Problem*, *Adv. Nucl. Phys.* [**16**]{}, 1 (1986).
E. Shuryak and J. M. Torres-Rincon, *Baryon clustering at the critical line and near the hypothetical critical point in heavy-ion collisions*, [arXiv:1805.04444 \[hep-ph\]]{}.
R. Machleidt, *The High precision, charge dependent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential (CD-Bonn)*, *Phys. Rev. C* [**63**]{}, 024001 (2001) \[[nucl-th/0006014]{}\].
B. A. Gelman, E. V. Shuryak and I. Zahed, *Classical Strongly Coupled QGP II: Screening and Equation of State*, *Phys. Rev. C* [**74**]{}, 044909 (2006) \[[nucl-th/0605046]{}\].
L. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], *Bulk Properties of the Medium Produced in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions from the Beam Energy Scan Program*, *Phys. Rev. C* [**96**]{}, no. 4, 044904 (2017) \[[arXiv:1701.07065 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\].
L. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], *Energy Dependence of Moments of Net-proton Multiplicity Distributions at RHIC*, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**112**]{}, 032302 (2014) \[[arXiv:1309.5681 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\].
Y. B. Ivanov and A. A. Soldatov, *Bulk Properties of the Matter Produced at Energies of the Beam Energy Scan Program*, *Phys. Rev. C* [**97**]{}, no. 2, 024908 (2018) \[[arXiv:1801.01764 \[nucl-th\]]{}\].
A. Bzdak, V. Koch and V. Skokov, *Correlated stopping, proton clusters and higher order proton cumulants*, *Eur. Phys. J. C* [**77**]{}, no. 5, 288 (2017) \[[arXiv:1612.05128 \[nucl-th\]]{}\].
A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, *Decoding the phase structure of QCD via particle production at high energy*, *Nature* [**561**]{}, no. 7723, 321 (2018) \[[arXiv:1710.09425 \[nucl-th\]]{}\].
T. Anticic [*et al.*]{} \[NA49 Collaboration\], *Production of deuterium, tritium, and He3 in central Pb + Pb collisions at 20A,30A,40A,80A , and 158A GeV at the CERN Super Proton Synchrotron*, *Phys. Rev. C* [**94**]{}, no. 4, 044906 (2016) \[[arXiv:1606.04234 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\].
K. J. Sun, L. W. Chen, C. M. Ko and Z. Xu, *Probing QCD critical fluctuations from light nuclei production in relativistic heavy-ion collisions,* *Phys. Lett. B* [**774**]{}, 103 (2017) \[[arXiv:1702.07620 \[nucl-th\]]{}\].
P. Liu \[STAR Collaboration\], *The production of triton and reconstruction of $H\Lambda3$ with the Heavy Flavor Tracker in Au+Au collisions at STAR*, *Nucl. Phys. A* [**982**]{}, 811 (2019)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we investigate expanding Bianchi type I models with two tilted fluids with linear equations of state. Individually the fluids have non-zero energy fluxes w.r.t. the symmetry surfaces, but these cancel each other because of the Codazzi constraint. Asymptotically toward the past the solutions approach Kasner states if the speeds of sound are less than that of light. If one of the fluids has a speed of sound that is less or equal to $1/3$ of the speed of light (radiation) then the models isotropize toward the future, but if both fluids are stiffer than radiation then the final state is anisotropic with non-zero Hubble-normalized shear. The significance of these results is discussed in a broader context.'
author:
- |
Patrik Sandin $^{1}$[^1], and Claes Uggla$^{1}$[^2]\
$^{1}$[*Department of Physics, University of Karlstad,*]{}\
[*S-651 88 Karlstad, Sweden*]{}
title: Bianchi type I models with two tilted fluids
---
PACS numbers: 04.20.-q, 04.20.Dw, 04.20.Ha, 98.80.-k, 98.80.Bp, 98.80.Jk
Introduction {#Sec:intro}
============
The construction of a relativistic model of gravity contains the following ingredients: (i) a 4-dimensional manifold ${\cal
M}$ endowed with a Lorentzian metric, (ii) a matter source description, (iii) dynamical laws—Einstein’s field equations and, if needed, matter equations. A general relativistic [*cosmological*]{} model requires that one in addition attempts to describe the universe at a particular scale.
At the largest spatial scales present observational data suggest that the ‘standard’ $\Lambda{\rm CDM}$ model of cosmology provides the most simple consistent description of the universe today. This model is spatially homogeneous (SH) and isotropic with flat spatial geometry; the matter content consists of a dark energy component, modeled by a positive cosmological constant, supplemented with dark matter and atoms, described by pressureless fluids with $n^a$, the unit normal to the symmetry surfaces, as the common 4-velocity. Density fluctuations, described by linear scalar perturbations, are seeded by an almost Gaussian, adiabatic, nearly scale invariant process, see e.g. [@hinetal08],[@tegetal06], and references therein.
However, this description does not hold on all scales, neither spatial nor temporal. On smaller spatial scales matter has to be described by many components, with energy fluxes in different directions, e.g., our galaxy is moving w.r.t. to the CMB. In the very early universe, and perhaps also in the distant future, the $\Lambda{\rm CDM}$ model does not give a correct matter description, indeed, although radiation can be treated as a gravitational test field[^3] today it has been an important gravitational source in the past, and inflationary proponents suggest that matter could be extremely different in the very early universe. Clearly the matter description in the ‘standard’ scenario is not exact, and even with a few matter components the associated energy fluxes cannot all be [*exactly*]{} aligned, not even on the largest spatial scales. What then happens with the matter and its associated energy fluxes in the far future and what was the situation in the distant past?
We believe that we understand how radiation and matter interacts, at least after the very early universe when we think our empirical experience holds. Presumably this interaction explains why the 4-velocities associated with radiation and matter today are fairly well aligned with each other on large spatial scales, or maybe this alignment was produced in the very early universe by some unknown process, perhaps inflation. But is it obvious that this alignment should have persisted to the extent present observations indicate after recombination, and is it going to persist in the far future? Do linear vector perturbations of SH and isotropic models suffice to determine this? In the early universe interactions presumably played an important role in aligning energy fluxes of different matter components, but it is unclear what those interactions were; is it possible to shed any light on this issue without knowing the details of these interactions?
Here we are going to consider two non-interacting perfect fluids that in general move w.r.t. each other and a non-negative cosmological constant, which includes the $\Lambda{\rm CDM}$ matter content as a special case. Although this may not be a good matter description at all times, it is still a useful step since it allows a comparative study of the effects of various types of interactions in possible future projects, an issue we return to in the concluding remarks.
Two matter source components with energy fluxes in different directions produce an anisotropic source which excludes the isotropic standard model and forces one to consider anisotropic geometries. There are several reasons that suggest that the natural anisotropic models to start with are the SH Bianchi type I models. One reason is their geometric simplicity since this sheds light on more general models—if type I turns out to be complicated, then more general models will be even worse. But more importantly is that they are the foundation in a hierarchy of ever more geometrically complex models.
The SH Bianchi models (models that admit simply transitive 3-dimensional symmetry groups) form a crucial level in the geometric complexity hierarchy, and within this level the Bianchi type I models is the common ingredient since they can be obtained from all other Bianchi models by Lie algebra contractions. The consequences of this property are revealed when one casts Einstein’s equations into a dynamical system where the type I models appear as part of a state space boundary that describes asymptotic features of all other Bianchi models, see e.g. [@waiell97] and [@col03], and references therein.
Moreover, the Bianchi models themselves serve as building blocks for understanding asymptotic dynamics of more general inhomogeneous models, the primary reason being the following: In the very early universe near a generic or isotropic singularity, or in the very late universe in an inflationary epoch, horizons form and asymptotically shrink, asymptotically prohibiting communication—a phenomenon naturally referred to as asymptotic silence—generically pushing inhomogeneities outside the horizons leading to that the asymptotic evolution can locally be described by SH models—asymptotic locality, see [@uggetal03],[@andetal05],[@heietal07]. In the dynamical systems approach these features are formally captured by recasting the field equations into an infinite dimensional dynamical system that at each spatial point has a boundary—the silent boundary, which asymptotically attracts generic asymptotically local dynamics. The dynamics on the silent boundary, which determine the generic asymptotically local dynamics, is described by a finite dimensional dynamical system that is identical to that of the Bianchi models and hence type I is a common key ingredient in a very general context [@uggetal03],[@andetal05],[@heietal07],[@rohugg05]. Furthermore, there are hints, analytical and numerical, that Bianchi models are important for describing future asymptotic states, even in the absence of inflation and asymptotic silence and locality, that sheds light on spatial structure formation.
This is not the first study using dynamical systems techniques for studying multi-fluid models. Bianchi models with two fluids with both 4-velocities being orthogonal to the symmetry surfaces were studied in [@colwai92]. However, it is not difficult to predict what is going to happen when the non-interacting fluids are aligned with each other, even in the general inhomogeneous case. Let us introduce a length scale $\ell$ defined by $\dot{\ell}/\ell=H$, where $H$ is the Hubble scalar and where the dot refers to the time derivative w.r.t. the proper clock time along the common fluid congruence. For simplicity we consider fluids with linear equations of state such that $p=w\rho$, where $p$, $\rho$ is the pressure and energy density, respectively, and where the constant $w$ describes the speed of sound $c_s$ according to $w=c_s^2$ when $w\geq 0$. Interesting examples of equations of state are: $w=-1$, which corresponds to a positive cosmological constant; dust, $w=0$; radiation, $w=\frac{1}{3}$; and a stiff fluid, $w=1$, for which the speed of sound is equal to that of light. Local energy-momentum conservation then yields that $\rho\propto \ell^{-3(1+w)}$, see e.g. [@waiell97], [@heietal05]. Thus if $\ell\rightarrow 0$ the energy densities of fluids with smaller $w$ become asymptotically negligible compared to those with larger $w$, while if $\ell\rightarrow \infty$ the opposite holds.
However, the situation is much more complicated when the non-interacting fluids are not aligned. In [@golnil00] Bianchi type V models with two fluids and a positive cosmological constant were studied; one of the fluids had a flow orthogonal to the symmetry surfaces while the other had a ‘tilted’ flow, i.e., its 4-velocity was not aligned with the normal to the SH surfaces. In [@colher04], where brane-world cosmology was invoked to motivate the study of multiple fluids, Bianchi type VI$_0$ with two non-interacting tilted fluids was investigated. Perhaps because the focus in these papers was on the quite interesting late time behavior, there was no mentioning about the possibility of having two (or more) tilted fluids in Bianchi type I.
The present paper is organized as follows: In the next section we derive a reduced dynamical system that describes Bianchi type I with two non-interacting fluids with linear equation of state and a cosmological constant. In the subsequent section we describe the associated state space and the influence of a positive cosmological constant; in addition we list the invariant subsets and fix points that are essential for understanding the present models. In section \[Sec:mon\] we give several monotonic functions that are useful for determining the asymptotic dynamics; we also briefly discuss some reasons why they exist since this allows one to produce monotonic functions for other models as well. Section \[Sec:attractor\] takes the results in the previous sections as the starting point for a dynamical systems analysis which yield our main results about asymptotic dynamics toward the past and toward the future, in the absence of a cosmological constant. We conclude with a discussion in section \[Sec:concl\] about the significance of our results in a more general context. Appendix \[Sec:locstab\] contains detailed information about the fix points and their stability properties. Throughout we use units such that $c=1=8 \pi G$.
Derivation of the dynamical system {#Sec:dynsysder}
==================================
In the orthonormal frame approach one uses a tetrad of four orthogonal unit basis vector fields $\{\,{\bf e}_a\,\}$ and the associated dual one-forms $\{\,{\bom}^a\,\}$ ($a=0,1,2,3$), which, when expressed in a local coordinate basis, take the form ${\bf e}_a = e_a{}^\mu\ptl/\ptl x^\mu\ =
e_a{}^\mu\ptl_\mu$, $\bom^a = e^a{}_\mu\,{\bf d}x^\mu$ ($\mu=0,1,2,3$), where the tetrad components $e_a{}^\mu
(x^\nu)$ and their inverse components $e^a{}_\mu (x^\nu)$ satisfy the duality relations $e_a{}^\mu\,e^a{}_\nu =
\delta^\mu{}_\nu \,\Leftrightarrow \, e_a{}^\mu\,e^b{}_\mu =
\delta^b{}_a$, and where the orthogonality conditions are given by $g_{ab} = {\bf e}_a\cdot {\bf e}_b =
g_{\mu\nu}\,e_a{}^\mu\,e_b{}^\nu = \eta_{ab}$; $g_{\mu\nu} =
\eta_{ab}\,e^a{}_\mu\,e^b{}_\nu$, $\eta_{ab} = {\rm
diag}\,(\,-1,1,1,1\,)$. The commutator functions $c^a{}_{bc}(x^\mu)$, defined as $[{\bf e}_a,{\bf e}_b] =
c^c{}_{ab}\,{\bf e}_c$, are typically ‘elevated’ to dependent variables satisfying the Jacobi identities, ${\bf
e}_{[a}\,c^d{}_{bc]} - c^d{}_{e[a}\,c^e{}_{bc]} = 0$.
Let us now consider SH Bianchi models, i.e., models with a foliation of SH hypersurfaces invariant under a simply transitive group action $G_3$, and let us also introduce an orthonormal basis of vector fields $\{\mathbf{e}_a\}$ that is invariant under the group action such that the timelines are orthogonal to the SH hypersurfaces with ${\bf e}_0={\bf n} =
\ptl/\ptl t$, where $t$ is the proper time along the geodesic timelines (the geodesic property follows from the symmetries). This yields the line-element: $ds^2 = - dt^2 +
\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,\bom^\alpha\otimes \bom^\beta$ ($\alpha,\beta =1,2,3$), where $\bom^\alpha$ (with components $e^\alpha{}_i$) are the one-forms dual to the triad $\vece_\alpha$ (with components $e_\alpha{}^i$), tangential to the symmetry surfaces, i.e., $e_\alpha{}^i e^\beta{}_i =
\delta^\alpha{}_\beta$ ($i=1,2,3$).
A 3+1 split of the commutator equations w.r.t. ${\bf e}_0={\bf
n}$ yields:
$$\begin{aligned}
\lb{dcomts0} [\,\vece_{0}, \vece_{\alpha}\,] &= -
[\,H\,\d_{\alpha}{}^{\beta} + \sig_{\alpha}{}^{\beta} +
\eps_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}{}_{\gam}\,\Omega^{\gam}\,]\,
\vece_{\beta}\:, \\
\lb{dcomtsa} [\,\vece_{\alpha}, \vece_{\beta}\,] &=
c^\gam{}_{\alpha\beta}\,\vece_{\gam} =
2a_{[\alpha}\,\d_{\beta]}{}^{\gam} +
\eps_{\alpha\beta\delta}\,n^{\delta\gam}\:.\end{aligned}$$
Here $H$ is the Hubble variable, which is related to the expansion $\theta$ of ${\bf n}$ according to $H=\frac{1}{3}\theta$; $\sigma_{\alpha\beta}$ is the shear associated with ${\bf n}$; $\Omega^\alpha$ is the Fermi rotation which describes how the spatial triad rotates with respect to a gyroscopically fixed so-called Fermi frame;[^4] $n^{\alpha\beta}$ and $a_\alpha$ describe the Lie algebra of the 3-dimensional simply transitive Lie group and determine the spatial three-curvature, see e.g. [@waiell97].
Due to the symmetries $e_\alpha{}^i$ can be written as $e_\alpha{}^i=\tilde{e}_\alpha{}^\beta(t)\hat{e}_\beta{}^i$, where $\hat{e}_\alpha{}^i$ are functions of the spatial coordinates $x^i$ alone such that $[\,\hat{\vece}_{\alpha},
\hat{\vece}_{\beta}\,] =
\hat{c}^\gam{}_{\alpha\beta}\,\hat{\vece}_{\gam} =
2\hat{a}_{[\alpha}\,\d_{\beta]}{}^{\gam} +
\eps_{\alpha\beta\delta}\,\hat{n}^{\delta\gam}$, where $\hat{\vece}_\alpha = \hat{e}_\alpha{}^i\partial/\partial x^i$, and where $\hat{c}^\gam{}_{\alpha\beta}$, parameterized by $\hat{a}_\alpha , \hat{n}^{\alpha\beta}$, are the structure constants of the symmetry group. The symmetries lead to that the equations for the variables $\tilde{e}_\alpha{}^\beta(t)$ ($d{\tilde{e}}_\alpha{}^\beta(t)/dt =
-[\,H\,\d_{\alpha}{}^{\gam} + \sig_{\alpha}{}^{\gam} +
\eps_{\alpha}{}^{\gam}{}_{\delta}\,\Omega^{\delta}\,]\tilde{e}_\gam{}^\beta$, as follows from ) decouple from the remaining field equations, and because of this they are not usually considered when discussing Bianchi models from an orthonormal frame perspective.
A 3+1 split of the total stress-energy tensor $T_{ab}$ w.r.t. $n^a$ yields:
\[Tirreduc\] $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ab} &= \rho\,n_a\,n_b + 2q_{(a}\,n_{b)} + p\,h_{ab} + \pi_{ab}\:,\\
\rho &= n^a\,n^b\,T_{ab}\:,\qquad q_a = -h_a{}^b\,n^c\,T_{bc}\:,\qquad
p = {{\textstyle{1\over3}}}\,h^{ab}\,T_{ab}\:,\qquad \pi_{ab} = h_{\la
a}{}^c\,h_{b\ra}{}^d\,T_{cd}\:,\end{aligned}$$
where $h_{ab} = n_a n_b + g_{ab}$; $\rho, p$ is the total energy density and total effective pressure, respectively, measured in the rest space of $n^a$; $\la..\ra$ stands for the trace-free part of a symmetric spatial tensor, i.e. $A_{\la
\alpha\beta \ra}=A_{\alpha\beta} -
\frac{1}{3}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,A^\gamma{}_\gamma$. In general $T_{ab}$ consists of several components $T^{(i)}_{ab}$, such that $T_{ab} = \sum_i T^{(i)}_{ab}$. If the components are non-interacting, then $\bna_a T_{(i)}^{ab}=0$. A cosmological constant $\Lambda$ can be formally regarded as a component of $T_{ab}$ such that $\rho_\Lambda=\Lambda,\, p_\Lambda =
-\Lambda$, while $q_{(\Lambda)}^\alpha=0,\,
\pi_{(\Lambda)}^{\alpha\beta}=0$.
In the Hubble normalized approach one factors out the Hubble variable $H$ by means of a conformal transformation which yields dimensionless quantities [@rohugg05]. In the present SH case this amounts to the following: (\_, R\^, N\^,A\_) = (\_, \^, n\^,a\_),(, P, Q\_, \_) = (,p,q\_,\_),where we have chosen to normalize the stress-energy quantities with $3H^2$ rather than $H^2$ in order to conform with the usual definition of $\Omega$. In addition to this we choose a new dimensionless time variable $\tau$ according to = H. Since $H$ is the only variable with dimension, its evolution equation decouples from the remaining equations for dimensional reasons: H\^= -(1+q)H;q = 2\^[2]{} + (+3P),\^2=\_\^, where a prime henceforth denotes $d/d\tau$ and where $q$ is the deceleration parameter, obtained by means of one of Einstein’s equations—the Raychaudhuri equation; note that $\Omega$ and $P$ in the expression for $q$ refers to the total Hubble-normalized stress-energy content. A 3+1 split of the remaining Einstein’s field equations ($G_{ab}=T_{ab}$, where $G_{ab}$ is the Einstein tensor and $T_{ab}$ the total stress-energy tensor) and the Jacobi identities, yields the following reduced system of coupled equations for the Hubble-normalized variables:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{\alpha\beta}^\prime &= -(2-q)\Sigma_{\alpha\beta} +
2\epsilon^{\gamma\delta}{}_{\la \alpha}\,\Sigma_{\beta\ra
\delta}\,R_\gamma - \,^3{\cal R}_{\la\alpha\beta\ra} + 3\Pi_{\alpha\beta}\:,\lb{HspatE}\\
A_{\alpha}^\prime &= [q\,\d_{\alpha}{}^{\beta} -
\Sig_{\alpha}{}^{\beta} - \eps_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}{}_{\gam}\,R^{\gam}] A_\beta\:,\lb{Hajac}\\
(N^{\alpha\beta})^\prime &= [q\,\d_{\gamma}{}^{(\alpha} +
2\Sig_{\gam}{}^{(\alpha} + 2
\eps_{\gam}{}^{(\alpha}{}_{\delta}\,R^{\delta}] N^{\beta )\gamma}\lb{Hnjac}\:,\\
0 &= 1 - \Sigma^2 + {{\textstyle{1\over6}}}\,^3{\cal R} - \Omega\:,\label{dGauss}\\
0 &= (3\delta_\alpha{}^\gamma\,A_\beta +
\epsilon_\alpha{}^{\delta\gamma}
\,N_{\delta\beta})\,\Sigma^\beta{}_\gamma - 3Q_\alpha\:,\label{dCodazzi}\\
0 &= A_\beta\, N^\beta{}_\alpha\:,\lb{HJacobi}\end{aligned}$$
where $^3{\cal R}_{\la\alpha\beta\ra}$ and $^3{\cal R}$ describe the trace-free and scalar parts of the Hubble-normalized three-curvature, respectively, according to: \^3[R]{}\_ = B\_ + 2\^\_N\_A\_,\^3[R]{} = -B\^\_- 6A\^2;B\_ = 2 N\_N\^\_- N\^\_N\_; are the Hubble-normalized spatial and trace-free Einstein equations; and are evolution equations obtained from the Jacobi identities; and are the Hubble-normalized Gauss and Codazzi constraints, respectively, while the constraint stems from the Jacobi identities. The conservation law $\bna_a T^{ab}=0$ for the total stress-energy tensor yields:
$$\begin{aligned}
\lb{dlomdot} \Om^\prime &= (2q-1)\,\Om - 3P +
2A_{\alpha}\,Q^{\alpha} - \Sig_{\alpha\beta}\Pi^{\alpha\beta}\:,\\
\lb{dlqmalpha} Q_{\alpha}^\prime &= -[2(1-q)\,\d_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}
+ \Sig_{\alpha}{}^{\beta} +
\eps_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}{}_{\gam}\,R^{\gam}]\,Q_{\beta} +
(3A_\beta\,\delta_\alpha{}^\delta -
\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}{}^\gamma\,N_\gamma{}^\delta)\,\Pi_\delta{}^\beta\:.\end{aligned}$$
Let us now restrict ourselves to the [*Bianchi type I*]{} case with expansion ($H>0$), characterized by A\_=0,N\^=0. In type I reduces to $Q_{\alpha}^\prime =
-[2(1-q)\,\d_{\alpha}{}^{\beta} + \Sig_{\alpha}{}^{\beta} +
\eps_{\alpha}{}^{\beta}{}_{\gam}\,R^{\gam}]\,Q_{\beta}$, and hence the reduction of the Codazzi constraint to $Q_\alpha=0$ is consistent since it is preserved during evolution. Thus there is no total energy flux in Bianchi type I, and hence the type I SH frame is an energy frame, in the nomenclature of Landau and Lifshitz [@lanlif63]. Even so, a matter source can consist of several components that individually have non-zero energy fluxes, as long as they add up to zero.
Let us now specialize to a source that consists of a non-negative [*cosmological constant*]{} $\Lambda\geq 0$ [*and two non-interacting perfect fluids*]{}, i.e., $T^{ab}_{(i)}
= (\tilde{\rho}_{(i)} + \tilde{p}_{(i)})
\tilde{u}^a_{(i)}\tilde{u}^b_{(i)} + \tilde{p}_{(i)} g^{ab}$; $\bna_a T^{ab}_{(i)}=0$ ($i=1,2$), where $\tilde{\rho}_{(i)},
\tilde{p}_{(i)}$, is the energy density and pressure, respectively, in the rest frame of the $i$:th fluid, while $\tilde{u}^a_{(i)}$ is its 4-velocity. We assume that $\tilde{\rho}_{(i)}\geq 0$, and for simplicity also a [*linear equations of state*]{}, $\tilde{p}_{(i)} = w_{(i)}
\tilde{\rho}_{(i)}$, where $w_{(i)}=const$. The most interesting equations of state are dust, $w=0$, and radiation, $w=\frac{1}{3}$, but it is useful to not restrict oneself to these values in order to study structural stability, however, we do restrict ourselves to 0 w\_[(2)]{} < w\_[(1)]{} <1; since $w_{(1)}=1$, $w_{(1)}=w_{(2)}$ are associated with bifurcations that needs special treatment, to be dealt with elsewhere.[^5]
Making a 3+1 split with respect to ${\bf n}= \vece_0$ yields \^a\_[(i)]{} = \_[(i)]{}(n\^a + v\^a\_[(i)]{}); n\_a v\^a\_[(i)]{}=0,\_[(i)]{} = 1/ (v\^2\_[(i)]{}= \_v\_[(i)]{}\^v\_[(i)]{}\^), which gives \[pfrel\] Q\_[(i)]{}\^= (1 + w\_[(i)]{}) (G\^[(i)]{}\_+)\^[-1]{} v\_[(i)]{}\^\_[(i)]{}, P\_[(i)]{} = w\_[(i)]{}\_[(i)]{} + (1 - 3w\_[(i)]{})Q\^[(i)]{}\_v\_[(i)]{}\^, \^[(i)]{}\_ = Q\^[(i)]{}\_v\^[(i)]{}\_, where $G^{(i)}_\pm = 1 \pm w_{(i)} \, v_{(i)}^2$; $\Omega_{(i)}=\rho_{(i)}/(3H^2)$. The cosmological constant contributes $\Omega_\Lambda = \Lambda/(3H^2)=-P_\Lambda$ to the total $\Omega$ and $P$, while $Q^\alpha_\Lambda=0=\Pi^{\alpha\beta}_\Lambda$. Due to its definition and equation , $\Omega_\Lambda$ satisfies \_\^= 2(1+q)\_. The Codazzi constraint, $Q_\alpha= Q_\alpha^{(1)} +
Q_\alpha^{(2)}= 0$, taken in combination with forces the two fluids 3-velocities to be anti-parallel. Kinematically the situation is similar to that of Bianchi type I with a general magnetic field studied in [@leb97], and it is therefore natural to exploit the same mathematical structures in the present problem. We therefore choose the spatial triad so that one of the frame vectors is aligned with the fluid velocities, which we choose to be $\vece_3$, in agreement with what is usually done in physics, i.e. $v_{(i)}^{\alpha}= (0,0,v_{(i)})$. Demanding that these conditions on $v_{(i)}^{\alpha}$ hold for all times lead to the following conditions[^6] R\_1 = -\_[23]{},R\_2 = \_[31]{}. This leaves $R_3$ undetermined, however, we still have the freedom of arbitrary rotations in the 1-2-plane, which we use to set R\_3=0.Following [@leb97], we introduce the variables $\Sigma_+,\Sigma_A,\Sigma_B,\Sigma_C$ according to \_+ = (\_[11]{}+\_[22]{}),\_[31]{} + \_[23]{} = \_A e\^ ,\_- + \_[12]{}= (\_B + \_C) e\^[2]{}, where $\Sigma_-=(\Sigma_{11}-\Sigma_{22})/(2\sqrt{3})$, which leads to \^2= \_+\^2 + \_A\^2 + \_B\^2 + \_C\^2. The above decomposition of $\Sigma_{\alpha\beta}$ has the advantage that the equation for $\phi$, $d\phi/d\tau =
-\Sigma_C$, decouples from the other equations, leaving the following reduced constrained dynamical system of coupled equations for the Hubble-normalized shear variables $\Sigma_+,\Sigma_A,\Sigma_B,\Sigma_C$, the fluid 3-velocities $v_{(1)}, v_{(2)}$, the Hubble-normalized energy densities $\Omega_{(1)},\Omega_{(2)}$, and the Hubble-normalized cosmological constant $\Omega_\Lambda$:
[*Evolution equations*]{}:
\[evolBI\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_+^\prime &= -(2-q)\Sigma_+ + 3\Sigma_A^2 - Q_{(1)}v_{(1)} - Q_{(2)}v_{(2)}\:, \label{Sigp}\\
\Sigma_A^\prime &= -(2 - q + 3\Sigma_+ + \sqrt{3}\Sigma_B) \Sigma_A \:, \label{SigA}\\
\Sigma_B^\prime &= -(2-q)\Sigma_B + \sqrt{3}\Sigma_A^2 -
2\sqrt{3}\Sigma_C^2\:, \\
\Sigma_C^\prime &= -(2 - q - 2\sqrt{3}\Sigma_B) \Sigma_C\:, \label{SigC}\\
v_{(i)}^\prime &= (G^{(i)}_-)^{-1} (1-v_{(i)}^2)(3w_{(i)} - 1 + 2\Sigma_+)v_{(i)}\:, \label{vieq}\\
\Omega_{(i)}^\prime &= (2q - 1 - 3w_{(i)})\Omega_{(i)} + (3w_{(i)} - 1 + 2\Sigma_+)Q_{(i)}v_{(i)}\:,
\label{Omieq}\\
\Omega_{\Lambda}^\prime &= 2(1 + q)\Omega_{\Lambda}\:.\label{lambdaeq}\end{aligned}$$
[*Constraint equations*]{}:
\[constrBI\] $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= 1 -\Sigma^2 - \Omega_{(1)} - \Omega_{(2)} -\Omega_{\Lambda}
\:,\label{gausssys}\\
0 &= Q_{(1)} + Q_{(2)}\label{codazzisys}\:,\end{aligned}$$
where q = 2\^2 + (\_[m]{} + 3P\_[m]{}) -\_ = 2 - (\_[m]{} - P\_[m]{}) -3\_; \_[m]{} = \_[(1)]{} + \_[(2)]{}, P\_[m]{} = P\_[(1)]{} + P\_[(2)]{}. Equations and were obtained by using that takes the same form for non-interacting individual matter components, where, however, the total matter content enters into $q$, together with the type I conditions and the relations for the individual perfect fluids. The assumption of non-negative energy densities and a non-negative cosmological constant, $\Omega_{(i)},\Omega_\Lambda \geq 0$, together with and , yields that $-1\leq q \leq 2$, and hence that $2-q\geq 0$, where $q=-1$ only when $\Omega_\Lambda=1,
\Omega_m=0,\Sigma^2=0$. It follows that $\tau \in
(-\infty,\infty)$ and $H \rightarrow \infty$ when $\tau\rightarrow -\infty$ (if $\Omega_\Lambda\neq 1$ initially).
The auxiliary equation, \[rhoidot\] \_[(i)]{}\^= -(1+w\_[(i)]{})(G\_+\^[(i)]{})\^[-1]{}\[3 + v\_[(i)]{}\^2 - 2\_+ v\_[(i)]{}\^2\]\_[(i)]{},implies that $\rho_{(i)}$ is a monotonically decreasing function such that $\rho_{(i)}\rightarrow \infty$ ($\rho_{(i)}\rightarrow 0$) when $\tau\rightarrow -\infty$ ($\tau\rightarrow \infty$); hence the models begin with an initial curvature singularity, where $\Lambda$ becomes negligible when compared to $\rho_{(i)}$ when $\tau\rightarrow -\infty$, and then expand forever to a state where the ordinary matter is infinitely diluted, leading to that $\Omega_{\rm m}$ becomes negligible compared to $\Omega_\Lambda$.
State space properties {#Sec:statprop}
======================
The state space
---------------
The reduced state space consists of ${\bf S} = \{
\Sigma_+,\Sigma_A,\Sigma_B,\Sigma_C,v_{(1)},v_{(2)},
\Omega_{(1)},\Omega_{(2)}, \Omega_{\Lambda}\}$, subject to the two constraints , i.e., the state space is seven-dimensional. From the definitions and the constraints it follows that the state space is bounded. Our primary concern in this paper is the ‘interior’ state space for the case of two [*tilted*]{} fluids for which $\Omega_{(1)}\Omega_{(2)}>0,\,0<|v_{(1)}v_{(2)}|<1$, however, the solutions belonging to the interior state space often asymptotically approach its boundary. To understand the interior dynamics we therefore consider the closure of the interior state space, $\bar{{\bf S}}$, thus obtaining a compact state space, which is possible because of the regularity of the evolution equations. Hence $\Sigma^2 \leq 1, 0\leq
v_{(i)}^2\leq 1$; $0\leq\Omega_{(1)}\leq 1,
0\leq\Omega_{(2)}\leq 1, 0\leq\Omega_\Lambda\leq 1$, in such a way so that the constraints are satisfied; note that the Codazzi constraint leads to that $v_{(1)}v_{(2)}\leq 0$ when $\Omega_{(1)}\Omega_{(2)}>0$, a condition on $v_{(i)}$ that we extend to the boundary. The dynamical system , is invariant under the following discrete symmetries: \[discrete\] \_A -\_A,\_C -\_C;(v\_[(1)]{},v\_[(2)]{}) -(v\_[(1)]{},v\_[(2)]{}). We therefore assume without loss of generality that $\Sigma_A
\in [0,1], \, \Sigma_C \in [0,1], \, v_{(1)} \in [0,1]$, and $v_{(2)} \in [-1,0]$; the solutions in the other sectors of the state space are easily obtained by means of the discrete symmetries.
The influence of a cosmological constant
----------------------------------------
Equation implies that $\Omega_\Lambda$ is monotonically increasing from zero to one. Hence $$\label{Wald}
\Omega_{\Lambda} \rightarrow 1, \quad \Sigma^2 \rightarrow 0, \quad
\Omega_{(i)} \rightarrow 0 \quad \text{when} \quad \tau\rightarrow
\infty\:,$$ as follows from combining $\Omega_{\Lambda} \rightarrow 1$ with the Gauss constraint , i.e., the solutions approach a de Sitter state when $\tau\rightarrow \infty$. This result is a special case of the proof by Wald [@wal83], which holds for Bianchi types I-VIII. In the present case the fluids behave as test fields on a de Sitter background at late times, obeying the equations: $v_{(i)}^\prime =
(G^{(i)}_-)^{-1}(1-v_{(i)}^2)(3w_{(i)} - 1) \,v_{(i)}$. It follows that $v_{(i)}=const$ if $w_{(i)}=\frac{1}{3}$; $v_{(1)}$ is monotonically increasing (decreasing) from 0 to 1 (1 to 0) if $w_{(1)}>\frac{1}{3}$ ($w_{(1)}<\frac{1}{3}$); $v_{(2)}$ is monotonically decreasing (increasing) from 0 to $-1$ ($-1$ to 0) if $w_{(2)}>\frac{1}{3}$ ($w_{(2)}<\frac{1}{3}$). Thus if one of the fluids has a soft equation of state, $w_{(2)}<\frac{1}{3}$, and the other has a sufficiently stiff equation of state, $w_{(1)}\geq
\frac{1}{3}$, then the fluids will obtain a relative velocity w.r.t each other (in general when $w_{(1)}=\frac{1}{3}$ and always if $w_{(1)}>\frac{1}{3}$); this is an invariant statement, and it is not possible to eliminate this effect with any choice of reference congruence—if one has two fluids, one with a sufficiently soft and one with a sufficiently stiff equation of state, then it follows that the fluids will asymptotically form anisotropies on a de Sitter background irrespectively of the choice of reference congruence. We note that this result is compatible with the analysis of Bianchi type V in [@golnil00], and that it reflects a bifurcation that takes place at $w=\frac{1}{3}$ for a fluid in any, homogeneous or inhomogeneous, forever expanding model with a cosmological constant, see [@limetal04].
At early times $\Lambda$ has a negligible effect compared to normal matter and hence it suffices to study the $\Omega_\Lambda=0$ subset (it follows from and the application of the monotonicity principle, see e.g. [@waiell97; @heiugg06] and references therein,[^7] that the $\alpha$-limit for all orbits (solutions) must reside on this subset (assuming that $\Omega_\Lambda\neq 1$ initially); cf. also the discussion after equation ). Since $\Lambda$ therefore has no effect on the past asymptotic dynamics and since it is of interest to also study late time behavior when one does not have a cosmological constant, we will from now on assume $\Lambda=0$. The state space we henceforth therefore consider is given by |[**S**]{} = { \_+,\_A,\_B,\_C,v\_[(1)]{},v\_[(2)]{}, \_[(1)]{},\_[(2)]{}}, subject to the constraints , i.e., the state space when one does not have a cosmological constant is six-dimensional; since the discrete symmetries still hold we continue to assume that $\Sigma_A \in [0,1], \,
\Sigma_C \in [0,1], \, v_{(1)} \in [0,1]$, and $v_{(2)} \in
[-1,0]$. When $\Lambda=0$ the deceleration parameter $q$ is given by q = 2\^2 + (\_[m]{} + 3P\_[m]{}) = 2 - (\_[m]{} - P\_[m]{}) q 2.
Invariant subsets
-----------------
The dynamical system , , with $\Omega_\Lambda=0$, admits a number of invariant subsets, conveniently divided into three classes: (i) ‘geometric subsets’, i.e., sets associated with conditions on the shear and hence the metric since the type I models are intrinsically flat; (ii) invariant sets on the boundary of the physical state space for two tilted fluids that do not belong to (i); (iii) subsets that can be obtained by intersections of the subsets belonging to (i) and (ii). We will introduce a notation where the kernel suggests the type of subset and where a subscript, when existent, suggests the values of $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$.
[*Geometric subsets*]{}
- ${\cal TW}$: The ‘twisting’ subset, characterized by $\Sigma_C=0,\, \Sigma_{A}\neq 0$, which leads to that the decoupled $\phi$-variable satisfies $\phi=const$ and hence $\Sigma_{12} \propto\Sigma_{11}-\Sigma_{22}$.
- ${\cal RD}$: The constantly rotated diagonal subset, given by $\Sigma_A=0,\,\Sigma_C\neq 0$ ($R_\alpha=0$). This subset is the diagonal subset, discussed next, rotated with a constant angle around $\vece_3$.
- ${\cal D}$: The diagonal subset, defined by $\Sigma_A=\Sigma_C=0;\, \Sigma_B = \Sigma_-$, and hence $R_\alpha=0$.
- ${\cal LRS}$: The locally rotationally symmetric subset. This plane symmetric subset of the diagonal subset is characterized by the additional condition $\Sigma_B=\Sigma_-=0$. This is the simplest subset compatible with two tilted fluids.
- ${\cal FLO}$, ${\cal FLT}_{0v_{(2)}}$and ${\cal
FLT}_{v_{(1)}0}$: The demand that $\Sigma^2=0$, and hence $\Omega_{\rm m}=1$, holds for all times enforces either that $v_{(1)}=v_{(2)}=0$, which defines the orthogonal Friedmann-Lemaître subset ${\cal FLO}$, or $v_{(1)}=\Omega_{(2)}=0,\, \Omega_{(1)}=1$ ($v_{(2)}=\Omega_{(1)}=0,\, \Omega_{(2)}=1$), which gives the ${\cal FLT}_{0v_{(2)}}$ (${\cal
FLT}_{v_{(1)}0}$) Friedmann-Lemaître subset with one orthogonal fluid and a test vector field $v_{(2)}$ ($v_{(1)}$); these subsets belong to the boundary of the two tilted fluid case and thus there exists no Friedmann-Lemaître subset with two tilted fluids.
[*Boundary subsets*]{}
- ${\cal O}$: The orthogonal subset for which $v_{(1)}=v_{(2)}=0$. In general this subset is expressed in a non-Fermi frame for which $\Sigma_A,\Sigma_C\neq 0$, however, usually when dealing with this case one makes a rotation to a Fermi frame in which the shear and the metric are diagonal so that ${\cal O}$ belongs to ${\cal D}$.
- ${\cal OT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ and ${\cal OT}_{0v_{(2)}}$: The ${\cal OT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ subset describes a single orthogonal fluid, $\Omega_{(2)} \geq 0,\ v_{(2)}=0$, and a test vector field $v_{(1)}$ ($\Omega_{(1)}=0$), and similarly for ${\cal OT}_{0v_{(2)}}$.
- ${\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$ and ${\cal ET}_{v_{(1)}1}$: The subset ${\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$ describes a fluid that consists of particles with zero rest mass moving with the speed of light $v_{(1)}=1 \,\Rightarrow \,
Q_{(1)}=\Omega_{(1)} = 3P_{(1)}$, as follows from the Codazzi constraint ; similar statements hold for ${\cal ET}_{v_{(1)}1}$.
- ${\cal K}$: The vacuum subset is called the Kasner subset and is defined by $\Omega_{\rm m}=0;
\,\Sigma^2=1$; it describes the Kasner solutions, but in general in a non-Fermi propagated frame, and with $v_{(i)}$ as test fields.
The lists above are far from complete; intersections of subsets are possible in many cases, which then form invariant subsets of lower dimension; an important example is:
- ${\cal ET}_{11}={\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}} \cap {\cal
ET}_{v_{(1)}1}$: The double extreme tilt subset where both fluids propagate with the speed of light, $v_{(1)}=1=-v_{(2)}\,\Rightarrow\, \Omega_{(1)} =
\Omega_{(2)}=3P_{(1)}=3P_{(2)}$, and hence $\rho_{(1)}=\rho_{(2)}=3p_{(1)}=3p_{(2)}$.
There are also a number of fix points which we denote by a kernel that is related to a subset to which the fix point belong together with a subscript that indicates the fix point values of $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$; sometimes we also use a superscript. The fix points and their stability properties are given in Appendix \[Sec:locstab\]; here we give a brief summary:
- There are a number of Kasner points, all satisfying $\Omega_m=0,\, \Sigma^2=1,\, q=2$. The four Kasner circles: ${\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{00},\, {\rm
K}^{\ocircle}_{10},\, {\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{01},\, {\rm
K}^{\ocircle}_{11}$, and the eight Kasner lines: ${\rm
KL}_{v_{(1)}0}^\pm,\, {\rm KL}_{v_{(1)}1}^\pm,\, {\rm
KL}_{0v_{(2)}}^\pm,\, {\rm KL}_{1v_{(2)}}^\pm$, where the superscript denotes the sign of $\Sigma_B$.
- There also are a number of Friedmann points with $\Sigma^2=0$. The four Friedmann points: ${\rm
F}^{10}_{00},\, {\rm F}^{10}_{01}$, for which $q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(1)})$, and ${\rm
F}^{01}_{00},\,{\rm F}^{01}_{10}$, for which $q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(2)})$. When $w_{(2)}=\frac{1}{3}$ there is a line of fix points, ${\rm
FL}^{10}_{0v_{(2)}}$, that connects ${\rm F}^{10}_{00}$ with ${\rm F}^{10}_{01}$, with $q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(1)})$, and similarly when $w_{(1)}=\frac{1}{3}$ then ${\rm FL}^{01}_{v_{(1)}0}$ connects ${\rm F}^{01}_{00}$ with ${\rm F}^{01}_{10}$, with $q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(2)})$. The superscript denotes the values of $\Omega_{(1)}$ and $\Omega_{(2)}$.
- When $\frac{1}{3}<w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}$ there exists two fix points: ${\rm LRS}_{v_{(1)}^*1}$ with $\Sigma^2=\frac{1}{4}(3w_{(1)}-1)^2,\,q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(1)})$, and ${\rm LRS}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$ with $\Sigma^2=\frac{1}{4}(3w_{(2)}-1)^2,\,q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(2)})$.
- On the twisting subset there exists the extremely tilted fix point ${\rm TW}_{11}$, for which $\Sigma^2=\frac{2}{5},\,q=\frac{7}{5}$; ${\rm
TW}_{v_{(1)}^*1}$, which exists when $\frac{1}{2}<w_{(1)}<\frac{3}{5}$ with $\Sigma^2=\frac{1}{4}(3w_{(1)}-1)(15w_{(1)}-7),\,
q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(1)})$; ${\rm TW}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$, which exists when $\frac{1}{2}<w_{(2)}<\frac{3}{5}$ with $\Sigma^2=\frac{1}{4}(3w_{(2)}-1)(15w_{(2)}-7),\,
q=\frac{1}{2}(1+3w_{(2)})$.
- Finally there exists the extremely tilted fix point ${\rm G}_{11}$ with $\Sigma^2=\frac{1}{3},\,q=\frac{4}{3}$; the line of fix points ${\rm GL}_{v_{(1)}^*1}$ exists when $w_{(1)}=\frac{5}{9}$ with $\Sigma^2=\frac{7}{3}v_{(1)}/(3+4v_{(1)}),\,q=\frac{4}{3}$, while the line of fix points ${\rm GL}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$ exists when $w_{(2)}=\frac{5}{9}$ with $\Sigma^2=\frac{7}{3}|v_{(2)}|/(3+4|v_{(2)}|),\,q=\frac{4}{3}$.
Monotone functions and their consequences {#Sec:mon}
=========================================
In the analysis of Bianchi type VI$_0$ in [@colher04] a monotone function is defined:
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi &= \frac{\beta_{(2)}\Omega_{(2)} -
\beta_{(1)}\Omega_{(1)}}{\beta_{(2)}\Omega_{(2)} +
\beta_{(1)}\Omega_{(1)}} \qquad \text{where} \qquad \beta_{(i)}
= (G_+^{(i)})^{-1} (1-v_{(i)}^2)^{\frac{1}{2}(1-w_{(i)})}\:,\\
\chi^\prime &= {{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(w_{(1)} - w_{(2)})(1-\chi^2)\:,
\qquad\qquad\qquad -1\leq \chi \leq 1\:.\lb{chi}\end{aligned}$$
The above holds whether or not we include a cosmological constant. If $w_{(1)} = w_{(2)}$, then $\chi$ is a constant of the motion, however, here our concern is with the case $w_{(1)}
> w_{(2)}$, and then $\chi$ is a monotonic function that increases from $-1$ to $1$, which leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow -\infty}\, \chi &= -1\quad \Rightarrow\quad
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow -\infty}\,
(\beta_{(2)}\Omega_{(2)}/\beta_{(1)}\Omega_{(1)})=0\quad
\Rightarrow\quad \text{at early times\/}\quad \beta_{(2)}\Omega_{(2)}
\rightarrow 0\:,\label{chicondpast}\\
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow \infty}\, \chi &= 1\quad\,\,\,\, \Rightarrow\quad
\lim_{\tau\rightarrow \infty}\,\,\,\,\:
(\beta_{(1)}\Omega_{(1)}/\beta_{(2)}\Omega_{(2)})=0\quad
\Rightarrow \quad \text{at late times\/}\quad\,\,\, \beta_{(1)}\Omega_{(1)}
\rightarrow 0\:.\label{chicondfuture}\end{aligned}$$ Combined with the Codazzi constraint this leads to the following possibilities if $\tau\rightarrow
-\infty$:
- $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow
-\infty}(\Omega_{(1)},\Omega_{(2)})=(0,0)$, i.e., the solutions $\alpha$-limits reside on ${\cal K}$,
- $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow
-\infty}(\Omega_{(2)},v_1)=(0,0)$, i.e., the solutions $\alpha$-limits reside on ${\cal OT}_{0v_{(2)}}$,
- $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow -\infty}v_{(2)}= -1$, $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow -\infty}Q_{(1)}=\Omega_{(2)}$, i.e., the solutions $\alpha$-limits reside on ${\cal
ET}_{v_{(1)}1}$,
or combinations/intersections thereof. If $\tau\rightarrow
\infty$ then:
- $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow
\infty}(\Omega_{(1)},\Omega_{(2)})=(0,0)$, i.e., the solutions $\omega$-limits reside on ${\cal K}$,
- $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow
\infty}(\Omega_{(1)},v_2)=(0,0)$, i.e., the solutions $\omega$-limits reside on ${\cal OT}_{v_{(1)}0}$,
- $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow \infty}v_{(1)}= 1$, $\lim_{\tau\rightarrow \infty}Q_{(1)}=\Omega_{(1)}$, i.e., the solutions $\omega$-limits reside on ${\cal
ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$,
or combinations/intersections thereof.
Another monotonic function is given by V = v\_[(1)]{}\^2(1-v\_[(2)]{}\^2)\^[1-w\_[(2)]{}]{}v\_[(2)]{}\^[-2]{}(1-v\_[(1)]{}\^2)\^[-(1-w\_[(1)]{})]{};V\^= 6(w\_[(1)]{} - w\_[(2)]{})V, where $V$ asymptotically increases from zero to infinity. Combining $V$ with $\chi$ to obtain a constant of the motion leads to $Q_{(1)}/Q_{(2)}=const=-1$, where the latter equality is imposed by the Codazzi constraint, so unfortunately we obtain nothing new. However, it follows that when $\tau\rightarrow -\infty$ ($\tau\rightarrow\infty$) then $v_{(1)}\rightarrow 0$ or/and $v_{(2)}\rightarrow -1$ ($v_{(1)}\rightarrow 1$ or/and $v_{(2)}\rightarrow 0$), i.e., these limits also hold in the above ${\cal K}$ cases.
Before giving the next monotonic functions it is useful to give the following auxiliary equations:
\[auxm\] $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{(i)}^\prime &= 2(q-1+\Sigma_+)Q_{(i)}\:,\qquad
T_{(i)}^\prime = 2(2q-1-3w_{(i)})T_{(i)}\:, \qquad
\text{where}\lb{QTi}\\
T_{(i)} &=
Q_{(i)}^2(1-v_{(i)}^2)^{1-w_{(i)}}v_{(i)}^{-2}=
(1+w_{(i)})^2(G_+^{(i)})^{-2}\Omega_{(i)}^2(1-v_{(i)}^2)^{1-w_{(i)}}\:.\lb{Ti}\end{aligned}$$
If $\Sigma_A,\Sigma_C\neq 0$ there exist two more monotonic functions: M\_[AC]{}\^[(i)]{} = Q\_[(i)]{}\^[-12]{}T\_[(i)]{}\^9\_A\^[-8]{}\_C\^[-4]{} = Q\_[(i)]{}\^6(1-v\_[(i)]{}\^2)\^[9(1-w\_[(i)]{})]{} v\_[(i)]{}\^[-18]{}\_A\^[-8]{}\_C\^[-4]{};(M\_[AC]{}\^[(i)]{})\^= 6(5-9w\_[(i)]{})M\_[AC]{}\^[(i)]{}, where $M_{AC}^{(i)}$ asymptotically increases from zero to infinity if $w_{i}<\frac{5}{9}$ while it decreases from infinity to zero if $w_{i}>\frac{5}{9}$; at $w_{i}=\frac{5}{9}$ $M_{AC}^{(i)}$ is a constant of the motion, reflecting that we have bifurcations when $w_{i}=\frac{5}{9}$, see Appendix \[Sec:locstab\]. The above four monotonic functions, $\chi,\,V=T_{(2)}/T_{(1)},\,M_{AC}^{(1)},\,M_{AC}^{(2)}$, can be combined to yield three constants of the motion, but one of these is just the Codazzi constraint, so there only are two independent ‘non-trivial’ constants of the motion; here are two possible representations of these constants of the motion: C\_[AB]{}= (M\_[AC]{}\^[(1)]{})\^[5-9w\_[(2)]{}]{}(M\_[AC]{}\^[(2)]{})\^[9w\_[(1)]{}-5]{}= const,D\_[AB]{}= V\^[9w\_[(1)]{}-5]{}(M\_[AC]{}\^[(1)]{})\^[w\_[(1)]{} - w\_[(2)]{}]{}=const.In addition to these monotonic functions there also exist several monotonic functions on the various subsets.
The existence of monotone functions is not coincidental, a fact that will be discussed elsewhere, but let us here comment on $\chi$, which is a monotonic function for all Class A models (i.e., Bianchi models for which $A_\alpha=0$, see section \[Sec:dynsysder\] and e.g. [@waiell97]). Its existence is a consequence of that $\chi$ is expressible as a dimensionless ratio of the spatial volume density and the dimensional constants $\ell_{(i)}$ in class A, where $\ell_{(i)}$ is related to particle conservation of the $i$:th fluid, see e.g. [@jan01]. Interestingly there exists one more constant of the motion for each fluid in Class A, however, these constants of the motion, together with the constants $\ell_{(i)}$, only lead to an integral related to the Codazzi constraint , which therefore, unfortunately, is of no use. Incidentally, other constants of the motion exist in class B and hence, based on the above insight, there should exist a monotonic function also in this case, again related to particle conservation, but in a more complicated way.
The ${\cal K}$ subset
---------------------
Before continuing it is useful to discuss the Kasner subset ${\cal K}$. The state space of ${\cal K}$ is given by ${\bf K}
= \{\Sigma_+,\Sigma_A,\Sigma_B,\Sigma_C,v_{(1)},v_{(2)}\}$ subjected to the Gauss constraint $\Sigma^2=\Sigma_+^2+\Sigma_A^2+\Sigma_B^2+\Sigma_C^2=1$. The equations for the test fields $v_{(1)}\in [0,1]$, $v_{(2)}\in
[-1,0]$ decouple from those of the shear and from each other. The state space therefore can be written as the following Cartesian product: = [**KP**]{}{v\_[(1)]{}}{v\_[(2)]{}} , = {\_+,\_A,\_B,\_C}, where ${\bf KP}$ is the projected Kasner state space, which of course is subjected to $\Sigma^2=1$. By determining the $\alpha$- and $\omega$-limits for solutions on ${\bf KP}$ one can then determine the asymptotic states of $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$ separately, and thus the $\alpha$- and $\omega$-limits for solutions on ${\cal K}$. Let us therefore first turn to the equations on ${\bf KP}$: \[KP\] \_+\^= 3\_A\^2;\_A\^= -(3\_+ + \_B) \_A ;\_B\^= \_A\^2 - 2\_C\^2;\_C\^= 2\_B\_C . This system admits a circle of fix points, the projected Kasner circle: ${\rm KP}^\ocircle$, see Figure \[Ksectors\]. It is described by $\Sigma_A=\Sigma_C=0$, $\Sigma_+=\hat{\Sigma}_+,\Sigma_B=\hat{\Sigma}_-$, where the constants $\hat{\Sigma}_\pm$ satisfy $\hat{\Sigma}_+^2 +
\hat{\Sigma}_-^2=1$.
The subset $\Sigma_A=0$ yields that $\Sigma_+=\hat{\Sigma}_+,\,\Sigma_B^2+\Sigma_C^2=\hat{\Sigma}_-^2$, where $\Sigma_B$ is monotonically decreasing. The subset $\Sigma_C=0$ leads to $\Sigma_+ -
\sqrt{3}\Sigma_B=\hat{\Sigma}_+ - \sqrt{3}\hat{\Sigma}_-$ while $\Sigma_+$ and $\Sigma_B$ are monotonically increasing and $\Sigma_A^2=1-\Sigma_+^2-\Sigma_B^2$. Projected onto the $\Sigma_+-\Sigma_B$-plane this yields the straight lines—single frame transitions, using the nomenclature of [@heietal07], given in Figures \[KtransC\] and \[KtransA\] (a frame transition preserves a Kasner state while permuting the spatial axes). As discussed in [@heietal07], the general case can be regarded as multiple frame transitions that yield the same result as combinations of single transitions which therefore determine the general asymptotic solution structure on ${\cal KP}$, for details see [@heietal07]. From this we conclude that the the $\alpha$-limits for all solutions with $\Sigma_A\Sigma_C\neq 0$ on ${\cal KP}$ resides on the segment ${\rm KP}^\ocircle$, yielding a segment on ${\rm KP}^\ocircle$ characterized by $-1\leq\Sigma_+=\hat{\Sigma}_+\leq
-\frac{1}{2},\, 0\leq \hat{\Sigma}_-\leq\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$, i.e., the segment consists of sector $(213)$ together with the fix points ${\rm Q}_2$ and ${\rm T}_3$ on ${\rm KP}^\ocircle$, see Figure \[Kasnerattractor\].
\[cc\]\[cc\][$\Sigma_+$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$\Sigma_3$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$\Sigma_B$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$(321)$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$(231)$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$(213)$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$(123)$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$(132)$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$(312)$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][0]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm T}_3$]{}\[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm T}_2$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm T}_1$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm Q}_3$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm Q}_2$]{}\[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm Q}_1$]{}
The $\alpha$-limits for solutions on ${\cal K}$ are determined by the $\alpha$-limits on ${\cal KP}$ which determine the asymptotic limits for $v_{(i)}$. The equation for $|v_{(i)}|\in[0,1]$ on ${\rm KP}^\ocircle$ is given by: $|v_{(i)}|^\prime = (G^{(i)}_-)^{-1} (1-v_{(i)}^2)(3w_{(i)} - 1
+ 2\hat{\Sigma}_+) \,|v_{(i)}|$. It follows that the $\alpha$-limits for all orbits on ${\cal K}$ on the general geometric set with $\Sigma_A\Sigma_C\neq 0$ resides on the global past attractor ${\cal A}_{\{**\}}$, where the subscript denotes the range of values of $w_{(1)}$ and $w_{(2)}$, given by
\[Kattr\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}_{\{w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<{{\textstyle{2\over3}}}\}} &=
\{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{11}: \hat{\Sigma}_+\in [-1,-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}]\}\:,\\
{\cal A}_{\{w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}={{\textstyle{2\over3}}}\}} &=
\{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{11}: \hat{\Sigma}_+\in [-1,-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}})\}\cup
\{{\rm KL}^+_{v_{(1)}1}: \hat{\Sigma}_+=-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}})\}\:,\\
{\cal A}_{\{w_{(2)}<{{\textstyle{2\over3}}}<w_{(1)}\}} &=
\{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{11}: \hat{\Sigma}_+\in [-1,-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\}\cup
\{{\rm KL}^+_{v_{(1)}1}: \hat{\Sigma}_+=-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\}\cup\nonumber\\
& \quad\,\, \{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{01}:(-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1),-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}]\}\:,\\
{\cal A}_{\{{{\textstyle{2\over3}}}=w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}\}} &=
\{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{11}: \hat{\Sigma}_+\in [-1,-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\}\cup
\{{\rm KL}^+_{v_{(1)}1}: \hat{\Sigma}_+=-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\}\cup\nonumber\\
& \quad\,\, \{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{01}:(-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1), -{{\textstyle{1\over2}}})\}
\cup \{{\rm KL}^+_{0v_{(2)}}: \hat{\Sigma}_+= -{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}\}\:,\\
{\cal A}_{\{{{\textstyle{2\over3}}}<w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}\}} &=
\{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{11}: \hat{\Sigma}_+\in [-1,-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\}\cup
\{{\rm KL}^+_{v_{(1)}1}: \hat{\Sigma}_+=-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\}\cup\nonumber\\
& \quad\,\, \{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{01}:(-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1),-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(2)}-1))\}
\cup \nonumber\\
& \quad\,\,
\{{\rm KL}^+_{0v_{(2)}}: \hat{\Sigma}_+= -{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(2)}-1)\}\cup
\{{\rm K}^\ocircle_{00}: \hat{\Sigma}_+\in(-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(2)}-1),-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}]\}\:.\end{aligned}$$
As toward the past, the results in [@heietal07] implies that all orbits on ${\cal KP}$, on the generic geometric set as well as all the Kasner compatible geometric subsets, asymptotically also approach ${\rm KP}^\ocircle$ toward the future. From this it easily follows from the decoupled $v_{(i)}$ equations that the $\omega$-limit for any orbit on ${\cal K}$ is one of the Kasner fix points on ${\rm
K}^\ocircle_{**},\, {\rm KL}^\pm_{**}$. But according to the local stability analysis in Appendix \[Sec:locstab\] all fix points on ${\cal K}$ are destabilized toward the future by the matter degrees of freedom in the full state space, leading to that the $\omega$-limit points on ${\cal K}$ become saddles in the full state space such that no matter solutions with $Q_{(1)}> 0,\, v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially are attracted to any part of ${\cal K}$ when $\tau\rightarrow
\infty$, and thus the $\omega$-limits for all ‘interior’ matter solutions either resides on ${\cal OT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ or ${\cal
ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$ such that $q<2$ when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, since $q=2$ only on ${\cal K}$.
Future and past dynamics {#Sec:attractor}
========================
Future dynamics {#futattr}
---------------
The following theorem is easy to prove, but is nevertheless of interest.
\[noniso\] If $\frac{1}{3}<w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$, and if $Q_{(1)}> 0,\,
v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially, then no models isotropize when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, i.e., $\Sigma^2\neq 0$ when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$.
Assume that all solutions of the above type isotropize, i.e. that the $\omega$-limit set for each solution resides on a Friedmann-Lemaître subset. The equations for $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$ then yield $(v_{(1)},v_{(2)})\rightarrow (1,-1)$ when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, which is a contradiction since no Friedmann-Lemaître subset has $v_{(1)}v_{(2)}\neq 0$. Hence none of the solutions described in theorem \[noniso\] isotropize when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$. $\Box$
The above theorem does not tell us where the solutions end up when $\frac{1}{3}<w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$. This turns out to depend on what geometric set they belong to, leading to a division of the models into three classes: (i) The ${\cal RD}$, ${\cal D}$, ${\cal LRS}$ subsets (ii) the ${\cal TW}$ subset, and, (iii) the general case. Unfortunately we have not been able to prove what the global attractors are, but our local analysis in Appendix \[Sec:locstab\] together with numerical simulations lead to the following conjectures:
\[nonisoid\] If $Q_{(1)}> 0,\, v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially, then the $\omega$-limit for all orbits that belong to the geometric subsets ${\cal RD}$, ${\cal D}$, and ${\cal LRS}$ is the fix point ${\rm LRS}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$ if $\frac{1}{3}<w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$.
\[nonisoit\] If $Q_{(1)}> 0,\, v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially, then the $\omega$-limit for all orbits that belong to the geometric subset ${\cal TW}$ ($\Sigma_A\neq 0$) is the fix point ${\rm
LRS}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$ if $\frac{1}{3}<w_{(2)}\leq \frac{1}{2}$ and $w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$; the fix point ${\rm TW}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$ if $\frac{1}{2}<w_{(2)}<\frac{3}{5}$ and $w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$; the fix point ${\rm TW}_{11}$ if $\frac{3}{5}\leq
w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$.
\[nonisoig\] If $Q_{(1)}> 0,\, v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially, then the $\omega$-limit for all orbits that belong to the general geometric set ($\Sigma_A,\Sigma_C\neq 0$) is the fix point ${\rm LRS}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$ if $\frac{1}{3}<w_{(2)}\leq
\frac{1}{2}$ and $w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$; the fix point ${\rm
TW}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$ if $\frac{1}{2}<w_{2}<\frac{5}{9}$ and $w_{(2)}<w_{1}<1$; the line of fix points ${\rm GL}_{1v_{(2)}}$ if $\frac{5}{9}=w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$; the fix point ${\rm
G}_{11}$ if $\frac{5}{9}<w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<1$.
However, models for which $Q_{(1)}> 0,\,
v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially and with $0\leq
w_{(2)}\leq \frac{1}{3}$ [*do*]{} isotropize (this is also true if $Q_{(1)}=0$, even if the equations of state are stiffer than radiation), as shown in the following lemma:
If $Q_{(1)}> 0,\, v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially, and if $0\leq w_{(2)}\leq \frac{1}{3}$, then all models isotropize when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$, i.e., $\Sigma^2\rightarrow 0$ when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$.
In section \[Sec:mon\] we showed that the future $\omega$-limit of a ‘matter’ orbit has to reside on either ${\cal OT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ or ${\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$ with $q<2$ and $\Omega_{\rm m}>0$. Assume that the $\omega$-limit of an orbit resides on ${\cal OT}_{v_{(1)}0}$. The equations for the $\Sigma,\Omega_{(2)}$-variables on this subsets are just those for a single orthogonal fluid, but in general in a non-Fermi propagated frame. However, in a Fermi frame the single orthogonal fluid case is easily solved and one finds that $\Omega_{(2)}\rightarrow 1$ and $\Sigma^2\rightarrow 0$ when $\tau\rightarrow\infty$. This statement is frame invariant and therefore holds for any frame, and hence it follows that the $\omega$-limit resides on the Friedmann-Lemaître subset ${\cal FLT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ and that $\Sigma^2\rightarrow 0$. Let us now assume that the $\omega$-limit for a matter orbit resides on ${\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$. Then, since $v_{(1)}=1$, $q=2 -\Omega_{(1)} -
\frac{3}{2}(\Omega_{(2)}-P_{(2)})=2-\Omega_{\rm m} -
\frac{1}{2}(1-3w_{(2)})(\Omega_{(2)} - Q_{(2)}v_{(2)})$, and hence $2q-1-3w_{(2)}= 2(1-\Omega_{\rm m})+
(1-3w_{(2)})(1-\Omega_{(2)} + Q_{(2)}v_{(2)})\geq 0$, since $w_{(2)}\leq\frac{1}{3}$, where the inequality is strict if $\Omega_{\rm m}<1$, which we now assume. Then $T_{(2)}$ in is strictly monotonically increasing and grows without bounds, but this is impossible since $T_{(2)}$ is finite, and hence $\Omega_{\rm m}\rightarrow 1$, and thus $\Sigma^2\rightarrow 0$ when $\tau\rightarrow \infty$.$\Box$
\[iso\] If $Q_{(1)}> 0,\, v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially, then the $\omega$-limit for all orbits is the fix point ${\rm
F}_{00}^{01}$ if $0\leq w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}<\frac{1}{3}$; one of the fix points on the line ${\rm FL}_{v_{(1)}0}^{01}$ if $0\leq
w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}=\frac{1}{3}$; the fix point ${\rm F}_{10}^{01}$ if $0\leq w_{(2)}\leq \frac{1}{3}<w_{(1)}<1$.
According to Lemma \[liso\] $\Sigma^2=0$ asymptotically toward the future. Imposing this condition on the ${\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$ subset yields the ${\cal
FLT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ subset with $v_{(1)}=1$, which is a special case of the other possibility that the $\omega$-limit of an arbitrary orbit with $Q_{(1)}\neq 0$ initially resides on the ${\cal OT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ subset, and hence that the $\omega$-limit resides on ${\cal FLT}_{v_{(1)}0}$ with $v_{(1)}$ so far undetermined ($\Omega_{(2)}=1$). To find the desired $\omega$-limit we only need to find the asymptotic limit of $v_{(1)}$, which, according to , is determined by the signature of $3w_{(1)}-1$ when $\Sigma^2=0$, immediately leading to the theorem.
The above theorems and conjectures are summarized in the global attractor bifurcation diagrams in figure \[bifur\].
\[cc\]\[cc\][$0$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$\frac{1}{3}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$\frac{1}{2}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$\frac{5}{9}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$1$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$w_{(1)}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$w_{(2)}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm F}^{01}_{00}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm FL}^{01}_{v_{(1)}0}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm F}^{01}_{10}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm LRS}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm TW}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm GL}_{1v_{(2)}}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm G}_{11}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][${\rm TW}_{11}$]{} \[cc\]\[cc\][$\frac{3}{5}$]{}
Past dynamics {#pastattr}
-------------
Based on the local analysis in Appendix \[Sec:locstab\], the previous analysis of ${\cal K}$, and a numerical analysis, we make the following conjecture:
The $\alpha$-limit for each orbit with $Q_{(1)}> 0,\,
v_{(1)}^2<1,\,v_{(2)}^2<1$ initially on the general geometric set with $\Sigma_A\Sigma_C\neq 0$ is one of the fix points on the global past attractor ${\cal A}_{\{**\}}$ for the Kasner subset ${\cal K}$ given in equation .
For the various geometric subsets other parts of the projected Kasner circle are the relevant building blocks for producing the global attractor for each subset, in a similar way as in the generic case (e.g., in the ${\cal RD}$ case, with $\Sigma_A=0,\Sigma_C\neq 0$, $0\leq\hat{\Sigma}_-\leq 1$ is the restriction on $\hat{\Sigma}_-$, in contrast to the generic case where $0\leq \hat{\Sigma}_-\leq\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$).
Concluding remarks {#Sec:concl}
==================
In this paper we have shown that the type I models with two tilted fluids exhibit a rich bifurcation structure, hinting at the complexity one can expect from models with more realistic sources and more general geometries. Some of our results reflect features that hold under more general circumstances, while others are particular for the Bianchi type I models with two-non-interacting fluids, but in this latter instance the present models yield a natural reference with which to compare results from more general settings.
The asymptotically silent regimes of generic spacelike singularities and of an inflationary future share some properties: in the inflationary case all other matter fields than the inflationary field become test fields and do not influence the spacetime geometry—hence matter that is not inflationary matter does not matter for the spacetime geometry; in the case of a generic singularity fluids with speeds of sound less than that of light also become test fields, in this case gravity alone creates gravity to a larger extent than matter, and hence ‘matter does not matter’ in this case either [@bkl70], [@bkl82], [@uggetal03]. However, that matter fields asymptotically become test fields does not mean that they do not matter observationally, on the contrary, today to a good approximation the CMB can be regarded as a test field although it is the prime observational source for cosmology!
In the present case a cosmological constant has yielded a final de Sitter state—this is a typical feature in a forever expanding model, as is the bifurcation at the radiation value $w=\frac{1}{3}$. Hence if one has several test fields, some less stiff and some as stiff or stiffer than radiation, one obtains anisotropies on a de Sitter background. However, one would perhaps not expect fields that are stiffer than radiation after an inflationary period in the early universe or in the far future, but does the bifurcation at the radiation value hint at that e.g. atomic matter and/or cold dark matter and radiation develop observationally significant relative velocities, perhaps non-linearly? As regards generic singularities, the Bianchi type I Kasner singularity is transformed into a singularity of ‘Mixmaster’ type when one considers geometrically more general models that admit Bianchi type II models on the silent boundary in such a combination with possible frame transitions so that the whole projected Kasner circle becomes unstable toward the past. But it is by no means uninteresting to examine the past behavior of type I, since matter sometimes lead to bifurcations such that matter sometimes does matter, as illustrated by e.g., a magnetic field [@leb97], or by a kinematic description of matter [@heiugg06] where matter mattered non-generically in a very subtle way, illustrating that it was not quite obvious that there would not be any non-generic subtle effects in the present case; the lack of such effects suggest that the past dynamics in general is structurally stable under a change from one to several fluids as long as $0\leq w_{(i)}<1$.
Asymptotic scenarios where non-interacting matter components do not matter may have interesting consequences when one introduces more realistic interacting sources. If the interactions only contribute source terms that are proportional to the non-interacting parts of the source, then the interactions presumably also become negligible for the determination of the geometry; it is only when interactions contribute more to the total stress-energy than the sources themselves that the matter does not matter property would be broken. Hence the approximation of non-interacting fields may be asymptotically less restrictive than one may initially think.
There are no (quasi-) isotropic singularities, see e.g. [@khaetal03],[@limetal04] and references therein, in the present case when $\Sigma^2\neq 0$ initially. The reason for this is that the shear completely destabilizes such singularities in Bianchi type I, which therefore is extremely misleading in a (quasi-) isotropic singularity context.
The result that models with fluids stiffer than radiation asymptotically produce anisotropies toward the future is mathematically interesting, and shows that the isotropization results for a single fluid are structurally unstable within the Bianchi type I context, although from a physical point of view one would not expect such equations of states at late times. The result suggests that tilted fluids may become as anisotropically significant as spatial curvature at late times (in the absence of inflation) when one considers more general models than Bianchi type I, leading to considerable complexity, further illustrated by the type VI$_0$ investigation in [@colher04]. Our results about isotropization for soft equations of state may be regarded as a non-linear Bianchi type I generalization of perturbations of flat FRW models with two fluids, a reasonable approximation before dark energy has becomes significant, and it is of interest then to point out that one again has radiation bifurcations.
Fix points and local stability analysis {#Sec:locstab}
=======================================
In this section we use the Gauss constraint to eliminate $\Omega_{(2)}$ globally, however, the Codazzi constraint cannot, unfortunately, be analytically solved globally, but we can follow ch. 7 in [@waiell97] and use it to locally eliminate one variable, usually $\Omega_{(1)}$, at each fix point when is non-singular. There are several features that are similar for many of the fix points. All fix points, except one, have $\Sigma_C=0$; several fix points have $\Sigma_A=0$. Linearization of when $\Sigma_C=0$, and when $\Sigma_A=0$, yield the eigenvalues \_[\_C]{} = -\[2 - q\_0 - 2(\_B)\_0\],\_[\_A]{} = -\[2 - q\_0 + 3(\_+)\_0 + (\_B)\_0\], where $q_0,\, (\Sigma_B)_0,\, (\Sigma_+)_0$ are the fix point values of $q,\, \Sigma_B,\,\Sigma_+$, respectively. For many fix points $v_{(i)}=0$ or $|v_{(i)}|=1$. In these cases linearization of yields \_[v\_[(i)]{}]{}\^0 = 3w\_[(i)]{} - 1 + 2(\_+)\_0,\_[v\_[(i)]{}]{}\^1 = -2(3w\_[(i)]{} - 1 + 2(\_+)\_0)/(1-w\_[(i)]{}),where the subscript refers to the $v_{(i)}$ variable the eigenvalue is connected with while the superscript denotes its absolute fix point value. Let us now turn to the various individual fix points; throughout kernel subscripts give an indication of the absolute fix point values for $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$.
[**Kasner fix points**]{}: There are four circles of Kasner points and eight lines of fix points when $0\leq
w_{(2)}< w_{(1)}$. The Kasner circles are characterized by $\Sigma_+ = \hat{\Sigma}_+,\, \Sigma_B = \hat{\Sigma}_-,\,
\Sigma_A = \Sigma_C = 0,\, \Omega_{(1)} = \Omega_{(2)} = 0$, where $\hat{\Sigma}_\pm$ are constants that satisfy $\hat{\Sigma}_+^2 + \hat{\Sigma}_-^2=1$, and the following values of $v_{(i)}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{00}:\quad v_{(1)} &= v_{(2)} =
0\:,\qquad\qquad\, {\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{10}:\,\, v_{(1)} = 1\:,\, v_{(2)}
= 0\:,\\
{\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{01}:\quad v_{(1)} &= 0\:,\,
v_{(2)} = -1\:,\qquad {\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{11}:\,\, v_{(1)} =
-v_{(2)} = 1\:.\end{aligned}$$
The eigenvalues for the four cases are:
\[Kasenrcirc\] $$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{00}:\quad 0\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;\quad \lambda_{v_{(1)}}^0\:;\quad
\lambda_{v_{(2)}}^0\:;\quad 3(1-w_{(1)})\:; \quad 3(1-w_{(2)})\:,\\
& {\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{10}:\quad 0\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;\quad \lambda_{v_{(1)}}^1\:;\quad
\lambda_{v_{(2)}}^0\:;\quad 3(1-w_{(2)})\:,\\
& {\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{01}:\quad 0\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;\quad \lambda_{v_{(1)}}^0\:;\quad
\lambda_{v_{(2)}}^1\:;\quad 3(1-w_{(1)})\:,\\
& {\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{11}:\quad 0\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;\quad \lambda_{v_{(1)}}^1\:;\quad
\lambda_{v_{(2)}}^1\:;\quad 2(1+\hat{\Sigma}_+)\:,\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\Sigma_A} &=
-(3\hat{\Sigma}_+ + \sqrt{3}\hat{\Sigma}_-)\:, \qquad
\lambda_{\Sigma_C} = 2\sqrt{3}\hat{\Sigma}_-\:,\\
\lambda_{v_{(i)}}^0 &= 3w_{(i)} - 1 + 2\hat{\Sigma}_+\:,\qquad\,\,
\lambda_{v_{(i)}}^1 = -2(3w_{(i)} - 1
+ 2\hat{\Sigma}_+)/(1-w_{(i)})\:.\end{aligned}$$
In the ${\rm K}^{\ocircle}_{00}$ case the Codazzi constraint is singular and hence it cannot be locally solved; in all other cases has been used to eliminate $\Omega_{(1)}$. The zero eigenvalue corresponds to that one has a one-parameter set of fixed points. The eight lines of Kasner fix points are characterized by $\Sigma_A = \Sigma_C = 0,\, \Omega_{(1)} = \Omega_{(2)} =
0,\, \Sigma^2=1$, and
\[Kasnerlines\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm KL}_{v_{(1)}0}^\pm:\quad \Sigma_+ &= {{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(1-3w_{(1)})\:,\quad
\Sigma_B = \pm\sqrt{1-\Sigma_+^2}\:,\quad 0 \leq v_{(1)} \leq 1\:, \quad v_{(2)} = 0\:,\\
{\rm KL}_{v_{(1)}1}^\pm:\quad \Sigma_+ &= {{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(1-3w_{(1)})\:,\quad
\Sigma_B = \pm\sqrt{1-\Sigma_+^2}\:, \quad 0 \leq v_{(1)} \leq 1\:,\quad v_{(2)} = -1\:,\\
{\rm KL}_{0v_{(2)}}^\pm:\quad \Sigma_+ &= {{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(1-3w_{(2)})\:,\quad
\Sigma_B = \pm\sqrt{1-\Sigma_+^2}\:,\quad v_{(1)} = 0\:, \quad -1 \leq v_{(2)} \leq 0\:,\\
{\rm KL}_{1v_{(2)}}^\pm:\quad \Sigma_+ &= {{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(1-3w_{(2)})\:,\quad
\Sigma_B = \pm\sqrt{1-\Sigma_+^2}\:,\quad v_{(1)} = 1\:, \quad -1 \leq v_{(2)} \leq 0\:,\end{aligned}$$
where the superscript denotes the sign of $\Sigma_B$. After eliminating $\Omega_{(1)}$ locally by means of the Codazzi constraint , the eigenvalues for the eight Kasner lines are:
\[KL\] $$\begin{aligned}
&{\rm KL}_{v_{(1)}0}^\pm:\quad 0\:;\quad 0\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;\quad
3(1-w_{(2)})\:;\quad -3(w_{(1)} - w_{(2)})\:,\\
&{\rm KL}_{v_{(1)}1}^\pm:\quad 0\:;\quad 0\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;
\quad 3(1-w_{(1)})\:;\quad
6\frac{w_{(1)} - w_{(2)}}{1-w_{(2)}}\:,\\
&{\rm KL}_{0v_{(2)}}^\pm:\quad 0\:;\quad 0\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;\quad
3(1-w_{(1)})\:; \quad 3(w_{(1)} - w_{(2)})\:,\\
&{\rm KL}_{1v_{(2)}}^\pm:\quad 0\:;\quad 0\:;\quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_A}\:;\quad \lambda_{\Sigma_C}\:;\quad
3(1-w_{(2)})\:; \quad -6\frac{w_{(1)} - w_{(2)}}{1-w_{(1)}}\:,\end{aligned}$$
where again $\lambda_{\Sigma_A} = -(3\Sigma_+ +
\sqrt{3}\Sigma_B)\:,\, \lambda_{\Sigma_C} = 2\sqrt{3}\Sigma_B$, where $\Sigma_+,\, \Sigma_B$ take the fix point values for the relevant line of fix points. Here one zero eigenvalue corresponds to that one has a line of fix points while the second is associated with the existence of a one parameter set of solutions that are anti-parallel w.r.t. each other on each side of the line of fix points.
[**Friedmann fix points**]{}: All four Friedmann fix points satisfy $\Sigma_+=\Sigma_A=\Sigma_B=\Sigma_C=0,\,
\Omega_{(1)}\Omega_{(2)}=0,\, \Omega_{\rm m} = 1,\,
v_{(1)}v_{(2)}=0$. They are distinguished by their $\Omega_{(i)}$ and $v_{(i)}$ values according to:
$$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm F}_{00}^{10}:\quad v_{(1)}=0\:,\quad v_{(2)}=0\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(1)}=1\:,\quad \Omega_{(2)}=0\:,\\
& {\rm F}_{01}^{10}:\quad v_{(1)}=0\:,\quad
v_{(2)}=-1\:,\quad\,
\Omega_{(1)}=1\:,\quad \Omega_{(2)}=0\:,\\
& {\rm F}_{00}^{01}:\quad v_{(1)}=0\:,\quad v_{(2)}=0\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(1)}=0\:,\quad \Omega_{(2)}=1\:,\\
& {\rm F}_{10}^{01}:\quad v_{(1)}=1\:,\quad v_{(2)}=0\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(1)}=0\:,\quad \Omega_{(2)}=1\:,\end{aligned}$$
where the superscript refers to the values of $\Omega_{(1)}$ and $\Omega_{(2)}$. The associated eigenvalues are:
$$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm F}_{00}^{10}:\quad \lambda_{1,2,3,4} = -{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(1)})\:;\quad
3w_{(2)} - 1\:; \quad 3(w_{(1)}-w_{(2)})\:;\qquad v_{(1)}\quad \text{eliminated}\:,\\
& {\rm F}_{01}^{10}:\quad \lambda_{1,2,3,4} =
-{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(1)})\:;\quad
3w_{(1)}-1\:;\quad \frac{2(1-3w_{(2)})}{1-w_{(2)}}\:;\qquad\,\, \Omega_{(1)}\quad \text{eliminated}\:,\\
& {\rm F}_{00}^{01}:\quad \lambda_{1,2,3,4} =
-{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(2)})\:;
\quad 3w_{(1)} - 1\:; \quad -3(w_{(1)}-w_{(2)})\:;\quad\, v_{(2)}\quad \text{eliminated}\:,\\
& {\rm F}_{10}^{01}:\quad \lambda_{1,2,3,4} = -{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(2)})\:; \quad
3w_{(2)} - 1\:;\quad \frac{2(1-3w_{(1)})}{1-w_{(1)}}\:;\qquad\,\, \Omega_{(1)}\quad \text{eliminated}\:.\end{aligned}$$
Here the last entry for each line of fix points refers to the variable that has been eliminated by means of the Codazzi constraint . Two of the eigenvalues of $\lambda_{1,2,3,4}$ refer to $\lambda_{\Sigma_A}$ and $\lambda_{\Sigma_C}$. If $w_{(2)} = \frac{1}{3}$ there exists a line of Friedmann points, parameterized by $v_{(2)}$, ${\rm
FL}_{0v_{(2)}}^{10}$, that connects ${\rm F}_{00}^{10}$ and ${\rm F}_{01}^{10}$. Similarly if $w_{(1)} = \frac{1}{3}$ there exists a line of fix points, ${\rm FL}_{v_{(1)}0}^{01}$, that connects ${\rm F}_{00}^{01}$ and ${\rm F}_{10}^{01}$. They are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm FL}_{0v_{(2)}}^{10}:\quad && v_{(1)}=0\:,\quad v_{(2)}=const\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(1)}=1\:,\quad \Omega_{(2)}=0\:, \quad w_{(2)}=1/3\:,\\
& {\rm FL}_{v_{(1)}0}^{01}:\quad && v_{(1)}=const\:,\quad
v_{(2)}=0\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(1)}=0\:,\quad \Omega_{(2)}=1\:, \quad w_{(1)}=1/3\:.\end{aligned}$$
The eigenvalues associated with the two lines are:
$$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm FL}_{0v_{(2)}}^{10}:\quad \lambda_{1,2,3,4} = -{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(1)})\:;\quad
3w_{(1)}-1\:;\quad 0\:;\qquad\,\, \Omega_{(1)}\quad \text{eliminated}\:,\\
& {\rm FL}_{v_{(1)}0}^{01}:\quad \lambda_{1,2,3,4} =
-{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(2)})\:;
\quad 3w_{(2)} - 1\:; \quad 0\:;\qquad\, \Omega_{(1)}\quad \text{eliminated}\:.\end{aligned}$$
We now turn to fix points for which $0<\Sigma^2<1$.
[**Fix points on ${\cal LRS}\cap {\cal
ET}_{v_{(1)}1}$ and ${\cal LRS}\cap {\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$**]{}: When $\frac{1}{3} < w_{(2)} < w_{(1)}$ there are two additional fix points, ${\rm LRS}_{v^{\ast}_{(1)}1}$ and ${\rm
LRS}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}$, which enter the physical state space via ${\rm F}_{01}^{10}$ and ${\rm F}_{10}^{01}$ when $w_{(1)}=\frac{1}{3}$, $w_{(2)}=\frac{1}{3}$, respectively, and move into the ${\cal LRS}$-subset with increasing values of $w_{(i)}$. In the stiff perfect fluid limit ($w_{(1)}=1$, $w_{(2)}=1$) the lines merge with the coalesced Kasner lines ${\rm KL}_{v_{(1)}1}^+={\rm KL}_{v_{(1)}1}^-$, ${\rm
KL}_{1v_{(2)}}^+={\rm KL}_{1v_{(2)}}^-$, respectively. The two fix points are characterized by $\Sigma_A = \Sigma_B = \Sigma_C
= 0$, and:
$$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm LRS}_{v^{\ast}_{(1)}1}: \quad \Sigma_+ =-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\:, \qquad
v_{(1)} =\frac{3w_{(1)}-1}{5w_{(1)}+1}\:,\quad v_{(2)} = -1\:,\nonumber \\
& \Omega_{(1)} = \frac{3(1- w_{(1)})(9w_{(1)}+1)(1+w_{(1)})}{32\,w_{(1)}}\:, \qquad
\Omega_{(2)} = \frac{3(1-w_{(1)})(5w_{(1)}+1)(3w_{(1)}-1)}{32\,w_{(1)}}\:,\\
& {\rm LRS}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}: \quad \Sigma_+ = -{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(2)}
- 1)\:, \qquad v_{(1)} =1\:, \qquad
v_{(2)} = -\frac{3 w_{(2)} - 1}{5w_{(2)}+1}\:, \nonumber \\
& \Omega_{(1)} =
\frac{3(1-w_{(2)})(5w_{(2)}+1)(3w_{(2)}-1)}{32\,w_{(2)}}\:,
\qquad \Omega_{(2)} = \frac{3(1- w_{(2)})( 9w_{(2)}+1)(1+w_{(2)})}{32\,w_{(2)}}\:.\end{aligned}$$
After eliminating $\Omega_{(1)}$ locally the eigenvalues for the two LRS-points are:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm LRS}_{v^{\ast}_{(1)}1}: \quad & \lambda_{\Sigma_A} = 3(2w_{(1)}-1)\:; \quad
\lambda_{\Sigma_B} = \lambda_{\Sigma_C} = -{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(1)})\:;
\quad 6 \frac{w_{(1)}-w_{(2)}}{1-w_{(2)}}\:; \nonumber \\
&-{{\textstyle{3\over4}}}(1-w_{(1)}) \left(1 \pm
\sqrt{A(w_{(1)})} \right)\:,\nonumber \\
{\rm LRS}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}: \quad & \lambda_{\Sigma_A} =
3(2w_{(2)}-1)\:; \quad \lambda_{\Sigma_B} = \lambda_{\Sigma_C}
= -{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(2)})\:;
\quad -6 \frac{w_{(1)}-w_{(2)}}{1-w_{(1)}}\:; \nonumber \\
& -{{\textstyle{3\over4}}}(1-w_{(2)})\left(1 \pm
\sqrt{A(w_{(2)})} \right)\:,\end{aligned}$$
where ${\rm Re}\, A(w_{(i)})<1$; since the expression for $A(w_{(i)})$ is rather messy we will refrain from giving it.
[**Fix point on ${\cal TW}\cap {\cal ET}_{11}$**]{}:
\_[11]{}: \_+ = -, \_C = 0, \_A = \_B = , v\_[(1)]{}=1, v\_[(2)]{} = -1, \_[(1)]{}=\_[(2)]{}=. Local elimination of $\Omega_{(1)}$ by means of the Codazzi constraint yields the eigenvalues: \_[\_C]{}=; -; -(1 i );; .
[**Fix points on ${\cal TW}\cap {\cal
ET}_{v_{(1)}1}$ and ${\cal TW}\cap {\cal ET}_{1v_{(2)}}$**]{}: When $\frac{1}{2} < w_{(1)} < \frac{3}{5}$ there exists one more fix point on ${\cal TW}$: ${\rm TW}_{v_{(1)}1}$. This fix point comes into existence when the point LRS$_{v^{\ast}_{(1)}1}$ bifurcate into two points at $w_{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}$; it then wanders away from ${\cal D}$ when $w_{(1)}$ increases and eventually leaves the physical state space through ${\rm TW}_{11}$ when $w_{(1)}=\frac{3}{5}$. Yet another similar fix point exists on ${\cal TW}$ if $\frac{1}{2} < w_{(2)} < \frac{3}{5}$: ${\rm
TW}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}$. The fix points are characterized by $\Sigma_C = 0$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm TW}_{v^{\ast}_{(1)}1}: \quad \Sigma_+ &=
-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)\:,\qquad \Sigma_A =
\sqrt{{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(1)})(2w_{(1)}-1)}\:,\qquad
\Sigma_B = \sqrt{3}(2w_{(1)} -1)\:,\nonumber \\
v_{(1)} &= v_{(1)}^*=
\frac{(1-w_{(1)})(15w_{(1)}-7)}{-25w_{(1)}^2+18w_{(1)}-1}\:,
\qquad v_{(2)} = -1\:,\nonumber\\
\Omega_{(1)} &= 1 - {{\textstyle{1\over4}}}(3w_{(1)}-1)(15w_{(1)}-7) - B(w_{(1)})\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(2)} = B(w_{(1)})\:,\\
{\rm TW}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}: \quad \Sigma_+ &=
-{{\textstyle{1\over2}}}(3w_{(2)}-1)\:,\qquad \Sigma_A =
\sqrt{{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(1-w_{(2)})(2w_{(2)}-1)}\:,\qquad
\Sigma_B = \sqrt{3}(2w_{(2)} -1)\:,\nonumber \\
v_{(1)} &= 1\:,\qquad
v_{(2)} = v_{(2)}^* = -\frac{(1-w_{(2)})(15w_{(2)}-7)}{-25w_{(2)}^2+18w_{(2)}-1}\:,\nonumber \\
\Omega_{(1)} &= B(w_{(2)})\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(2)} = 1 - {{\textstyle{1\over4}}}(3w_{(2)}-1)(15w_{(2)}-7) - B(w_{(2)})\:,\end{aligned}$$
where B(w\_[(i)]{})= -.
Local elimination of $\Omega_{(1)}$ yields the following eigenvalues:
$$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm TW}_{v^{\ast}_{(1)}1}:\, \lambda_{\Sigma_C}=-{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(5-9w_{(1)})\:; \quad
6\frac{w_{(1)}-w_{(2)}}{1-w_{(2)}}\:; \,\, \lambda_{3,4,5,6} =
-{{\textstyle{3\over4}}}(1-w_{(1)})\left(1 \pm \sqrt{C_{(1)}
\pm D_{(1)}}\right)\:,\\
& {\rm TW}_{1v^{\ast}_{(2)}}:\, \lambda_{\Sigma_C}= -{{\textstyle{3\over2}}}(5-9w_{(2)})\:; \,\,
-6\frac{w_{(1)}-w_{(2)}}{1-w_{(1)}}\:; \,\, \lambda_{3,4,5,6} =
-{{\textstyle{3\over4}}}(1-w_{(2)})\left(1 \pm \sqrt{C_{(2)}
\pm D_{(2)}}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$
where $C_{(i)}=C_{(i)}(w_{(i)}), D_{(i)}=D_{(i)}(w_{(i)})$ exhibit quite messy expressions, which we therefore refrain from giving, such that real parts of the associated eigenvalues always are negative.
[**Fix point in the generic geometric manifold**]{}: There exists one fix point ${\rm G}_{11}$ for which all the off-diagonal components of the shear are non-zero. It thus exists on the generic ‘geometric’ manifold, but on the ‘matter boundary’ ${\cal ET}_{11}$ where both fluids are extremely tilted. It is characterized by: \_[11]{}: \_+ = -, \_A = , \_B = \_C =,v\_[(1)]{}= 1, v\_[(2)]{} = -1, \_[(1)]{} = \_[(2)]{} = . Local elimination of $\Omega_{(1)}$ yields the eigenvalues: \_[1,2,3,4]{} = -(1 i );-;-. At $w_{(2)}<w_{(1)}=\frac{5}{9}$ ($w_{(2)}=\frac{5}{9}<w_{(1)}$) there exists a line of fix points, ${\rm GL}_{v_{(1)}1}$ (${\rm GL}_{1v_{(2)}}$), connecting ${\rm TW}_{v_{(1)}^*1}$ (${\rm TW}_{1v_{(2)}^*}$) with $G_{11}$; ${\rm GL}_{v_{(1)}1}$ and ${\rm GL}_{1v_{(2)}}$ are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm GL}_{v_{(1)}1}: \quad \Sigma_+ & = -{{\textstyle{1\over3}}}\:,\qquad
\Sigma_A = \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{34v_{(1)}-6}{3+4v_{(1)}}}\:,\qquad
\Sigma_B = {{\textstyle{1\over3\sqrt{3}}}}\:, \quad \Sigma_C =
\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{13v_{(1)}-6}{3+4v_{(1)}}}\nonumber \\
{{\textstyle{6\over13}}} & \leq v_{(1)} = const \leq 1\:, \qquad v_{(2)} = -1\:, \nonumber \\
\Omega_{(1)} &= \frac{9+5v_{(1)}^2}{3(1+v_{(1)})(3+4v_{(1)})}
\:, \quad
\Omega_{(2)} = \frac{14v_{(1)}}{3(1+v_{(1)})(3+4v_{(1)})}\:,\\
{\rm GL}_{1v_{(2)}}: \quad \Sigma_+ & = -{{\textstyle{1\over3}}}\:,\qquad
\Sigma_A = \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{-34v_{(2)}-6}{3-4v_{(2)}}}\:,\qquad
\Sigma_B = {{\textstyle{1\over3\sqrt{3}}}}\:, \quad \Sigma_C =
\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{\frac{-13v_{(2)}-6}{3-4v_{(2)}}} \nonumber \\
v_{(1)} &= 1\:,\qquad -1\leq v_{(2)} = const\leq -{{\textstyle{6\over13}}}\:,\nonumber \\
\Omega_{(1)} &= \frac{-14v_{(2)}}{3(1-v_{(2)})(3-4v_{(2)})}\:,\qquad
\Omega_{(2)} = \frac{9+5v_{(2)}^2}{3(1-v_{(2)})(3-4v_{(2)})}\:.\end{aligned}$$
Local elimination of $\Omega_{(1)}$ yields the eigenvalues:
$$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm GL}_{v_{(1)}1}: \,\, 0\:; \qquad\,\,\,\,
\frac{2}{3}\frac{5-9w_{(2)}}{1-w_{(2)}}\:; \quad \lambda_{3,4,5,6} =
-{{\textstyle{1\over3}}}\left(1 \pm \sqrt{F_{(1)} \pm G_{(1)}}\right)\:,\\
& {\rm GL}_{1v_{(2)}}: \,\, 0\:; \quad\,\,\,\,\,
-\frac{2}{3}\frac{9w_{(1)}-5}{1-w_{(1)}}\:; \quad \lambda_{3,4,5,6} =
-{{\textstyle{1\over3}}}\left(1 \pm \sqrt{F_{(2)} \pm G_{(2)}}\right)\:,\end{aligned}$$
where $F_{(i)}=F_{(i)}(v_{(i)}), G_{(i)}=G_{(i)}(v_{(i)})$ exhibit quite messy expressions, which we therefore refrain from giving, such that real parts of the associated eigenvalues always are negative.
[99]{}
G. Hinshaw, et el. Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results. arXiv:0803.0732.
M. Tegmark, et al. Cosmological Constraints from the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} : 123507 (2006).
J. Wainwright and G. F. R. Ellis. . ambridge [U]{}niversity [P]{}ress, Cambridge, (1997).
A. A. Coley. . (Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003).
C. Uggla, H. van Elst, J. Wainwright, and G. F .R. Ellis. The past attractor in inhomogeneous cosmology. Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} : 103502 (2003).
L. Andersson, H. van Elst, W. C. Lim, and C. Uggla. Asymptotic Silence of Generic Singularities. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} 051101 (2005).
J. M. Heinzle, C. Uggla, and N. Röhr. The cosmological billiard attractor. arXiv:gr-qc/0702141.
G. F. R. Ellis and H. van Elst. Cosmological models (Cargèse lectures 1998) in [*Theoretical and Observational Cosmology*]{}, edited by Lachièze-Rey M, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1999), p. 1 ([K]{}luver: Dortrecht) (gr-qc/9812046)
N. Röhr and C. Uggla. Conformal regularization of Einstein’s field equations Class. Quantum Grav. [**22**]{} 3775 (2005). A. A. Coley and J. Wainwright. Qualitative analysis of two-fluid Bianchi cosmologies. Class. Quantum Grav. [**9**]{} 651 (1992) J. M. Heinzle, N. Röhr, and C. Uggla. Matter and dynamics in closed cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} : 083506 (2005).
M. Goliath and U. S. Nilsson. Isotropization of two-component fluids. J. Math. Phys. [**41**]{} 6906 (2000). A. A. Coley and S. Hervik. A Tale of Two Tilted fluids. Class. Quantum Grav. [**21**]{} 4193 (2004). J. Wainwright, M. J. Hancock, and C. Uggla Asymptotic self-similarity breaking at late times in cosmology. Class. Quantum Grav. [**16**]{} 2577 (1999). V. G. LeBlanc. Asymptotic states of magnetic Bianchi I cosmologies. Class. Quantum Grav. [**14**]{} 2281 (1997). J. M. Heinzle and C. Uggla. Dynamics of the spatially homogeneous Bianchi type I Einstein-Vlasov equations. Class. Quantum Grav. [**23**]{} 3463 (2006). V. A. Belinskiǐ, I. M. Khalatnikov, and E. M. Lifshitz. Oscillatory approach to a singular point in the relativistic cosmology. Adv. Phys. [**19**]{}, 525 (1970). V. A. Belinskiǐ, I. M. Khalatnikov, and E. M. Lifshitz. A general solution of the Einstein equations with a time singularity. Adv. Phys. [**31**]{}, 639 (1982). L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz . xford [P]{}ergamon, (1963).
H. Friedrich, A. D. Rendall. The Cauchy Problem for the Einstein Equations Lect. Notes Phys. [**540**]{} 127 (2000). R. M. Wald. Asymptotic behavior of homogeneous cosmological models in the precense of a positive cosmological constant. Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{} 2118 (1983).
W. C. Lim, H. van Elst, C. Uggla, J. Wainwright. Asymptotic isotropization in inhomogeneous cosmology. Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} : 103507 (2004).
R. T. Jantzen. Spatially Homogeneous Dynamics: A Unified Picture. arXiv:gr-qc/0102035.
I. M. Khalatnikov, A. Yu. Kamenshchik, M. Martellini, A. A. Starobinsky. Quasi-isotropic solution of the Einstein equations near a cosmological singularity for a two-fluid cosmological model. JCAP 0303 (2003) 001.
[^1]: Electronic address: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Electronic address: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: A gravitational test field is a field that does not affect the metric, i.e., it is a field for which we can neglect: (i) its source contribution to Einstein’s equations, (ii) its influence on gravitational sources.
[^4]: The sign in the definition of $\Omega^\alpha$ is the same as in [@ellels99], but opposite of that in [@waiell97].
[^5]: We could have extended the range of the equation of state to include $-1/3<w_{(i)}<0$, but the well-posedness of the Einstein equations for this range has been questioned, see [@friren00].
[^6]: In the case of a magnetic field, aligned along $\vece_3$, one obtains $R_1 = \Sigma_{23},\,R_2 =
-\Sigma_{31}$, i.e., the signs are opposite of those of the two tilted fluid case! This dynamical result in turn leads to sign differences in the $\Sigma$-equations. Note that the kinematic results in [@leb97] still hold, hence e.g. fix points correspond to transitively self-similar models.
[^7]: The monotonicity principle gives information about the global asymptotic behavior of the dynamical system. If $M: X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a ${\mathcal C}^1$ function which is strictly decreasing along orbits (solutions) in $X$, then $$\omega(x) \subseteq \{\xi \in \bar{X}\backslash X\:|\:
\lim\limits_{\zeta\rightarrow \xi} M(\zeta) \neq
\sup\limits_{X} M\}\:, \quad \alpha(x) \subseteq \{\xi \in
\bar{X}\backslash X\:|\:\lim\limits_{\zeta\rightarrow \xi}
M(\zeta) \neq \inf\limits_{X} M\}$$ for all $x\in X$, where $\omega(x)$ \[$\alpha(x)$\] is the $\omega$-limit \[$\alpha$-limit\] set of a point $x\in X$, defined as the set of all accumulation points of the future \[past\] orbit of $x$; and analogously for strictly increasing monotonic functions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[The rubeola virus, commonly known as measles, is one of the major causes of vaccine-preventable deaths among children worldwide. This is the case despite the fact that an effective vaccine is widely available. Even in developed countries elimination efforts have fallen short as seen by recent outbreaks in Europe, which had over 30,000 cases reported in 2010. The string of measles outbreaks in France from 2008-2011 is of particular interest due to the documented disparity in regional vaccination coverage. The impact of heterogeneous vaccine coverage on disease transmission is a broad interest and the focus of this study. A Susceptible-Exposed-Infectious-Recovered (SEIR) multi-patch epidemiological model capturing the regional differences in vaccination rates and mixing is introduced. The mathematical analysis of a two-patch system is carried out to help our understanding of the behavior of multi-patch systems. Numerical simulations are generated to aid the study of the system’s qualitative dynamics. Data from the recent French outbreaks were used to generate parameter values and to help connect theory with application. Our findings show that heterogeneous vaccination coverage increases controlled reproduction number compared to comparable homogeneous coverage.]{}'
author:
- |
Elaine T. Alexander$^{1},$ Savanah D. McMahon$^{2},$ Nicholas Roberts$^{3},$ Emilio Sutti$^{4},$\
Daniel Burkow$^{5},$ Miles Manning$^{5},$ Kamuela E. Yong$^{6,7},$ Sergei Suslov$^{6,7}$
title: The Effects of Regional Vaccination Heterogeneity on Measles Outbreaks with France as a Case Study
---
$^{1}$ Department of Applied Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ\
$^{2}$ Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ\
$^{3}$ School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ\
$^{4}$ Department of Physics, National University of Salta, Salta, Argentina\
$^{5}$ School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ\
$^{6}$ School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ\
$^7$ Simon A. Levin Mathematical, Computational & Modeling Sciences Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ\
Introduction
============
Measles is a highly contagious virus from the *Morbillivirus* genus [@Moss2012153] that continues to affect more than 30 million individuals worldwide [@Ennis]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that between the years 2000 and 2003 measles has accounted for 1 in every 25 childhood deaths, significantly higher than the ratio of deaths due to other diseases such as HIV/AIDS [@Weisberg2007471]. This statistic reflects the high communicability of the disease, as it travels through susceptible pockets of populations at an alarmingly fast rate. It was found that there is an approximately 85% chance that someone who comes into direct contact with the disease, such as a susceptible household contact, will become infected [@rowland]. Although this disease has a very high transmission rate, there are no animal reservoirs for disease resurrection [@Moss2012153] nor has the virus mutated enough to alter immunogenic epitopes [@moss2006global]. Therefore, complete eradication of the disease is theoretically possible.
The disease doesn’t preferentially target a certain gender or race; the prevalence of the disease in any population thus depends primarily on socioeconomic factors, environmental conditions, and the relative vaccination coverage within the region [@CBO9781139053518A160]. Measles epidemics tend to occur every 2 to 5 years, during the winter and spring seasons of temperate climates [@CBO9781139053518A160]. It is still uncertain whether this seasonality is primarily due to the actual climate conditions or the indirect social behavior and population movement that arises from these conditions.
Biological Overview
===================
Measles Virus Characteristics
-----------------------------
The virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets present in sneezes and coughs; it initially attacks the host’s respiratory tract and from there becomes systemic [@deVries2012248]. The initial symptoms usually occur 8-14 days after infection and are characterized by a runny nose, a gradually increasing fever, watery eyes, a cough, drowsiness, and a loss of appetite [@Taber]. Following these symptoms, white lesions known as Koplik’s spots appear on the inside lining of the mouth opposite the molars [@Taber]. These lesions preclude the characteristic measles rash, which occurs two to three days later and travels from the face to the body’s extremities [@Taber]. The rash consists of reddish patches that are approximately 3-8mm in diameter; these patches appear gradually and last from about 3 to 7 days [@orenstein2004clinical]. Because the characteristic rash generally appears at the end of the communicable period, the strategy of quarantining infected individuals becomes difficult to assess. There is currently no known cure for the virus [@Ennis].
Complications Associated with Infection
---------------------------------------
Although the measles virus encodes for a haemagglutinin protein that elicits a strong immune response and grants recovered individuals immunity [@Moss2012153], the serious complications associated with the virus have life-long consequences that pose major public health concerns. The measles virus has the potential to affect many organ systems throughout the body. In particular it attacks epithelial, reticuloendothelial, and white blood cells [@orenstein2004clinical]. Since white blood cells are necessary for proper immune function, an infected patient can often develop severe health problems that are otherwise unassociated with the initial measles infection. These complications occur in roughly 10-30% of measles patients and account for most of the reported fatalities [@semba2004measles]. Common secondary infections include bacterial ear infections, pneumonia, diarrhea, and otitis media [@semba2004measles].
In rare cases, some infected individuals can also develop neurological and optical problems. An estimated 1 in 1000 patients develop a form of encephalitis at the time of measles recovery. The acute encephalitis is severe inflammation of the brain that causes vomiting, convulsions, coma, brain damage, and even death [@aicardi1977acute]. Since measles is associated with a vitamin A deficiency, the virus can additionally place infected persons at higher risks for eye diseases, including xerophthalmia, corneal ulceration, keratomalacia, and subsequent blindness [@semba2004measles]. It is estimated that 15,000 of the 60,000 blindness cases reported each year among children in low income countries can be attributed to measles [@semba2004measles].
MMR Vaccine
-----------
Finding an effective measles vaccine has been a main focus of many physicians and scientists for the past century. It wasn’t until 1954 that biomedical scientist John Enders and physician T.C. Peebles were able to isolate a live but attenuated measles virus in tissue cultures in Boston [@1991]. This vaccine entered the United States market in 1963, but had the tendency to cause fever and rash in vaccinated individuals and was eventually replaced by the MMR vaccine in the 1970’s [@Moss2012153].
The MMR vaccine is a mixture of three vaccines that immunize against measles, mumps, and rubella (German measles) [@Linwood]. This vaccine has been clinically proven to be safe and costs less than 1 U.S. dollar per child [@dardis2012review]. The introduction of this combined vaccine has significantly reduced the occurrence of measles outbreaks in developed countries. For the first 6 months of life, an infant usually possesses natural immunity from the disease due to maternal antibodies still present in the infant’s system [@CBO9781139053518A160]. This passive immunity will wear off and it is therefore recommended to administer the MMR vaccine in two doses to optimize efficacy: the first when the recipient is between 12 and 15 months old and the second when the recipient is between 4 and 6 years old [@Moss2012153]. It has been found that the vaccine has approximately 90-95% efficacy [@200215911620020301].
Epidemiological Overview
========================
Measles Throughout History
--------------------------
There have been multiple measles epidemics throughout history. American historian William McNeil claims that measles and other related diseases most likely originated in China sometime between A.D. 37 and A.D. 653 [@CBO9781139053518A160]. Since then, measles epidemics have continued to plague mankind. In the Middle Ages, many people confused the disease with smallpox [@CBO9781139053518A160]. When the Europeans settled in North America during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, they unknowingly brought measles to the indigenous populations. Because these native populations had not yet developed any antibodies to help fight off the virus, many epidemics broke out and hundreds of thousands of Native Americans reportedly died over the course of several centuries [@Ennis]. Several South American Indian tribes in the Amazon were also lost, with the most notable epidemic causing 30,000 deaths in 1749 [@Weisberg2007471]. It wasn’t until 1758 that physicians began to classify the disease as “infectious" [@CBO9781139053518A160]. Despite many attempts to prevent and cure the disease, these epidemics continued to occur all around the world; during the American Civil War, 4,000 soldiers perished after becoming affected [@Ennis]. Outbreaks continued to occur until a weakened measles vaccine was introduced in the 1960’s. The most current measles vaccine has substantially decreased the number of measles outbreaks occurring worldwide.
Current Measles Outbreaks
-------------------------
Despite the MMR vaccine available today, many countries are still dealing with the disease. It is estimated that only 50% of all measles cases are actually reported to the World Health Organization. This statistic indicates that every year the virus infects an estimated 50 million individuals, and as a result, causes 1.5 million deaths annually [@CBO9781139053518A160]. These numbers reflect the ease with which measles can re-infect a community even when only small pockets of the population are susceptible. In Quebec, Canada, where the average population immunity is estimated to be 95%, an initial outbreak consisting of 94 cases transmitted through largely unrelated networks of unvaccinated individuals [@Moss2012153]. The same problem is exacerbated in developing countries where vaccination coverage is more sparse throughout the regions, namely in southern and eastern Africa. Out of the 46 African countries affected, recent measles outbreaks have been the most prevalent in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi [@Moss2012153].
Although measles was considered to be eliminated in the United States as of 2000, many European countries are still battling this disease. The majority of outbreaks occur in Bulgaria, France, Italy, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Spain [@cottrell2011measles]. In addition, these outbreaks are beginning to affect the U.S. again. In 2011, the U.S. saw the highest number of annual measles cases in 2011 since 1995. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention primarily attribute these new cases to Americans traveling to Europe and bringing back the disease [@sepkowitz].
The Measles Epidemic in France
------------------------------
After the MMR vaccine was instituted in France during the 1980’s, the disease was practically nonexistent in the country. Unfortunately, the virus reappeared in 2008 [@freymuth2011measles]. The measles epidemic in France during 2008-2011 was the largest modern measles outbreak in Europe and is projected to increase even more during the next cycle [@cottrell2011measles]. Thus far, over 22,000 cases have been reported in the country, with 5,000 patients hospitalized from associated complications [@8586668720130301]. According to the World Health Organization, the measles strain originating from France has since traveled to Denmark, Gemany, Italy, Romania, Russia, and Belgium [@Green01072011].
![A map of France representing the MMR1 coverage rates in each district from 2003-3008. The data was collected from health certificates for children at 24 months of age. Figure reproduced from [@8586668720130301].](France_Map.pdf "fig:") \[Fig3\]
Prior to the outbreak, the average immunization coverage in France fell below the recommended 95% [@freymuth2011measles]. The primary cause for this average decrease was the lack of homogenous vaccination rates throughout the country; some regions had over 95% of citizens vaccinated, while others had under 85% of citizens vaccinated [@8586668720130301]. It has been noted that the districts containing the lowest vaccine coverage rates were located in southern France. As shown in Fig. 2, there are large disparities of vaccine coverage in each French district, suggesting that this heterogeneity may significantly impact the disease’s transmission.
The Anti-Vaccine Trend
----------------------
Recently, a large portion of the global public has been losing confidence in the vaccine industry; this has had a significant impact on disease elimination efforts. For example, there have been multiple poliovirus outbreaks in Northern Nigeria due to the boycotting of the polio vaccine campaign [@moss2006global]. Many anti-vaccine proponents argue that the particular disease being vaccinated against is relatively mild and does not need vaccination coverage while others believe that the vaccine poses more of a danger than does the disease itself. Additionally, there are certain conservative religous sects that oppose vaccination and other modern health care methodologies. Whatever the reason, new epidemics are occurring throughout the world as a result of this social trend.
It has been speculated that the main cause for the wide disparity of vaccine coverage in France is not due to the vaccine’s cost, but because many parents in particular districts are refusing to vaccinate their children. When a fraudulent paper was published by Wakefield, et al. in 1998 that hypothesized an association between the MMR vaccine and autism, a widespread public fear of the vaccine was born. Such unfounded fears were exacerbated in France when concerns surfaced around a hepatitis b vaccine. When these fears are combined with France’s less aggressive vaccination policies, the anti-vaccination movement has fertile ground in which to grow [@moss2006global].
We are motivated to construct a mathematical model for the spread of measles in France because we are interested in potential underlying forces inherent in the epidemic. We are specifically interested in the geographic heterogeneity of France because the epidemics correlate with low vaccination coverage in the southern regions. We aim to determine the impact of heterogenous vaccination coverage on epidemics to gain insight on disease dynamics within developed and developing countries.
Model
=====
The outbreaks in France and the heterogeneous nature of vaccine coverage motivated us to study a two patch SEIR model. The country is divided by regions into separate populations based on the vaccination rate given by [@8586668720130301]. We justify the use of an SEIR model because measles has a latent period where patients are infected but not infective. Additionally, we assume that the population is born either susceptible or immune based on a combination the vaccination rate of the regions and the expected efficacy of the vaccine. The recovered class also includes those who are vaccinated and imbues perfect immunity against measles. Finally, we assume that birth rate of the population is equal to the death rate, and infection with measles does not increase death rate.\
General Model
-------------
Generally, we construct our multi-regional model with four components: susceptible individuals that are unvaccinated, exposed individuals in the latent period of the disease, infectious individuals, and resistant individuals that are either recovered or vaccinated,
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{S}_i&=&-S_iF_i(I_i,I_j)-\mu S_i+(1-\delta_i)\mu N_i,\\
\dot{E}_i&=&S_iF_i(I_i,I_j)-(\mu+\phi)E_i,\\
\dot{I}_i&=&\phi E_i-(\mu+\gamma)I_i,\\
\dot{R}_i&=&\gamma I_i -\mu R_i + \delta_i\mu N_i,\\\end{aligned}$$
where $i=1,2,$ $j=1,2,$ and $i\neq j.$ The function $F_i$ models the mixing of the two patches and includes the contact rate and probability of infection given a successful contact. The function $F_i$ can take many forms depending on biological assumptions. Simple heterogenous mixing as discussed in [@brauer2008epidemic] is a reasonable assumption to begin with. Proportional mixing assumes that every individual across the entire population associates with one another solely based upon that individual’s activity level. Preferential mixing assumes that a subsection of each patch only mixes with members of the same patch, while the remaining patch population mixes proportionally with the populations of all patches [@nold1980heterogeneity; @brauer2008epidemic]. While the proportional mixing assumptions could accurately represent vaccine coverage disparities, it fails to represent the natural patch isolation that occurs in such a large geographical region as France. Therefore, we chose to use a preferential mixing model. Such a model allows the representation of heterogeneous vaccination and activity rates as well as the natural patch preference that occurs when considering a country regionally. Preferential mixing in the general form expressed by [@brauer2008epidemic] then gives the function:
$\displaystyle F_i(I_i,I_j)=a_i\left(p_{ii}\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\sum_{j\neq i} p_{ij}\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right),$
where $a_i$ is representative of number of contacts that individuals make in a given time and the likelihood there would be a successful transmission given the contact was with an infective. The proportion of contacts that susceptibles make with people in their own patch is expressed with the term $p_{ii}\frac{I_i}{N_i},$ and the proportion of contacts with members of other patches is expressed in the term $\sum p_{ij}\frac{I_j}{N_j}.$
Thus the full form of our system given vaccination and preferential mixing is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{S}_i&=&-a_iS_i\left(p_{ii}\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\sum p_{ij}\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right)-\mu S_i+(1-\delta_i)\mu N_i,\\
\dot{E}_i&=&a_iS_i\left(p_{ii}\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\sum p_{ij}\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right)-(\mu+\phi)E_i,\\
\dot{I}_i&=&\phi E_i-(\mu+\gamma)I_i,\\
\dot{R}_i&=&\gamma I_i -\mu R_i + \delta_i\mu N_i.\\\end{aligned}$$
where $i=1,2, j\neq i.$
Positive Invariance and Boundedness
-----------------------------------
First we will show upper boundedness of our model. As no real biological system would blow up to infinity, it is important to show that any model is bounded above. To do so consider that $N_i=S_i+E_i+I_i+R_i$ and $\dot{N}_i=\dot{S}_i+\dot{E}_i+\dot{I}_i+\dot{R}_i$ which becomes $\dot{N}_i = \mu N_i - \mu (S_i + E_i + I_i + R_i) = \mu N - \mu N = 0$. Therefore, as $\dot{N}_i=0$ for all time the population is constant for all time. Thus $N(t)=N_i(0)$ for all time, and is bounded by the initial condition for all time. This immediately implies the boundedness of all class variables to be in the interval $[0,~N_i(0)]$.
Positive invariance guarantees that the model biologically is well posed and will not create illogical solutions and negative populations. We will now show positive invariance of the system given initial conditions $(S_i(0),E_i(0),I_i(0),R_i(0))>0$ and $N_i=S_i+E_i+I_i+R_ i=N_i(0)$. Towards contradiction we assume $\exists t_s>t_0$ such that the first zero point is $S_i(t_s)=0$. Now consider $\dot{S}_i(t_s)|_{S_i(t_s)=0}=(1-\delta_i)N_i>0$ because $\delta_i < 1$ and $N_i > 0$ given $N_i(0) > 0$. This implies that $\exists t_c$ such that $0 \leq t_c \leq t_s$ and $S_i(t_c)<0$. However, given that $S_i(0)>0$ and $S_i(t_s)=0$ is the first zero point, we have a contradiction. Therefore by proof through contradiction, $S_i>0$ $\forall t\in[0,\infty)$.
For all other state variables the proof follows similarly.
Positive invariance has been proven and have now shown all state variables are bounded both above and below. Therefore given $(S_i(0),E_i(0),I_i(0),R_i(0),N_i(0))>0$ all classes and total population $0<(S_i,E_i,I_i,R_i,N_i )\leq N_i(0) ~~~\forall t\in[0,\infty)$ and the model is well posed.
Rescaling
---------
Starting from a multi-patch mixing model with vaccination, we examine how a special case of preferential mixing can be expressed for a two-patch system.
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{S}_i&=&-a_iS_i\left(p_{ii}\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\sum p_{ij}\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right)-\mu S_i+(1-\delta_i)\mu N_i,\\
\dot{E}_i&=&a_iS_i\left(p_{ii}\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\sum p_{ij}\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right)-(\mu+\phi)E_i,\\
\dot{I}_i&=&\phi E_i-(\mu+\gamma)I_i,\\
\dot{R}_i&=&\gamma I_i -\mu R_i + \delta_i\mu N_i,\\\end{aligned}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
p_{ii}=p_{11}&=&\pi_i+(1-\pi_i)p_1,\\
p_{ij}=p_{12}&=&(1-\pi_i)p_2,\\
p_1=p_2&=&\frac{(1-\pi_i)a_iN_i}{(1-\pi_1)a_1N_2+(1-\pi_2)a_2N_2}.\\\end{aligned}$$
\
For simplifying purposes, assume that $a_i=a_j,$ $N_i=N_j$ and $\pi_i=\pi_j$; $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(1-\pi)aN}{(1-\pi)aN+(1-\pi)aN}&=&\frac{(1-\pi)}{(1-\pi)+(1-\pi)},\\
p_1=p_2&=&\frac{(1-\pi)}{(1-\pi)+(1-\pi)}=\frac{1}{2},\\
p_{11}=\pi+(1-\pi)p_1&=&\pi+\frac{1-\pi}{2},\\
p_{12}=(1-\pi)p_2&=&\frac{1-\pi}{2}.\\\end{aligned}$$\
Therefore the system becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{S}_i&=&-aS_i\left(\left(\pi+\frac{1-\pi}{2}\right)\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\left(\frac{1-\pi}{2}\right)\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right)-\mu S_i+(1-\delta_i)\mu N_i,\\
\dot{E}_i&=&aS_i\left(\left(\pi+\frac{1-\pi}{2}\right)\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\left(\frac{1-\pi}{2}\right)\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right)-(\mu+\phi)E_i,\\
\dot{I}_i&=&\phi E_i-(\mu+\gamma)I_i,\\
\dot{R}_i&=&\gamma I_i -\mu R_i + \delta_i\mu N_i.\\\end{aligned}$$\
Now consider the term; $$\begin{aligned}
aS_i\left(\left(\pi+\frac{1-\pi}{2}\right)\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\left(\frac{1-\pi}{2}\right)\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right),\\
p_{11}=\pi+\frac{1-\pi}{2}=\frac{2\pi}{2}+\frac{1-\pi}{2}=\frac{1+\pi}{2},\\
1-p_{12}=1-\frac{1-\pi}{2}=\frac{2}{2}-\frac{1-\pi}{2}=\frac{1+\pi}{2}.\\\end{aligned}$$\
This allows the following rescaling; $$\begin{aligned}
\rho=p_{12}=\frac{1-\pi}{2},\\
(1-\rho)=p_{11}=\frac{1+\pi}{2},\\
aS_i\left((1-\rho)\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\rho\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right),\\
aS_i(1-\rho)\left(\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\left(\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}\right)\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right),\\
\beta S_i\left(\frac{I_i}{N_i}+\alpha\frac{I_j}{N_j}\right),\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta=a(1-\rho),\\
\alpha=\frac{\rho}{1-\rho}.\\\end{aligned}$$\
The model is constructed to have a constant population invariant with respect to time, i.e. where $N_i=S_i+E_i+I_i+R_i$ and the time derivative of $N_i$ is $\dot{N}_i=\dot{S}_i+\dot{E}_i+\dot{I}_i+\dot{R}_i=0.$ In addition, the $R_i$ class does not impact the dynamics the system, thus the two-patch model can be reduced to a $6$ dimensional system by $R_i=N_i-S_i-E_i-I_i.$ In addition, we divide each variable by its respective patch population size, $(s_1,e_1,i_1,s_2,e_2,i_2)=\left(\frac{S_1}{N_1},\frac{E_1}{N_1},\frac{I_1}{N_1},\frac{S_2}{N_2},\frac{E_2}{N_2},\frac{I_2}{N_2}\right).$ Thus the rescaled two-patch system can be written as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{s}_1&=&-\beta s_1(i_1+\alpha i_2)-\mu s_1+(1-\delta_1)\mu,\\
\dot{e}_1&=&\beta s_1(i_1+\alpha i_2)-(\mu + \phi)e_1,\\
\dot{i}_1&=&\phi e_1-(\mu + \gamma)i_1,\\
\dot{s}_2&=&-\beta s_2(i_2+\alpha i_1)-\mu s_2+(1-\delta_2)\mu,\\
\dot{e}_2&=&\beta s_2(i_2+\alpha i_1)-(\mu + \phi)e_2,\\
\dot{i}_2&=&\phi e_2-(\mu + \gamma)i_2,\\\end{aligned}$$
which shall be investigated in the sections to follow.
Analysis
========
Basic Reproductive Number and the Disease Free Equilibrium
----------------------------------------------------------
In epidemiological models, the basic reproductive number $(\mathcal{R}_0)$ is an important element in analysis. In brief, $\mathcal{R}_0$ represents the number of new cases that stem from an initial infective within an entirely susceptible population. It is often the case that if $\mathcal{R}_0<1$ the disease will die out and if $\mathcal{R}_0>1$ the disease will persist. However, this is not always the case in more complicated models. For models that account for vaccination, it is also necessary to consider the reproduction number of the disease given the controls $(\mathcal{R_C}).$\
In our two-patch system we find both $\mathcal{R}_0$ and $\mathcal{R_C}$ using the next generation operator method as outlined in [@van2002reproduction]. This allows for the restructuring of the model into a vector equation and finding the next generation matrix, and evaluating at the disease free equilibrium. The spectral radius, (largest eigenvalue), of this matrix is equivalent to $\mathcal{R_C}$ for the system.\
The disease free equilibria (DFE) occurs when a fixed point in any epidemiological system is such that all disease-carrying classes are zero. For our rescaled two-patch model, the absence of disease occurs when $e^*_1=e^*_2=i^*_1=i^*_2=0,$ $s_1=s_1^*,$ and $s_2=s_2^*.$ (Here, $x_i^*$ indicates a fixed value of $x_i$). Given the necessary absence of disease and the assumption of the existence of some $s_1=s_1^*$ and $s_2=s_2^*,$ we look for a point which satisfies,\
$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{s}_1&=&-\beta s_1(i_1+\alpha i_2)-\mu s_1+(1-\delta_1)\mu=0,\\
\dot{e}_1&=&\beta s_1(i_1+\alpha i_2)-(\mu + \phi)e_1=0,\\
\dot{i}_1&=&\phi e_1-(\mu + \gamma)i_1=0,\\
\dot{s}_2&=&-\beta s_2(i_2+\alpha i_1)-\mu s_2+(1-\delta_2)\mu=0,\\
\dot{e}_2&=&\beta s_2(i_2+\alpha i_1)-(\mu + \phi)e_2=0,\\
\dot{i}_2&=&\phi e_2-(\mu + \gamma)i_2=0.\\\end{aligned}$$
We then find the DFE by considering
$$\begin{aligned}
-\mu s_1^*+(1-\delta_1)\mu=0,\\
-\mu s_2^*+(1-\delta_2)\mu=0.\\\end{aligned}$$
From this, we determine the disease free equilibrium to exist at
$$\begin{aligned}
s_1^*=1-\delta_1,\\
s_2^*=1-\delta_2,\\
e_1^*=e_2^*=0,\\
i_1^*=i_2^*=0.\\\end{aligned}$$
To find the next generation matrix, we express the system as a set of vector equations where $X$ is the vector of infected classes and $Y$ is the vector of uninfected classes. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dX}{dt} &=& \mathcal{F}(X,Y) - \mathcal{V}(X,Y), \\
\frac{dY}{dt} &=& \mathcal{W}(X,Y).\\\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mathcal{F}(X,Y)$ represents flows from $Y$ into $X,$ and $\mathcal{V}(X,Y)$ represents all other flows. We then set
$$\begin{aligned}
F = \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{F}}{\partial X} \right) _{(DFE)}, V = \left(\frac{\partial \mathcal{V}}{\partial X}\right) _{(DFE)}.\\\end{aligned}$$
For our system, one gets
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(X,Y) = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
\beta s_1(i_1 +\alpha i_2) \\
0\\
\beta s_2(i_2 +\alpha i_1) \\
0\\
\end{array} \right] &,&
\mathcal{V}(X,Y) = \left[ \begin{array}{c}
e_1(\mu + \phi) \\
-\phi e_1 + i_1(\mu + \gamma) \\
e_2 (\mu + \phi) \\
-\phi e_2 + i_2(\mu + \gamma) \\
\end{array} \right], \\
F_{(DFE)} = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c c}
0 & \beta(1-\delta_1) & 0 & \beta(1-\delta_1)\alpha \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \beta(1-\delta_2)\alpha & 0 & \beta(1-\delta_2) \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\end{array} \right] &,&
V_{(DFE)} = \left[ \begin{array}{c c c c}
\mu + \phi & 0 & 0 & 0\\
-\phi & \mu+\gamma & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \mu+\phi & 0\\
0 & 0 & -\phi & \mu+\gamma \\
\end{array}\right]. \\\end{aligned}$$
We can compute the next generation matrix $FV^{-1},$ where the spectral radius of $FV^{-1}$ is the control reproduction number $\mathcal{R_C},$ and the case without vaccination is the basic reproduction number $\mathcal{R}_0.$ As a result,
$$\mathcal{R_C} =\displaystyle \frac{\beta \phi \left((1-\delta_1)+(1-\delta_2) + \sqrt{4 \alpha^2 (1-\delta_1)(1-\delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}\right)}{2(\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)},$$ $$\mathcal{R}_0 = \displaystyle \frac{\beta \phi (1+\alpha)}{(\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)}.$$
From literature, ([@keeling2002understanding], [@bauch2003transients], [@bolker1993chaos]), we find $\mathcal{R}_0$ to be commonly considered between 12 and 16. We use this information in our estimation of other parameters as seen in Appendix A.
From theorems of the next generation operator and definitions of $\mathcal{R}_0$ and $\mathcal{R_C}$ we also know immediately that the disease free equilibrium is stable when $\mathcal{R_C}<1.$ Therefore no further analysis is needed. It is the case that if $$\mathcal{R_C} =\displaystyle \frac{\beta \phi \left((1-\delta_1)+(1-\delta_2) + \sqrt{4 \alpha^2 (1-\delta_1)(1-\delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}\right)}{2(\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)}<1$$ the DFE is stable.
Endemic Equilibrium
-------------------
Solving for the endemic equilibrium explicitly, $(s_1^*,i_1^*\neq0,e_1^*\neq0,s_2^*,e_2^*\neq0,i_2^*\neq0),$ proved analytically formidable. Instead, we adopted the method of solving the equations systematically to produce expressions for the equilibrium points in terms of the exposed classes. then
$$\begin{aligned}
s_1^* &=& \frac{\mu(1-\delta_1)(\mu+\gamma)}{ \beta \phi(e_1^* +\alpha e_2^*) + \mu(\mu+\gamma)},\\
e_1^* &=& \frac{e_2^*(\mu(\beta \phi (1-\delta_2) - (\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)) - e_2^* \beta \phi (\mu+\phi))}{\alpha \beta \phi (e_2^* (\mu + \phi) - \mu (1-\delta_2))},\\
i_1^* &=& \frac{e_1^* \phi}{\mu+\gamma},\\
s_2^* &=& \frac{\mu(1-\delta_2)(\mu+\gamma)}{\beta \phi(e_2^* +\alpha e_1^*) + \mu(\mu+\gamma)},\\
e_2^* &=& \frac{e_1^*(\mu(\beta \phi (1-\delta_1) - (\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)) - e_1^* \beta \phi (\mu+\phi))}{\alpha \beta \phi (e_1^* (\mu + \phi) - \mu (1-\delta_1))},\\
i_2^* &=& \frac{e_2^* \phi}{\mu+\gamma}.\\\end{aligned}$$
Upon substituting $D_1 = 1-\delta_1, D_2 = 1=\delta_2, A = \mu+\gamma, $ and $ B=\mu+\phi,$ our endemic equilibrium equations become
$$\begin{aligned}
s_1^* &=& \frac{\mu D_1A}{\beta \phi(e_1^* +\alpha e_2^*) + \mu A},\\
e_1^* &=& \frac{e_2^*(\mu(\beta \phi D_2 -AB) - e_2^* \beta \phi B)}{\alpha \beta \phi (e_2^*B - \mu D_2)},\\
i_1^* &=& \frac{e_1^* \phi}{A},\\
s_2^* &=& \frac{\mu D_2 A}{\beta \phi(e_2^* +\alpha e_1^*) + \mu A},\\
e_2^* &=& \frac{e_1^*(\mu(\beta \phi D_1 - AB) - e_1^* \beta \phi B)}{\alpha \beta \phi (e_1^* B - \mu D_1)},\\
i_2^* &=& \frac{e_2^* \phi}{A}.\\\end{aligned}$$
Notice that all potential equilibrium values, namely $s_1^*,i_1^*,s_2^*,i_2^*,$ are positive if and only if $e_1^*>0$ and $e_2^*>0.$ Thus we analyze the equations for $e_1^*$ and $e_2^*$ for conditions under which these variables are positive. The results are presented in the following statements.\
If the endemic equilibrium exists in $\mathbb{R}^+$ then $e_i^*$ is bounded.
W.L.O.G., consider the equation for $e_i^*$ from the endemic equilibrium: $$e_i^*=\frac{e_j^*(\mu(D_j\beta\phi-AB)-B\beta\phi e_j^*)}{\alpha\beta\phi(Be_j^*-D_j\mu)}$$ where $i\neq j.$ Assume that the denominator is positive, $$\alpha\beta\phi(Be_j^*-D_j\mu)>0$$ Then it must hold that, $$Be_j^*>D_j\mu\Rightarrow e_j^*>\frac{D_j\mu}{B}$$ The numerator must then also be positive for the endemic equilibrium to exist in $\mathbb{R}^+,$ $$e_j^*(\mu(D_j\beta\phi-AB)-B\beta\phi e_j^*)>0$$ which is only possible if two conditions hold: $$D_j\beta\phi>AB$$ and $$\mu(D_j\beta\phi-AB)>B\beta\phi e_j^*.$$ If we assume $D_j\beta\phi>AB,$ then: $$\mu(D_j\beta\phi-AB)>B\beta\phi e_j^*$$ $$\Rightarrow\frac{D_j\mu}{B}-\frac{\mu A}{\beta\phi}>e_j^*>\frac{D_j\mu}{B},$$ which is a contradiction since $\frac{\mu A}{\beta\phi}>0.$ Then the only possibility is that $e_i^*<\frac{D_j\mu}{B}.$ Thus if the the endemic equilibrium exists in $\mathbb{R}^+,$ $e_i^*$ must be bounded above by $\frac{D_j\mu}{B}.$
If $e_j^*<\frac{D_j\mu}{B},$ then the endemic equilibrium always exists in $\mathbb{R}^+.$
W.L.O.G., consider the equation for $e_i^*$ from the endemic equilibrium: $$e_i^*=\frac{e_j^*(\mu(D_j\beta\phi-AB)-B\beta\phi e_j^*)}{\alpha\beta\phi(Be_j^*-D_j\mu)}$$ where $i\neq j.$ When $e_j^*<\frac{D_j\mu}{B},$ the denominator is negative. Thus for the endemic equilibrium to exist in $\mathbb{R}^+$ the numerator must also be negative. We have two options:
Case 1. $D_j\beta\phi<AB.$ Then the numerator is always negative.
Case 2. $D_j\beta\phi>AB.$ The numerator is only negative if $\mu(D_j\beta\phi-AB)<B\beta\phi e_j^*.$ Indeed, $$\mu(D_j\beta\phi-AB)<B\beta\phi e_j^*$$ $$\Rightarrow\frac{D_j\mu}{B}-\frac{\mu A}{\beta\phi}<e_j^*<\frac{D_j\mu}{B}$$ This always holds if $e_j^*<\frac{D_j\mu}{B},$ thus under this condition, the endemic equilibrium always exists in $\mathbb{R}^+.$
If $D_j\beta\phi>AB$ then $\mathcal{R_C}>1$
Recall that $$\mathcal{R_C}=\frac{\beta\phi\left((1-\delta_1)+(1-\delta_2)+\sqrt{(\delta_1-\delta_2)^2+4\alpha^2(1-\delta_1)(1-\delta_2)}\right)}{2(\mu+\gamma)(\mu+\phi)},$$ which, under the above algebraic simplifications becomes $$\mathcal{R_C}=\frac{\beta\phi\left(D_1+D_2+\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}\right)}{2AB}.$$ If we have $D_j\beta\phi>AB$ then $$\mathcal{R_C}=\frac{\beta\phi\left(D_1+D_2+\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}\right)}{2AB}>\frac{2AB+\beta\phi\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}}{2AB}>1.$$ Thus if $D_j\beta\phi>AB,$ $\mathcal{R_C}>1.$
If $D_1=D_2\equiv D$ then $D<\frac{AB}{\beta\phi}\Rightarrow \mathcal{R_C}<1+\alpha$ and $D>\frac{AB}{\beta\phi}\Rightarrow \mathcal{R_C}>1.$
When $D_1=D_2\equiv D$ we can show that
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R_C}&=&\frac{\beta\phi\left(D_1+D_2+\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}\right)}{2AB}\\
&=&\frac{\beta\phi\left(2D+\sqrt{4\alpha^2D^2}\right)}{2AB}=\frac{\beta\phi\left(D+\alpha D\right)}{AB}=\frac{\beta\phi}{AB}D(1+\alpha).\end{aligned}$$
If $D<\frac{AB}{\beta\phi}$ then $$\mathcal{R_C}=\frac{\beta\phi}{AB}D(1+\alpha)<\frac{\beta\phi}{AB}\frac{AB}{\beta\phi}(1+\alpha)=1+\alpha.$$ If $D>\frac{AB}{\beta\phi}$ then $$\mathcal{R_C}=\frac{\beta\phi}{AB}D(1+\alpha)>\frac{\beta\phi}{AB}\frac{AB}{\beta\phi}(1+\alpha)=1+\alpha\geq1.$$
If $D_1=D_2\equiv D$ then $D<\frac{AB}{\beta\phi(1+\alpha)}=\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{R}_0}\right)\Rightarrow\mathcal{R_C}<1$
### Stability of the Endemic Equilibria
Numerical methods and algorithms derived from the above theorems allowed for both the existence and stability of the endemic equilibrium to be calculated.\
While there is not an explicit closed form solution, it is possible to determine existence and stability numerically given some parameter space.\
$\mathcal{R_C}$ and Vaccination Heterogeneity
---------------------------------------------
We found that $\mathcal{R_C}$ in the case of two patches with heterogeneous vaccination coverage is greater than or equal to $\mathcal{R_C}$ with homogeneous vaccination coverage. Using the previously defined substitutions, $\mathcal{R_C}$ given $D_1 \neq D_2$ is greater than or equal to $\mathcal{R_C}$ for two patches with the same vaccination coverage, $D_*:=\frac{D_1+D_2}{2}.$ This means that for a given average vaccination proportion for an entire population, having heterogeneous vaccination coverage increases $\mathcal{R_C}.$ It is now necessary to demonstrate the following inequality:\
$$\mathcal{R_C}\left(D_1,D_2 | D_1\neq D_2\right) \geq \mathcal{R_C}\left(\frac{D_1+D_2}{2},\frac{D_1+D_2}{2}\right).$$\
\
For $\mathcal{R_C}\left(D_1,D_2 | D_1\neq D_2\right),$ we have $$\mathcal{R_C} = \displaystyle \frac{\beta \phi (D_1+D_2+\sqrt{(D_1-D_2)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2})}{2AB},$$ and for the case $\displaystyle\mathcal{R_C}\left(\frac{D_1+D_2}{2},\frac{D_1+D_2}{2}\right)$ $\mathcal{R_C}$ reduces to $$\mathcal{R_C} = \displaystyle \frac{\beta \phi (D_1+D_2)(1+\alpha)}{2AB}.$$ Therefore it is sufficient to show that $\sqrt{(D_1-D_2)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}) \geq \alpha(D_1+D_2).$\
\
By definition, we have $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1$ and $(D_1-D_2)^2 \geq 0,$ so then $(1-\alpha^2)(D_1-D_2)^2 \geq 0.$ By expanding the term completely and moving all $\alpha^2$ terms to one side, we have:
$$D_1^2-2D_1D_2+D_2^2 \geq \alpha^2D_1^2 - 2\alpha^2D_1D_2 + \alpha^2D_2^2.$$\
Adding $4\alpha^2D_1D_2$ to both sides gives: $$D_1^2-2D_1D_2+D_2^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2 \geq \alpha^2D_1^2 + 2\alpha^2D_1D_2 + \alpha^2D_2^2,$$\
or $$(D_1-D_2)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2 \geq \alpha^2(D_1+D_2)^2.$$\
The inequality is preserved if we take the square root of both sides. Then we have: $$\sqrt{(D_1-D_2)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2} \geq \alpha(D_1+D_2).$$\
This completes the proof and shows that given an average vaccination coverage for a population, heterogeneous coverage causes $\mathcal{R_C}$ to be greater than or equal to homogeneous coverage. By common definition, $\mathcal{R_C}$ is a control reproductive number given some intervention. As such, it is worthwhile to determine what level of intervention is required in order to drive $\mathcal{R_C}<1.$ It was previously shown in the endemic equilibria analysis that if $D_1=D_2\equiv D$ then $D<\frac{AB}{\beta\phi(1+\alpha)}=\left(\frac{1}{\mathcal{R_C}}\right)\Rightarrow\mathcal{R_C}<1.$ Recalling that $D=1-\delta$ this gives:
If $D_1=D_2\equiv D$ then $\delta>1-\frac{AB}{\beta\phi(1+\alpha)}=1-\frac{1}{\mathcal{R}_0}\Rightarrow\mathcal{R_C}<1.$
This gives necessary vaccination coverage to achieve stability of the disease free equilibrium. However, it is more often the case the vaccine coverage is heterogeneous, therefore it is also useful to solve on vaccination proportion as a function of the other. Given: $$\mathcal{R_C} =\displaystyle \frac{\beta \phi \left((1-\delta_1)+(1-\delta_2) + \sqrt{4 \alpha^2 (1-\delta_1)(1-\delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}\right)}{2(\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)},$$ we set: $$\frac{\beta \phi \left((1-\delta_1)+(1-\delta_2) + \sqrt{4 \alpha^2 (1-\delta_1)(1-\delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}\right)}{2(\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)}<1.$$ Now solve for some $D_i$ with the simplified form of $\mathcal{R_C}:$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R_C}=\frac{\beta\phi\left(D_1+D_2+\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}\right)}{2AB},\\
\frac{\beta\phi\left(D_1+D_2+\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}\right)}{2AB}<1,\\
\beta\phi(D_1+D_2)+\beta\phi\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}<2AB,\\
\beta\phi\sqrt{(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2}<2AB-\beta\phi(D_1+D_2).\\\end{aligned}$$ It was previously shown that if $D_j\beta\phi>AB$ then $\mathcal{R_C}>1,$ therefore we know that the right side of the inequality must be positive given the assumption $\mathcal{R_C}<1.$ Continuing we have: $$\begin{aligned}
(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2&<&\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}-(D_1+D_2)\right)^2,\\
(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2&<&\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)^2-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)(D_1+D_2)+(D_1+D_2)^2,\\
(D_2-D_1)^2+4\alpha^2D_1D_2&<&\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)^2-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)(D_1+D_2)+(D_1-D_2)^2 + 4D_1D_2,\\
4\alpha^2D_1D_2-4D_1D_2&<&\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)^2-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)D_1-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)D_2.\\\end{aligned}$$ At this point it becomes more useful to solve for some $D_i$ as solving $D_1,~D_2$ gives symmetric expressions in terms of the other. Continuing gives: $$\begin{aligned}
4\alpha^2D_iD_j-4D_iD_j&<&\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)^2-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)D_i-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)D_j,\\
D_i\left(4\alpha^2D_j-4D_j+\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)\right)&<&\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)^2-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)D_j,\\
D_i&<&\frac{\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)^2-\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)D_j}{\left(4\alpha^2D_j-4D_j+\left(\frac{2AB}{\beta\phi}\right)\right)},\\
D_i&<&\frac{AB(2AB-D_j\beta\phi)}{\beta\phi(AB+2\beta\phi D_j(\alpha^2-1))}.\\\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $D_i=1-\delta_i$ and $D_j=1-\delta_j$ allows us to solve for $\delta_i$: $$\delta_i>1-\frac{AB(2AB-\beta\phi(1-\delta_j))}{\beta\phi(AB+2\beta\phi(\alpha^2-1)(1-\delta_j))}$$
As a result we have now derived the condition on $\delta_i$ to achieve $\mathcal{R_C}<1$ with $\delta_j$ and the other parameters fixed. So long as this condition holds, the DFE is stable.
Sensitivity Analysis
====================
We want to study fixed point behaviour, i.e. disease-free and endemic equilibria with respect to parameter variations and $\mathcal{R}_0$. Considering that we will be working with time independent expressions, a forward sensitivity analysis will be sufficient. The system of equations that represent the equilibria is shown below.
$$\centering
\begin{split}
- \beta s^*_1 (i^*_1 + \alpha i^*_2) - \mu s^*_1 + (1 - \delta_1)\mu &= 0 \\
\beta s^*_1 (i^*_1 + \alpha i^*_2) - (\mu + \phi) e^*_1 &= 0 \\
\phi e^*_1 - (\mu + \gamma)i^*_1 &= 0 \\
- \beta s^*_2 (i^*_2 + \alpha i^*_1) - \mu s^*_2 + (1 - \delta_2)\mu &= 0 \\
\beta s^*_2 (i^*_2 + \alpha i^*_1) - (\mu + \phi) e^*_2 &= 0 \\
\phi e^*_2 - (\mu + \gamma)i^*_2 &= 0 \\
\end{split}
\label{eq:FixedPoints}$$
The forward sensitivity problem is defined by
$$D_{\mathbf{u}^*} \cdot \frac{\partial \mathbf{u}^*}{\partial p} = - \nabla_p F
\label{eq:ForSP}$$
Which can be solved multiplying both sides by $D_{\mathbf{u}^*}^{-1}$, given a nice enough Jacobian, thus giving
$$\frac{\partial \mathbf{u}^*}{\partial p} = - D_{\mathbf{u}^*}^{-1} \cdot \nabla_p F
\label{eq:ForSPsolved}$$
Where,
$$D_{\mathbf{u}^*} =
\begin{pmatrix}
- \beta (i_1^* + \alpha i_2^*) - \mu & 0 & -\beta s_1^* & 0 & 0 & -\beta \alpha s_1^* \\
\beta (i_1^* + \alpha i_2^*) & - (\mu + \phi) & \beta s_1^* & 0 & 0 & \beta \alpha s_1^* \\
0 & \phi & -(\mu + \gamma) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\beta \alpha s_2^* & -\beta (i_1^* \alpha + i_2^*) - \mu & 0 & -\beta s_2^* \\
0 & 0 & \beta \alpha s_2^* & \beta (i_1^* \alpha + i_2^*) & -(\mu + \phi) & \beta s_2^* \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \phi & -(\mu + \gamma) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:Jacobian}$$
$$\frac{\partial \mathbf{u}^*}{\partial p} =
\left(\frac{\partial s_1^*}{\partial p} \:,\: \frac{\partial e_1^*}{\partial p} \:,\: \frac{\partial i_1^*}{\partial p} \:,\: \frac{\partial s_2^*}{\partial p} \:,\: \frac{\partial e_2^*}{\partial p} \:,\: \frac{\partial i_2^*}{\partial p}\right)^T \\
\label{eq:PartialDerVector}$$
$$\begin{split}
\nabla_{\beta}F &=
\left(-s_1^*(i_1^* + \alpha i_2^*) \:,\: s_1^*(i_1^* + \alpha i_2^*) \:,\: 0 \:,\: -s_2^*(i_2^* + \alpha i_1^*) \:,\: s_2^*(i_2^* + \alpha i_1^*) \:,\: 0 \right)^T \\
\nabla_{\alpha}F &=
\left(-s_1^* \alpha i_2^* \:,\: s_1^* \alpha i_2^* \:,\: 0 \:,\: -s_2^* \alpha i_1^* \:,\: s_2^* \alpha i_1^* \:,\: 0 \right)^T \\
\nabla_{\mu}F &=
\left(-s_1^* + 1 - \delta_1 \:,\: -e_1^* \:,\: -i_1^* \:,\: -s_2^* + 1 - \delta_2 \:,\: -e_2^* \:,\: -i_2^* \right)^T \\
\nabla_{\phi}F &=
\left( 0 \:,\: -e_1^* \:,\: e_1^* \:,\: 0 \:,\: -e_2^* \:,\: e_2^* \right)^T \\
\nabla_{\gamma}F &=
\left( 0 \:,\: 0 \:,\: -i_1^* \:,\: 0 \:,\: 0 \:,\: -i_2^* \right)^T \\
\nabla_{\delta_1}F &=
\left( -\mu \:,\: 0 \:,\: 0 \:,\: 0 \:,\: 0 \:,\: 0 \right)^T \\
\nabla_{\delta_2}F &=
\left( 0 \:,\: 0 \:,\: 0 \:,\: -\mu \:,\: 0 \:,\: 0 \right)^T \\
\end{split}
\label{eq:SetofPar_Derivatives}$$
At the DFE,
$$D_{\mathbf{u}^*} =
\begin{pmatrix}
- \beta - \mu & 0 & -\beta (1 - \delta_1) & 0 & 0 & -\beta \alpha (1 - \delta_1) \\
0 & - (\mu + \phi) & \beta (1 - \delta_1) & 0 & 0 & \beta \alpha (1 - \delta_1) \\
0 & \phi & -(\mu + \gamma) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -\beta \alpha (1 - \delta_2) & -\beta - \mu & 0 & -\beta (1 - \delta_2) \\
0 & 0 & \beta \alpha (1 - \delta_2) & 0 & -(\mu + \phi) & \beta (1 - \delta_2) \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \phi & -(\mu + \gamma) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:JacatDFE}$$
The matrix shown above correspond to the Jacobian of the system (\[eq:FixedPoints\]) at the DFE. Its inverse, which in this case can be computed without having a considerable error, substituted on expression (\[eq:ForSPsolved\]), give the vector of partial derivatives of the states respect to the parameters.
Sensitivity Indices of DFE
--------------------------
The expressions below are obtained by SI formula considering the solution of the FSP (\[eq:ForSPsolved\]) for the DFE:
$$\begin{split}
S_{\delta_1} &= \frac{\delta_1}{\delta_1 - 1}, \\
S_{\delta_2} &= \frac{\delta_2}{\delta_2 - 1}.\\
\end{split}
\label{eq:Sens_for_DFE}$$
These equations represent the effect of a change in vaccination coverage on the DFE system state. Which means that if we increase or decrease the vaccination coverage $\delta_i$ by $1 \%$, then the state value $s^*_i$ will be modified by a factor of $S_{\delta_i}$. To represent this numerically we substitute $\delta_1 = 0.85 \:,\: \delta_2 = 0.87$, (estimated from [@francefrancefrancelol]), into the above expressions, giving:
$$\begin{split}
S_{\delta_1} &= -5.7, \\
S_{\delta_2} &= -6.7. \\
\end{split}
\label{eq:Sens_for_DFE:NV}$$
If we analyze the relation between the modulus of each sensitivity index, we can conclude that this state is slightly more sensitive to $\delta_2$-variations. $|S_{\delta_2}|$ is $17\%$ greater than $|S_{\delta_1}|$. This result tells us that a variation of $1\%$ on the value of $\delta_2$ will affect the DFE system state $1.17$ times more than a $1\%$ variation of $\delta_1$. Thus the DFE is more sensitive to $\delta_2$ perturbations.
Sensitivities Indices on EE
---------------------------
The endemic equilibrium state is obtained solving system (\[eq:FixedPoints\]), for the condition $i_1^* \:,\: i_2^* \: \neq 0$. The solution is composed of two states, neglecting complex conjugates, where only one of them has biological meaning. Explicit forms of the sensitivity indices for the endemic will not be included, due to the length and complexity of the algebra. In future work, a numerical simulation for this result would endow the analysis with more meaningful interpretation.
Sensitivity for $\mathcal{R}_0$
-------------------------------
We consider the importance of an accurate estimation of $\mathcal{R}_0$ (threshold for diseases outbreaks). We have proceeded to find the SI (Sensitivity Indices) for the basic reproductive number and have studied the dependence on the parameters. The general results are shown below.
$$\centering
{\scalebox{0.79}{\mbox{\ensuremath{\displaystyle
\begin{split}
S_{\phi} &= \frac{\mu}{\mu + \phi} \qquad
S_{\beta} = 1 \qquad
S_{\gamma} = -\frac{\gamma}{\mu + \gamma} \qquad
S_{\mu} = -\frac{\mu(2\mu + \phi + \gamma)}{(\gamma + \mu)(\mu + \phi)} \\
S_{\delta_1} &= \frac{\delta_1 \left[-1 + \frac{-2 \alpha^2 (1 - \delta_2) + \delta_1 - \delta_2}{\sqrt{4\alpha^2 (1-\delta_1)(1-\delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}}\right]}{2 - \delta_1 - \delta_2 + \sqrt{4\alpha^2(1- \delta_1)(1 - \delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}} \\
S_{\delta_2} &= -\frac{\delta_2 \left[1 + \frac{-2 \alpha^2 (1 - \delta_1) + \delta_1 - \delta_2}{\sqrt{4\alpha^2 (1-\delta_1)(1-\delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}}\right]}{2 - \delta_1 - \delta_2 + \sqrt{4\alpha^2(1- \delta_1)(1 - \delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}} \\
S_{\alpha} &= \frac{4 \alpha^2 (1 - \delta_1)(1 - \delta_2)}{\sqrt{4 \alpha^2 (1 - \delta_1)(1 - \delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}\left(2 - \delta_1 - \delta_2 + \sqrt{4 \alpha^2 (1 - \delta_1)(1 - \delta_2) + (\delta_1 - \delta_2)^2}\right)} \\
\end{split}
}}}}
\label{eq:Sens_for_R_o}$$
Observing the SI expressions (\[eq:Sens\_for\_R\_o\]) we can state that a strong dependence is focused on $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$, and $\alpha$. A variation on these and other parameters will converge in a potential misestimation of $\mathcal{R}_0$, depending on the perturbation direction. Because we estimated $\beta$ using $\mathcal{R}_0$, $\beta$ is in fact dependent on all other parameter values. For this reason, although the $\beta$-index appears to be constant in the above expression, in truth it has considerable dependence on the other parameters.
Numerical Simulations
=====================
Two-Patch Simulation
--------------------
For our two-patch numerical simulation, we assume the population in the Northern and Southern regions are equal, and we scale by 0.35 (which was estimated from CIA data, [@france_factbook]) to reflect that our model is concerned primarily with adolescents. We use the following numerical values for the parameters (See Appendix A for details on estimations): $\alpha = 0.02, \beta = 2.2, \gamma = 0.25, \phi = 0.125, \delta_1 = 0.88, \delta_2 = 0.85, \mu = 3\times10^{-5}.$\
{width="\textwidth"}
For reference, we also run simulations in which $\delta_1 = \delta_2 = 0.9 \text{ and } \alpha = 1.$ In these simulations, the parameters in both patches are identical, and $\alpha = 1$ means that individuals interact across patches as often as they interact within their home patch. We see that the system behaves as one large patch, which is as expected. In addition, one can observe that the final epidemic size is consistently higher in the homogenous system: 1.5 million infected in the homogeneous system as opposed to 1 million in the heterogeneous two-patch system.\
{width="\textwidth"}
From the two-patch simulations it is apparent that there are substantial differences in the qualitative dynamics of the disease outbreak between the heterogeneous and homogeneous cases.
Multi-Patch Simulation
----------------------
For our numerical simulation of multiple patches, we divide France into six metropolitan regions, based on regional demographics. We shall use the following parameter estimates:\
Patch $N\times10^6$ $\delta$ $\pi$
------------ --------------- ---------- --------
Strasbourg 5.82 0.855 0.9715
Paris 6.13 0.874 0.9370
Toulouse 3.58 0.779 0.9628
Nantes 2.54 0.836 0.9602
Marseille 1.73 0.798 0.9613
Lyon 2.17 0.855 0.9577
: Parameters by Region
{width="\textwidth"}
Once again, we run simulations with six patches to represent homogeneity. We set all varying parameters to the average: $\delta_i = 0.833, \pi_i = 0, N = 3.6$ million. One can see that the six patches behave as one large patch, and the final epidemic size is larger than with separate heterogeneous patches.\
{width="\textwidth"}
The six-patch simulation agrees with the two-patch in that qualitative dynamics are substantially different between the heterogeneous and homogeneous cases.\
Results and Discussion
======================
Results
-------
In the analysis of $\mathcal{R_C}$ for the two patch case, it was demonstrated that heterogeneous vaccine coverage increases $\mathcal{R_C}$ in relation to comparable homogeneous coverage. Because the disease-free equilibrium is stable given $\mathcal{R_C}<1,$ one can see that heterogeneous coverage makes a stable disease-free equilibrium less likely. Functionally this means that in addition to vaccination coverage within each region, $\mathcal{R_C}$ depends on the difference in vaccination coverage across regions. Expressions have also been determined for when $\delta_1=\delta_2$ and $\delta_1 \neq \delta_2$ that allow the computation of necessary vaccination coverages to drive $\mathcal{R_C}<1.$ This essentially defines the necessary levels to achieve herd immunity of the population as a whole in the model.\
\
For the endemic case, the method of substitution was used to solve for the endemic equilibrium $(s_1^*,e_1^*,i_1^*,s_2^*,e_2^*,i_2^*)$ implicitly, such that all fixed points were expressions in $e_1^*$ and $e_2^*.$ It was then determined that $e_i^* < \frac{\mu (1-\delta_i)}{\mu+\phi},$ which follows directly from the requirement that the endemic equilibrium be positive and finite. This condition is the greatest upper bound, because as $e_i^*$ approaches this bound, $e_j^* \rightarrow \infty.$ Numerical methods were also used to evaluate the existence and stability of the endemic equilibria.\
\
From a forward sensitivity analysis of $\mathcal{R_C}$ in our scaled preferential mixing model, we found that $\mathcal{R_C}$ is most sensitive to perturbations in $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2.$ Using our parameter estimates, (see Section 6. Numerical Simulations), we find that the sensitivity indices themselves are strongly influenced by the $\delta$ parameters, and $\mathcal{R_C}$ is inversely sensitive to both $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2.$ The sensitivity indices $S_{\delta_1}$ and $S_{\delta_2}$ will be large and negative when $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are large and similar, and $S_{\delta_1}$ and $S_{\delta_2}$ will be small and negative when $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are small and similar. For discrepancies between $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2,$ we generally find that $S_{\delta_i}$ is large and negative while $S_{\delta_j}$ is small and negative for $\delta_i < \delta_j.$ So $\mathcal{R_C}$ is largely inversely sensitive to the lower vaccination rate, see Table 1.
$\delta_1$ $\delta_2$ $S_{\delta_1}$ $S_{\delta_2}$
------------ ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------------------------------
0.88 0.85 -0.05 -5.60 our estimated values
0.90 0.90 -4.50 -4.32 two high values
0.8. 0.8. -2.00 -1.92 two low values
0.87 0.86 -0.40 -5.72 small discrepancy, $\delta_1>\delta_2$
0.86 0.87 -5.78 -0.34 small discrepancy, $\delta_1<\delta_2$
0.90 0.83 -0.01 -4.87 large discrepancy, $\delta_1>\delta_2$
0.83 0.9. -4.88 -0.00 large discrepancy, $\delta_1<\delta_2$
: Variations of $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$
Discussion
----------
Our findings suggest that heterogeneous MMR vaccination coverage within France does in fact increase the transmissibility of measles and contribute to the likelihood of outbreaks. Our model showed that $\mathcal{R_C}$ increased to a larger value when the disparity in vaccination coverage between regions widened, even when the average vaccination coverage between the two patches remained the same. It thus follows that health policy officials should first focus their immunization efforts primarily on districts with the lowest vaccination coverage rates when attempting to eradicate the disease at a regional level. This will weaken the impact that the lowest covered districts have on moderately covered regions and will also diminish the diseases communicability throughout surrounding populations.\
\
In addition, it is worth noting that while narrowing the gap between vaccination coverage percentages across regions will help decrease virus transmission, this should not be the sole strategy implemented when considering national vaccination coverage. The optimal average immunization coverage should still be achieved in order to eliminate the possibility of another measles epidemic.
Future Research
---------------
In this project many biological aspects of the model were neglected for the sake of simplicity. For example, an age-structured model was not considered in this report, instead it was assumed that all individuals were equally susceptible to the disease regardless of age. However, this type of model would have represented the disease dynamics in a more accurate light since children under 1 year of age are more likely to contract the measles virus than any other age group [@8586668720130301]. Additionally, the epidemic in France from 2008-2011 showed a dramatic increase in the rate of young adults contracting the disease; the median age during the third outbreak was 16 years [@8586668720130301]. In addition, vaccine efficacy was considered at the outset by taking the product of estimated coverages and efficacy as the effective vaccine rate rather than having efficacy degrade over time as in [@gumel]. Both of these modeling decision are likely to have a relevant impact on the dynamics of the disease and would be important considerations in the future.
Parameter Calculation
=====================
$N_i$ - population size
-----------------------
The overall population for France is easily found from national demographics [@france_factbook]. In mathematical analysis and numerical simulation of the two-patch model, the population sizes were assumed equal. Therefore we simply scaled the total population to achieve an effective population given the significantly higher prevalence in younger age groups and divided it in half. For the multi-patch model, scaling was again done to achieve an effective population and regional demographic data was used to divide the population among patches.
$\mu$ - birth and death rate
----------------------------
For the sake of simplicity, it was assumed that the population constant. The birth and death rate were then necessarily equal. It was decided to use an estimation of the birth rate to represent $\mu.$ (France has a birth rate $>$ death rate which motivated this decision [@france_factbook]). The dynamics of a non-constant population are different than that of a constant, but in having the demographic modelling rate be higher a closer approximation can be reached. From the World Factbook maintained by the CIA we found that France has $\approx12.5~\mbox{births}/1000$ residents annually [@france_factbook]. This implies that $\mu=\frac{12.5/1000}{365}\approx0.00003.$
$\phi$ - disease incubation rate
--------------------------------
The duration of the exposed or incubation period is vital in modelling disease with such latent periods. With any disease though, exact time frames of all stages of the disease vary. The CDC lists the incubation period to be between one and three weeks [@CDC_webpage]. However they also state that the contagious period begins 4 days prior to the characteristic rash with the rash generally appearing at 14 day post exposure [@CDC_webpage]. This would suggest the latent period to be between 7 and 10 days. Research literature that focuses on modelling measles [@hooker2010parameterizing; @keeling2002understanding] suggests that 8 days is optimal for replicating disease dynamics. Using these figures one can estimate $\phi$ by considering $\frac{1}{\phi}=\mbox{average latent period}.$ This approximates the range $\phi\approx[0.1,0.14].$
$\gamma$ - recovery rate
------------------------
The infectious period is another critical parameters to determine. Epidemiological data suggests the infectious period can range from 4 to 10 days, with the CDC stating the average is about 8 [@CDC_webpage]. Again turning to modelling literature, the estimates are often on the low end of this range [@keeling2002understanding; @hooker2010parameterizing]. This is due to the partial isolation that occurs from highly acute measles infection. Calculating $\gamma$ then proceeds as for $\phi$ with $\frac{1}{\gamma}=\mbox{average infective period}$ giving the range $\gamma\approx[0.17,0.25].$
$\delta_i$ - vaccination coverage
---------------------------------
Vaccination coverage and disparity coverage is the driving motivation of this project, it is therefore important to ensure accurate estimations. France’s average vaccination coverages fluctuates around $90\%,$ however it becomes necessary to consider both regional coverage and vaccine efficacy in calculating $\delta_i$ accurately. Literature provides a good basis for regional vaccination approximation [@8586668720130301] and the only thing to then consider is vaccine efficacy. It is know that any vaccination program fails to be $100\%$ effective, this can be represented differently. In our model the simplifying assumption was made that if the vaccine proves to be effective ones transitions from natural immunity to vaccinated immunity with no interruption of protection, thus people are “born” into either susceptible or resistant classes. To continue maintaining the simplicity of the model, we decided to multiply the vaccination coverage by the estimated vaccine efficacy and use this as $\delta_i.$ Literature estimates of efficacy vary widely [@bouhour2012survey; @akramuzzaman2002measles], at times spanning from $80\%$ to as high as $98\%.$ The lower end of the range generally occurs in third world countries where quality of health care is lower in in particular cases when only a single dose of vaccine is administered and is given too early to be fully effective. The high end of the range is in the case where two MMR doses are administered as recommended. Most of the literature focusing on efficacy in Europe [@bouhour2012survey; @mossong2000estimation; @eichner2002estimation] suggest an accurate range to fall between $92\%$ and $96\%$ nationwide. We opted to consider efficacy as $95\%$ with coverage between $84\%$ and $94\%.$ This gives a reasonable range as $\delta=\mbox{coverage}*\mbox{efficacy}=[0.798,0.893].$
$\pi$ - inter-patch mixing proportions
--------------------------------------
A necessary parameter to consider for the preferential mixing is $\pi.$ This parameter represents the proportion of individuals from a given patch that mix with the entire population, and was a difficult parameter to estimate. The people-days concept became important in its computation. Colloquially we state that one people-day is the time, in days, spent by a person in some place. Therefore it can be considered a measure of activity. It becomes spatially relevant when considering if a person is on their home patch or traveling. Our application of this concept is defined by considering the mean travel time and number of travelers. This allows the calculation of the proportion of people-days that are spent elsewhere by the inhabitants of a given patch. While the model does not explicitly represent this movement, we use it as an estimation of the proportion of a given patch that is mixing with other patches, namely:
$$1 \, \mbox{people-day} = \: \mbox{person} * \mbox{day}.$$
Once defined thus, we are able to calculate the proportion of travellers in a patch. In terms of people-days, this becomes equitable to the amount of activity or contact a patch can have with other patches, as follows:
$$\mbox{Proportion of patch travelling} = \frac{\# \mbox{Travellers} \: * \: \mbox{Mean Travel Time}}{\mbox{Total Patch Population} *\mbox{365 days}}.$$
This proportion of patch travelling became the foundation for the $\pi$ parameter. It was adjusted slightly to account for the lower likelihood of travel and thus between patch interaction of persons in the birth - 20 year old age range which comprised the majority of measles cases. Our final range in the two-patch was $\pi\approx[0.96,0.98]$ and in the multi-patch system was $\pi\approx[0.94,0.99].$ The following table shows the necessary data for completing such calculations, it was found in [@Memento].
\[TAB:FranceTravellers\]
$\beta$ - scaled successful contact rate
----------------------------------------
Being a scaled parameter, $\beta$ does not have as precise a biological interpretation as normal contact or transmission rates. However, it is not entirely incorrect to think of as successful contact rate rescaled to account for the particulars of preferential mixing. Given its somewhat ambiguous nature however, it is challenging to estimate it *a priori* from any data or literature. We were able to deduce it from our expression for $\mathcal{R}_0$ however. Literature says that $\mathcal{R}_0$ can vary from 6 to 45 for measles. However most previous modelling suggests 10 to 20 being a reasonable range. Starting from our $\mathcal{R}$ we assume no vaccination and arrive at $\mathcal{R}_0,$ as follows:
$$\mathcal{R}_0 = \displaystyle \frac{\beta \phi (1+\alpha)}{(\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)}.$$
Solving for $\beta$ one obtains
$$\beta= \frac{\mathcal{R}_0 (\mu+\phi)(\mu+\gamma)}{\phi (1+\alpha)}.$$
Substitute in $\mathcal{R}_0=10$ and $\mathcal{R}_0=20$ gives the range $\beta\approx[1.1,2.2].$
$\alpha$ - scaled mixing parameter
----------------------------------
In the process of rescaling the two-patch preferential mixing model a new parameter $\alpha$ was generated. This parameter can be found analytically using the previously determined values for $\pi$ and the definitions of $\alpha$ and the intermediate rescaling parameter $\rho.$ Given the $\rho=1-\pi$ and $\alpha=\frac{\rho}{1-\rho},$ a reasonable paramter range can be calculated to $\alpha\approx[0.01,0.02].$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Dr. Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Executive Director of the Mathematical and Theoretical Biology Institute (MTBI), for giving us the opportunity to participate in this research program. We would also like to thank Co-Executive Summer Directors Dr. Baojun Song and Dr. Omayra Ortega for their efforts in planning and executing the day to day activities of MTBI. We also want to give special thanks to Abba Gumel(specify any names of research advisors, grad helpers, etc. that you feel have helped). This research was conducted in MTBI at the Simon A. Levin Mathematical, Computational and Modeling Sciences Center (SAL MCMSC) at Arizona State University (ASU). This project has been partially supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF - Grant DMPS-1263374), the National Security Agency (NSA - Grant H98230-13-1-0261), the Office of the President of ASU, and the Office of the Provost of ASU.
[10]{}
Centers for disease control and prevention; measles (rubeola), June.
Memento du tourisme.
Measles. , 2013.
CIA; The World Factbook: France, 2014.
Jean Aicardi, Francoise Goutieres, Maria-Leonor Arsenio-Nunes, and Pierre Lebon. Acute measles encephalitis in children with immunosuppression. , 59(2):232–239, 1977.
Syed M Akramuzzaman, Felicity T Cutts, Md J Hossain, Obaidullah K Wahedi, Nazmun Nahar, Darul Islam, Narayan C Shaha, and Dilip Mahalanabis. Measles vaccine effectiveness and risk factors for measles in dhaka, bangladesh. , 80(10):776–782, 2002.
Denise Antona, Daniel Lévy-Bruhl, Claire Baudon, François Freymuth, Mathieu Lamy, Catherine Maine, Daniel Floret, and Isabelle Parent du Chatelet. Measles elimination efforts and 2008-2011 outbreak, France. , 19(3):357 – 364.
Chris T Bauch and David JD Earn. Transients and attractors in epidemics. , 270(1524):1573–1578, 2003.
HE Bedford and DAC Elliman. Open dialogue. measles, mumps and rubella (mmr) vaccine. , 10(3):140 – 142, 2002.
BM Bolker and BT Grenfell. Chaos and biological complexity in measles dynamics. , 251(1330):75–81, 1993.
D Bouhour, G Gavazzi, J Gaillat, V Gajdos, P Loulergue, M Paccalin, MC Ploy, L de Pontual, C Pulcini, O Rogeaux, et al. Survey of vaccination policies in french healthcare institutions. , 42(4):161–166, 2012.
Fred Brauer. Epidemic models with heterogeneous mixing and treatment. , 70(7):1869–1885, 2008.
Simon Cottrell and Richard John Roberts. Measles outbreak in europe. , 342, 2011.
Melissa R Dardis. A review of measles. , 28(1):9–12, 2012.
Rory D de Vries, Annelies W Mesman, Teunis BH Geijtenbeek, W Paul Duprex, and Rik L de Swart. The pathogenesis of measles. , 2(3):248 – 255, 2012. Viral pathogenesis/Vaccines.
M Eichner, HH Diebner, C Schubert, HW Kreth, and K Dietz. Estimation of the time-dependent vaccine efficacy from a measles epidemic. , 21(16):2355–2368, 2002.
James Fargo Ennis, Lisa A. Balliett. Measles. , 2008.
F Freymuth and A Vabret. Measles, a re-emerging disease in France? , 17(6):793–793, 2011.
David Green. Measles outbreak in France and other european countries. , 12(4):165, 2011.
Giles Hooker, Stephen P Ellner, Laura De Vargas Roditi, and David JD Earn. Parameterizing state–space models for infectious disease dynamics by generalized profiling: measles in ontario. , page rsif20100412, 2010.
Matt J Keeling and Bryan T Grenfell. Understanding the persistence of measles: reconciling theory, simulation and observation. , 269(1489):335–343, 2002.
Robert J. Kim-Farley. Measles. In Kenneth F. Kiple, editor, [*The Cambridge World History of Human Disease*]{}, pages 871–875. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Cambridge Histories Online.
Aliene Linwood. Mmr vaccine. , 3, 2006.
William J Moss and Diane E Griffin. Global measles elimination. , 4(12):900–908, 2006.
William J Moss and Diane E Griffin. Measles. , 379(9811):153 – 164, 2012.
Jo[ë]{}l Mossong and CP Muller. Estimation of the basic reproduction number of measles during an outbreak in a partially vaccinated population. , 124(02):273–278, 2000.
Annett Nold. Heterogeneity in disease-transmission modeling. , 52(3):227–240, 1980.
Walter A Orenstein, Robert T Perry, and Neal A Halsey. The clinical significance of measles: a review. , 189(Supplement 1):S4–S16, 2004.
Frederick C. Robbins. John franklin enders (february 10, 1897-september 8, 1985). , 135(3):pp. 452–457, 1991.
Belinda Rowland, Teressa Odle, and Rebecca. Frey. Measles. , 2005.
A.B. Gumel S. M. Garba and N. Hussaini. Mathematical analysis of an age-structured vaccination model for measles. , 33:41–76, 2014.
Richard D Semba and Martin W Bloem. Measles blindness. , 49(2):243–255, 2004.
Kent Sepkowitz. Measles attacks!, May 07 2012. Name - World Health Organization; Copyright - ©2012 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC Usage: May not be sold, electronically stored, or reproduced in any form without prior written permission of Newsweek Inc. All commercial uses are prohibited. All rights reserved; Last updated - 2013-10-12.
Pauline Van den Driessche and James Watmough. Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission. , 180(1):29–48, 2002.
Susan Shoshana Weisberg. measles. , 53(10):471 – 477, 2007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'MOL-D database is a collection of cross-sections and rate coefficients for specific collisional processes and a web service within the Serbian Virtual Observatory (SerVO [^1]) and the Virtual Atomic and Molecular Data Center (VAMDC [^2]). This database contains photo-dissociation cross-sections for the individual ro-vibrational states of the diatomic molecular ions and rate coefficients for the atom-Rydberg atom chemi-ionization and inverse electron-ion-atom chemi-recombination processes. At the moment it contains data for photodissociation cross-sections of hydrogen H$_2^+$ and helium He$_2^+$ molecular ions and the corresponding averaged thermal photodissociation cross-sections. The ro-vibrational energy states and the corresponding dipole matrix elements are provided as well. Hydrogen and helium molecular ion data are important for calculation of solar and stellar atmosphere models and for radiative transport, as well as for kinetics of other astrophysical and laboratory plasma (i.e. early Universe).'
author:
- 'V. Vujčić'
- 'D. Jevremović'
- 'A.A.Mihajlov, Lj.M.Ignjatović, V.A.Srećković'
- 'M.S.Dimitrijević'
- 'M. Malović'
title: 'MOL-D: A COLLISIONAL DATABASE AND WEB SERVICE WITHIN THE VIRTUAL ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR DATA CENTER'
---
=1
Introduction
============
Mihajlov and coworkers [@mih86; @mih93; @mih07; @ign09; @ign14b; @sre14] have demonstrated that ion-atom radiative processes, the photodissociation of the diatomic molecular ion in the symmetric and non-symmetric cases, could be important in specific stellar atmosphere layers and they should be included in chemical models. In the symmetric case, we consider the processes of molecular ion photodissociation (bound-free) and ion-atom photoassociation (free-bound): $$\label{eq:sim1} h\nu + A_{2}^{+} \Longleftrightarrow A + A^{+},$$ and the corresponding free-free absorption and emission processes: $$\label{eq:sim2} h\nu + A + A^{+} \Longleftrightarrow A^{+} +A,$$ where $A$ and $A^{+}$ are atom and ion in their ground states, and $A_{2}^{+}$ is molecular-ion in the ground electronic state.
In the non-symmetric case, the similar processes of photodissociation/photoassociation are: $$\label{eq:nsim1} h\nu + AX^{+} \Longleftrightarrow A^{+} + X,$$ and the corresponding absorption/emission processes $$\label{eq:nsim2} h\nu + A + X^{+} \Longleftrightarrow A^{+} +X.$$ The processes of stimulated photoassociation, characteristic for the non-symmetric case are: $$\label{eq:nsim3} \varepsilon_{\lambda}
+ A + X^{+} \Longleftrightarrow (AX^{+})^{*} ,$$ where $X$ is an atom whose ionization potential is less than the corresponding value for atom $A$. $AX^{+}$ is also molecular-ion in the ground electronic state and $(AX^{+})^{*}$ molecular-ion in the first excited electronic state.
In the general case molecular ion $A_{2}^{+}$ or $AX^{+}$ can be in one of the states from the group which contains the ground electronic state. Similarly, the excited molecular ion $(AX^{+})^{*}$ can exist in one of the states from the group which contains the first excited electronic state of the considered molecular ion.
For the solar atmosphere, $A$ usually denotes atom H(1s) and $X$ one of the relevant metal atoms (Mg, Si, Ca, Na ...) [@mih86; @mih93; @mih07; @ign14b; @sre14], but there are cases where $A$=He, and $X$=H, Mg, Si, Ca, Na. For the helium-rich white dwarf atmospheres $A$ denotes He(1s$^2$) and $X$ denotes, H(1s), and eventually C, O. [@mih92; @mih13; @ign14a].
Our results show the importance of including the symmetric processes with $A=$H(1s) in the stellar atmosphere models (see e.g. @fon09) and for the early Universe investigation (see @cop13). Also, our results for $A=$He$(1s^{2})$ have been used for modeling the DB white dwarf atmospheres (Koester, private communication). Such data are also of interest for research on the corresponding weakly ionized laboratory plasmas.
The processes mentioned above are closely connected to several groups of inelastic atomic collision processes. The first few groups consist of the chemi-ionization processes in symmetric and non-symmetric atom/Rydberg-atom collisions, including the processes of associative ionization as well as the corresponding inverse electron-ion-atom chemi-recombination processes: $$\label{eq:ch1} A^{*}(n) + A \Longleftrightarrow A_{2}^{+} + e,$$ $$\label{eq:ch2} A^{*}(n) + A \Longleftrightarrow A + A^{+} + e,$$ $$\label{eq:ch3} A^{*}(n) + X \Longleftrightarrow A_{2}^{+} + e,$$ $$\label{eq:ch4} A^{*}(n) + X \Longleftrightarrow A + X^{+} + e.$$ $A^{*}(n)$ is an atom in one of the highly excited (Rydberg) states with the principal quantum number $n \gg 1$, $e$ is a free electron and $A$, $A^{+}$ $A_{2}^{+}$, $X$ have the same meaning as in the previous cases. The ionization potential of the atom X is lower than that of the atom A. The considered radiative processes are allowed by the dipole selection rules.
![The schematic presentation of the photo-dissociation/association processes \[Eq. (\[eq:sim1\])\] and free-free processes \[Eq. (\[eq:sim2\])\]: R is the internuclear distance, U$_1$(R) and U$_2$(R) are the potential energy curves of the initial(lower) and final(upper) electronic state of molecular ion $A_{2}^{+}$, $J$ and $v$ are individual ro-vibrational state, $E$ and $E'$ are the total energies of the system $A+A^{+}$, $h\nu$ and $h\nu'$ are the photon energies.[]{data-label="fig:SHEMA1"}](Fig1.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="0.75\columnwidth"}
![The schematic presentation of the processes \[Eq. (\[eq:nsim1\])\] -\[Eq. (\[eq:nsim3\])\] for the case of the molecular ion $AX^{+}$ and ion-atom system $A^{+}+X$[]{data-label="fig:SHEMA2"}](Fig2.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="0.75\columnwidth"}
![The schematic presentation of the chemi-ionization/recombination processes \[Eqs.(\[eq:ch1\]-\[eq:ch4\])\]: n is the principal quantum number of the Rydberg state, $\epsilon_{k}$ is the energy of the free electron.[]{data-label="fig:SHEMA3"}](Fig3.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="0.75\columnwidth"}
![The schematic presentation of the chemi-ionization and $(n-n')$-mixing processes \[Eqs. (\[eq:ch2\] and \[eq:mix1\])\]: n and n’ are the principal quantum numbers of the considered Rydberg states.[]{data-label="fig:SHEMA4"}](Fig4.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="0.75\columnwidth"}
The other groups of processes consist of excitation and deexcitation processes known also as the $(n-n')$-mixing processes: $$\label{eq:mix1}
A^{*}(n)+A \Longrightarrow \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{ A^{*}(n')+A,}\\
\displaystyle{ \qquad \qquad \qquad 1 \ll n< n',}\\
\displaystyle{ A+A^{*}(n'),}
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$\label{eq:mix2}
A^{*}(n)+A \Longrightarrow \left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{ A^{*}(n')+A,}\\
\displaystyle{ \qquad \qquad \qquad 1 \ll n'< n}\\
\displaystyle{ A+A^{*}(n'),}
\end{array}
\right.$$ $A^{*}$ has the same meaning as in the case of chemi-ionization/chemi-recombination processes.
Chemi-ionization/chemi-recombination and $(n-n')$-mixing processes are such that system passes through the phase where it can be treated in the form: $$\label{eq:qm1} (A+A^{+})_{q.-m.}^{in,fin} + e_{out},$$ or $$\label{eq:qm2} (A+X^{+})_{q.-m.}^{in,fin} + e_{out}.$$ ($A+A^{+}$)$_{q.-m.}^{in,fin}$ and ($A+X^{+}$)$_{q.-m.}^{in,fin}$ denote a quasi-molecular ion-atom complex in the corresponding (initial or final) electronic state, and $e_{out}$ denotes a free electron in weakly bound or free state.
The connection of these processes with the above described radiative processes is in the following chemi-ionization/chemi-recombination and $(n-n')$-mixing transitions:
$$\label{eq:qm3} (A+A^{+})_{q.-m.}^{in} \longrightarrow (A+A^{+})_{q.-m.}^{fin}$$
or $$\label{eq:qm4} (A+X^{+})_{q.-m.}^{in} \longrightarrow (A+X^{+})_{q.-m.}^{fin}.$$ The processes described above (Eqs. (1-11)) are schematically illustrated in Figs. (1-6).
The results obtained during the investigation of the processes mentioned in the present section are presented in MOL-D database which will be described in the next section. The first version of this database is available online and can be accessed directly through http://servo.aob.rs/mold or through VAMDC node within the Serbian Virtual Observatory (SerVO @jev09), http://servo.aob.rs and the Virtual Atomic and Molecular Data Center (VAMDC @dub10 [@rix11], http://www.vamdc.org).
Content of MOL-D e-service
==========================
The MOL-D is an e-service which exposes our results to the wider community. In particular, we provide:
- the cross-sections for the photodissociation of individual ro-vibrational states of the considered molecular ions as well as the cross sections for the inverse ion-atom photoassociation, (Eq.(\[eq:sim1\]) and Eq. (\[eq:nsim1\])), in a wide region of photon wavelengths $\lambda$,
- the averaged thermal cross sections for the considered molecular ion photodissociation and for the reverse process, ion-atom photoassociation, (Eq.(\[eq:sim1\]) and Eq. (\[eq:nsim1\])), in wide region of $\lambda$ and temperature $T$,
- the rate coefficients and the corresponding averaged thermal cross sections for the ion-atom absorption processes and inverse emission processes, Eq. (\[eq:sim2\]) and Eq. (\[eq:nsim2\]), as well as for the non-symmetric ion-atom photoassociation in Eq. (\[eq:nsim3\]) in wide region of $\lambda$ and $T$,
- visualization of the wavelength dependance of the averaged thermal cross sections for a given temperature input.
i
MOL-D is available online from the end of 2014 and for the moment it contains the data for the photodissociation processes Eq. (\[eq:sim1\]) with $A=$ H(1s)and $A=$ He(1s$^2$). In the near future we intend to include the relevant data for some other non-symmetric photodissociation processes Eq. (\[eq:nsim1\]).
The cross-sections for the photodissociation of individual ro-vibrational state of the considered molecular ions are determined in the dipole approximation: $$\sigma_{J,v}(\lambda) = \frac{8\pi^{3}}{3\lambda}\left[ \frac{(J+1)|D_{E,J+1;v,J}|^{2}+J|D_{E,J-1;v,J}|^{2}}{2J+1}
\right],\\$$
and the corresponding averaged thermal cross sections are given by:
$$\sigma_{\rm ph}(\lambda,T) = \frac{1}{Z} \sum_J
\sum_{v} g_{J;v}(2J+1)
e^{-\frac{E_{Jv}-E_{00}}{k_{\rm B}T}}\sigma_{J,v}(\lambda).$$
$D_{E,J+1;v,J}$ is the relevant dipole matrix element, $E_{Jv}$ is the energy of the individual states with the angular and vibrational quantum numbers $J$ and $v$ respectively, and $Z$ is the partition function $$Z =\sum_J \sum_{v} g_{J;v}(2J+1)
e^{-\frac{E_{Jv}-E_{0,0}}{k_{\rm B}T}}.$$ In this expression the product $g_{J;v}\cdot(2J+1)$ is the statistical weight of the considered state and the coefficient $g_{J;v}$ depends on the “the spin of the nuclei”.
We also plan to include the rate coefficients for the chemi-ionization/recombination and $(n-n')$-mixing, (Eqs. (\[eq:ch1\])-(\[eq:mix2\])). The values of the rate coefficients will be determined in the semi-classical approach (see e.g. @mih11), but using a significantly improved numerical procedure respect to the previous papers [@mih03; @mih04; @mih05; @mih08; @mih11; @sre13].
Technical characteristics of MOL-D database {#sec:tech}
===========================================
The principal structure of the Belgrade MOL-D database is shown schematically in Fig. \[fig:SHEMA5\] using UML notation.
![Static structure of the MOL-D database. Relationships between entities are shown by connected lines with designated cardinalities (“1” and “\*” denote one and many, respectively), i.e a molecule can have multiple states.[]{data-label="fig:SHEMA5"}](db_structure.pdf){width="\columnwidth" height="0.75\columnwidth"}
MOL-D data are exposed as a web form and a web service accesible according to VAMDC specification [^3]. VAMDC [@dub10] standards define VAMDC-TAP RESTful web-service request using VSS2 query language and results formatted as a XSAMS (XML Schema for Atoms, Molecules and Solids) document [^4]. Such approach enables accessing multiple databases in a single query.
Software is built on top of Django, a web-based Python framework, and represents an adaptation and extension of VAMDC NodeSoftware. User interface is AJAX-enabled, using JQuery javascript framework and plots are generated by pyplot (matplotlib).
Besides acting as a VAMDC-compliant web service, accessible through VAMDC portal and other tools implemented on VAMDC standards, MOL-D offers on-site services:
- [user can make a selection based on molecule and quantum number J (QNJ) or quantum number v (QNv)]{}
- [calculate averaged thermal cross section based on the temperature for a specific molecule and wavelength]{}
- [make a plot of averaged thermal cross sections along all (discrete) wavelengths for a given temperature]{}
A screen shot of MOL-D Database at Belgrade server station [^5] is shown in Fig. \[fig:shema6\]. An example of the visualization of a data set that represents the averaged cross section versus wavelength is shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:shema6\].
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND PERSPECTIVES {#sec:fut}
===================================
In the near future we plan to add the results of the rate coefficients for the ion-atom absorption processes and inverse emission processes. We will also include data for the non-symmetric ion-atom photoassociation. Our plans also consist of including the rate coefficients for chemi-ionization in atom-Rydberg atom collisions (including the processes of associative and Penning type ionization) and corresponding inverse chemi-recombination processes in electron-ion-atom collisions. Finally, we intend to include the rate coefficients for the excitation and deexcitation $(n-n')$-mixing processes in the relevant region of the principal quantum number $n$ and $T$.
We plan to calculate and include new data about processes which involve species such as HeH$^{+}$, LiH$^{+}$, NaH$^{+}$, SiH$^{+}$ which are important for the early Universe chemistry and for the modeling of stellar and solar atmospheres. The MOL-D database will be regularly updated with new results.
The authors are thankful to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia for the support of this work within the projects 176002 and III44002. A part of this work has been supported by VAMDC. VAMDC is funded under the Combination of Collaborative Projects and Coordination and Support Actions Funding Scheme of The Seventh Framework Program. We are grateful to Dr Guy Rixon for his help in all aspects of inclusion of MOLD database in VAMDC.
[31]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
Coppola, C. M., Galli, D., Palla, F., Longo, S., & Chluba, J. 2013, , 434, 114
Dubernet, M. L., Boudon, V., Culhane, J. L., et al. 2010, , 111, 2151
Fontenla, J. M., Curdt, W., Haberreiter, M., Harder, J., & Tian, H. 2009, , 707, 482
Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Mihajlov, A. A., Sakan, N. M., Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S., & Metropoulos, A. 2009, , 396, 2201
Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Mihajlov, A. A., Sre[ć]{}kovi[ć]{}, V. A., & Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S. 2014a, , 441, 1504
Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Mihajlov, A. A., Sre[ć]{}kovi[ć]{}, V. A., & Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S. 2014b, , 439, 2342
Jevremovi[ć]{}, D., Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S., Popovi[ć]{}, L. [Č]{}., et al. 2009, , 53, 222
Koester, D., Private comunication 2015
Mihajlov, A. A., & Dimitrijevic, M. S. 1986, , 155, 319
Mihajlov, A. A., & Dimitrijevic, M. S. 1992, , 256, 305
Mihajlov, A. A., Dimitrijevic, M. S., & Ignjatovic, L. M. 1993, , 276, 187
Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Sre[ć]{}kovi[ć]{}, V. A., Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S., & Metropoulos, A. 2013, , 431, 589
Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Sakan, N. M., & Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S. 2007, , 469, 749
Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Sre[ć]{}kovi[ć]{}, V. A., & Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S. 2011, , 193, 2
Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S., & Djuri[ć]{}, Z. 2003, , 147, 369
Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., & Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S. 2005, , 437, 1023
Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovic, L. M., Djuric, Z., & Ljepojevic, N. N. 2004, JPhys B Atomic Molecular Physics, 37, 4493
Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., Sre[ć]{}kovi[ć]{}, V. A., & Djuri[ć]{}, Z. 2008, , 109, 853
Rixon, G., Dubernet, M. L., Piskunov, N., et al. 2011, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, 1344, 107
Sre[ć]{}kovi[ć]{}, V. A., Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., & Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S. 2014, Adv.Sp.Res., 54, 1264
Sre[ć]{}kovi[ć]{}, V. A., Mihajlov, A. A., Ignjatovi[ć]{}, L. M., & Dimitrijevi[ć]{}, M. S. 2013, , 552, AA33
[^1]: http://servo.aob.rs
[^2]: http://www.vamdc.eu
[^3]: http://vamdc-standards.readthedocs.org/en/latest/dataAccessProtocol/vamdctap.html
[^4]: http://vamdc.eu/documents/standards/dataModel/vamdcxsams/index.html
[^5]: http://servo.aob.rs/mold
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'First-principles simulations have been performed for \[001\]-ordered Mn/Ge and Mn/GaAs “digital alloys", focusing on the effects of [*i*]{}) a larger band-gap and [*ii*]{}) a different semiconducting host on the electronic structure of the magnetic semiconductors of interest. Our results for the exchange constants in Mn/Ge, evaluated using a frozen-magnon scheme, show that a larger band-gap tends to give a stronger nearest-neighbor ferromagnetic coupling and an overall enhanced in-plane ferromagnetic coupling even for longer-ranged coupling constants. As for the chemical effects on the exchange constants, we show that Mn/GaAs shows a smaller nearest-neighbor ferromagnetic coupling than Mn/Ge, but exchange constants for higher Mn-Mn distance show an overall increased ferromagnetic behavior in Mn/GaAs. As a result, from the magnetic-coupling point of view, the two systems behave on average rather similarly.'
address:
- 'CNR-INFM SENSOR-CASTI Regional Lab., Coppito, L’Aquila, Italy'
- 'Institut für Festkörperforschung, Forschungszentrum Juelich, Germany'
author:
- 'S. Picozzi[^1]'
- 'M. Ležaić'
- 'S. Blügel'
title: 'Electronic structure and exchange constants in magnetic semiconductors digital alloys: chemical and band-gap effects'
---
Introduction
============
Diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS), [*i.e.*]{} mainstream semiconductors (SC) doped with small amounts of transition metal impurities, represent a class of materials with potentially relevant applications in modern spintronics. The discovery of ferromagnetism (FM) persisting to temperatures up to $\leq$170 K in the DMS prototype[@ohno], [*i.e.*]{} GaMnAs, motivated a wealth of studies focused on Mn-doped semiconductors[@review]. However, crucial issues are still fully open to debate, such as [*i*]{}) the origin of ferromagnetism in DMS, from the theoretical point of view, [*ii*]{}) a careful control over the material quality during growth, from the experimental point of view and [*iii*]{}) the choice of a material that might show a Curie temperature higher than room temperature, from the technological point of view. One of the key problems in DMS is the low solubility of Mn in semiconductors and severely out-of-equilibrium techniques (such as Molecular Beam Epitaxy, MBE) have to be used to successfully achieve a DMS growth without precipitates or large concentration of defects. However, many groups succeeded in doping semiconductors with large Mn concentrations by means of “digital alloys" (DA), artificial heterostructures that typically consists of a Mn plane with a nominal 50$\%$ concentration alternated with 10-15 layers of SC[@furdynadig; @altridig].
In addition, group-IV-based spintronics is extremely appealing, due to high compatibility with mainstream Si-based technology and this has motivated the recent interests on Mn-doped Ge DMS[@steve; @stroppa; @zhao; @kett]. In particular, several studies ascertained the ferromagnetism of MBE-grown homogeneously-doped MnGe alloys up to temperatures of $\sim$ 110 K.[@weitering] In addition, an extensive characterization was performed on MnGe DMS grown by means of ion-implantation, which revealed the coexistence of Mn$_5$Ge$_3$ nanoclusters dispersed in the SC matrix[@lot].
From the theoretical point of view, some of us investigated Mn/Ge digital alloys[@digiale], focusing on the electronic structure and on the coupling between two Mn planes as a function of the SC spacer thickness. In particular, the results showed that an efficient interplanar magnetic coupling vanishes for spacers thicker than 5-7 layers and this spatial extension perfectly matches the hole-distribution, consistent with the commonly accepted idea that FM in DMS occurs through a hole-mediated mechanism.[@review]
Despite large interests in DA, the calculation of their exchange constants has - to our knowledge - not been carefully tackled yet. Therefore, we here consider both Mn/GaAs and Mn/Ge DA, focusing on the evaluation from first-principles of their coupling constants. In particular, we will examine two relevant effects on these calculated constants: [*i*]{}) [*chemical*]{} effects, as given by the local coordination of Mn with As vs Ge atoms in Mn/GaAs and Mn/Ge DA, respectively, and [*ii*]{}) [band-gap]{} effects, as obtained by artificially changing the amplitude of the forbidden energy-gap in the SC host, by means of the so-called “LDA+U" approach. The paper is organized as follows: after reporting some technicalities in Sec.\[comp\] and after recalling the main hybridization mechanism that occurs upon Mn doping of the hosting SC (Sec.\[azlev\]), we will move to the discussion of the effects on the electronic structure and on the exchange constants induced by a larger band-gap (Sec.\[band-gap\]) and by a different SC host (Sec.\[chemical\]).
Computational and structural details {#comp}
====================================
{width=".43\textwidth"}
We report in Fig.\[fig:cell\] a schematic plot to visualize the tetragonal unit cell, with Bravais vectors [**a**]{}= (a/$\sqrt{2}$,0,0), [**b**]{}= (0,a/$\sqrt{2}$,0) and [**c**]{}= (0,0,2a), where a is the SC lattice constant. Therefore, the systems consist of a \[001\]-ordered “superlattice" with 7 monolayers of semiconductors and one intercalated Mn plane. The nominal concentration of Mn in the SC host is therefore equal to 12.5 $\%$ and 25 $\%$ in MnGe and GaMnAs, respectively. As pointed out before, despite solubility problems that prevent a large doping of Mn in the SC host homogeneously, the growth of a single Mn plane with very high concentrations can be much better controlled and, therefore, the Mn concentration in the unit cell is physically meaningful. From the experimental point of view, the thickness of the semiconducting spacer is generally larger ($\sim$ 10-15 layers)[@furdynadig]; however, it was shown in Ref.[@digiale] that a thickness of 7 SC layers between two Mn monolayers in nearby unit-cells is sufficiently large to completely decouple their exchange interaction, so that [*interplanar*]{} exchange interactions are almost negligible and only [*intraplanar*]{} exchange interactions are relevant. The lattice constants are chosen according to their experimental values [@LB]: 5.653 Å$\:$ and 5.658 Å$\:$ for GaAs and Ge, respectively. Since their difference is very small ([*i.e.*]{} less than 0.1 $\%$), this also allows to compare the exchange constants at “fixed" volume - or “fixed" bond-lengths - and to ascribe the changes between the two systems to chemical effects, since structural effects (that might of course also affect the results) act in a similar way in both compounds. Previous first-principles simulations using the same FLAPW methodology showed that atomic relaxations of MnGe[@stroppa] and GaMnAs[@ajfgamnas] are rather small ([*i.e.*]{} less than 1.8 $\%$ on the Mn-Ge bond length) and do not sensibly affect the resulting electronic structure. Therefore, in the present work the atomic positions were kept fixed to those of the ideal zincblende lattice.
As for the computational details, first-principles calculations have been performed within the spin-density functional theory (DFT) using the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) to the exchange–correlation potential [@pbe] and the full-potential linearized augmented plane wave (FLAPW) [@flapw] method in the FLEUR implementation [@fleur].
Muffin-tin radii were chosen as 2.25 (2.31) a.u. for Mn, Ge and As (Ga), whereas the wave-function expansion was carried out with a cut-off of 3.55 (a.u.)$^{-1}$. During the self-consistency cicle, the Brillouin zone (BZ) was sampled using 42 special [**k**]{}-points, chosen according to the Monkhorst-Pack scheme[@mp] in the irreducible BZ.
As for the calculation of the exchange constants , we used the force theorem to approximate the total-energy differences of frozen magnons by the differences of the sums of eigenvalues and we then deduced the magnon dispersion relations on a set of spin-spiral vectors from the irreducible wedge of the BZ. A subsequent Fourier transformation yielded the real-space exchange constants J$_{ij}$ of the Heisenberg model.[@sandratskii; @mrj] The calculation was performed on a dense mash of 1536 spin-spirals with different wave-vectors [**q**]{} in the full Brillouin zone and a set of 576 k-points in the full BZ was used. This choice of numerical parameters was performed after extensive tests on the sets of both [**k**]{}- and [**q**]{}-points: the errors on the $J_{ij}$ exchange constants are estimated to be less than 1$\%$ with respect to larger sets of [**k**]{}-points and spin-spiral wave-vectors.
In order to investigate the effects on the exchange constants of having a larger band-gap (both in the Ge host and, as a consequence, in the minority spins of Mn/Ge - see below) , we have used an artifact based on the LDA+U (or GGA+U) scheme[@ldaU] as implemented in FLEUR[@shick]. According to this approach, an orbital-dependent potential following a Hubbard–like model is combined with the traditional LDA scheme. This method was traditionally developed to treat the electronic structure of highly–correlated materials, but it has also been successfully applied to semiconductors [@antonov:gb] to better take into account quasi–particle effects that are neglected in a bare-LDA approach. Here, we applied a U on the Ge $p$ states, in order to open a gap (forcing the density matrix to be fixed so as to fully occupy the $p$ shell); in particular, a value of U = 2 eV gave a Ge band-gap in excellent agreement with experiments ($E_g \sim$ 0.65 eV).
In Fig. \[fig:gedos\] we report the density of states of pure Ge with and without the introduction of the Hubbard U. As expected, the occupied Ge $p$ band is pushed at lower energies and, as a side effect, the Ge $s$ and 3$d$ bands become slightly more localized, giving an overall smaller valence band width (by about 1-2 eV upon introducing U).
{width=".4\textwidth"}
Hybridization mechanism between Mn $d$ states and semiconductor valence band {#azlev}
============================================================================
In this section, we recall the hybridization mechanism between Mn atomic levels and SC states[@az:levels]. In Fig.\[fig:lev\] we show the Mn $d$ atomic levels (left side), that are splitted by the exchange interaction and by a cubic tetrahedral crystal field. By symmetry, the resulting double-degenerate $e_g$ levels cannot efficiently hybridize with the host states and remain more or less unaltered in the DMS (see green and red states for majority and minority spins, respectively). On the other hand, the triply-degenerate $t_{2g}$ levels have both a symmetry and an energy-position that allow a strong hybridization with atomic Ge $p$ states (shown on the right side). Therefore, a bonding-antibonding pair is formed in both majority and minority spin channels (see magenta and blue states, respectively). Also shown is the SC valence band maximum (VBM), which in the unperturbed host predominantly has an anion $p$ character. Now, when Mn (3$d^5$ 4$s^2$) substitutes a Ge (4$s^2$ 4$p^2$) atom, the total number of electrons that participate in the bonding includes 7 Mn electrons (5 $d$ + 2 $s$) and 2 Ge $p$ electrons (Ge $s$ states have a much lower energy). The filling of the relevant levels by 9 electrons (starting of course from the bottom) shows that [*i*]{}) there are 6 and 3 electrons in the occupied valence band in the majority and minority spins, respectively , so that the total magnetic moment is 3 $\mu_B$; [*ii*]{}) the triply degenerate antibonding state in the majority channel is occupied by only one electron, therefore giving rise to two holes (see empty circles). Therefore, Mn in Ge acts as a source of local magnetic moment and as a double acceptor. A similar mechanism acts in GaMnAs, the only exception being that in a III-V SC there is one electron more coming from As (with respect to Ge); therefore, in the GaMnAs case, the $t_{2g}^{\uparrow}$ antibonding state is occupied by two electrons, giving rise to a total magnetic moment of 4 $\mu_B$ and to a single hole.
An additional point is worthwhile remarking: The $p-d$ hybridization pushes down (up) the $p$ states of the anion with respect to the unperturbed host in the minority (majority) spin channel, resulting in an exchange-splitted VBM. In turn, there is a band-gap opening (basically between the $t_{2g}^{\downarrow}$ bonding and the $e_g^{\downarrow}$ states) that gives rise to the celebrated half-metallicity ([*i.e.*]{} carriers at the Fermi level show a 100 $\%$ spin-polarization). Now, it is well known that Ge turns out to be a [*semimetal*]{} within DFT, [*i.e.*]{} conduction states around the X point of the BZ have a lower energy than the VBM at $\Gamma$; this is of course due to acknowledged failures of DFT in describing excited states. However, despite the [*metallic*]{} character of the unperturbed Ge host, due to the hybridization mechanism above, upon Mn-doping, a gap appears in the minority channel of MnGe, which shows a 100 $\%$ spin polarization at the Fermi level [@stroppa; @zhao].
{width=".53\textwidth"}
**Mn/Ge digital alloy: band-gap effects** {#band-gap}
=========================================
Electronic structure
--------------------
{width=".45\textwidth"}
We now turn to the comparison between the electronic structure obtained with and without the U on Ge. In Fig. \[fig:dos\] we show the total density of states and that projected (PDOS) on the relevant atoms: Mn, its first Ge nearest-nighbor and a Ge far from Mn (located at (0,0,$a$) with Mn sitting in the origin). It is interesting to note that, upon introduction of U, similarly to what happened in pure Ge, the band-gap in the minority spins opens up to a value of $\sim$ 1 eV. On the other hand, there are no effects in the occupied majority spin channel, where the perturbation is screened out up to the $t_{2g}^{\uparrow}$ antibonding level. However, due to hybridization mechanism explained above that leads to an upward (downward) shift of the SC band-gap for the majority (minority) spins, this same effect of “band-gap" opening is evident at 1-2 eV above $E_F$ (see for example the much larger forbidden energy range in the Ge far from Mn, Fig. \[fig:dos\] (d)).
From the point of view of magnetic moments, however, the situation does not change much: the half–metallicity is kept and, therefore, the total moment of 3 $\mu_B$ does not change. Moreover, no charge rearrangement occurs in the majority states (at least up to $E_F$) and the changes in the minority states simply results in lowering the energies of those states that were occupied anyway, even without Hubbard U. As a result, the Mn magnetic moment and its first-nearest Ge neighbour keep having - even upon introduction of U - a magnetic moment of 3.29 $\mu_B$ and -0.17 $\mu_B$, respectively, consistent with what previously reported in the literature.[@stroppa]
Exchange interactions
---------------------
The calculated exchange constants are shown in Fig.\[fig:jconst\] for the Mn/Ge DA, with and without the introduction of the Hubbard parameter on the Ge $p$ states. In order to clarify which are the relevant exchange interactions and along which crystalline direction they act, we also schematically show in the inset of Fig.\[fig:jconst\] a top-view of the Mn plane in the DA (with the Mn atoms arranged on a fcc lattice), along with the first few calculated exchange interactions.
Let us first discuss their general trends, irrespective of the effects of U. Consistently with what previously found[@zhao; @cinesi; @stroppa], we find that the first nearest-neighbor coupling $J_1$, directed along the \[110\] axis where a strong $p-d$ bonding occurs, is strongly ferromagnetic (FM). On the other hand, the second neighbor coupling $J_1$ along the \[100\] is small and antiferromagnetic (AFM). Now, our calculated third-neighbor interaction, which again occurs along \[110\], is rather strongly AFM. This is at variance with what occurs in bulk MnGe, where the interaction between the two Mn atoms at the same distance of $a\sqrt(2)$ is FM, as previously reported[@zhao; @cinesi]. However, we have to keep in mind that our geometry is rather different from that considered in Refs.[@zhao; @cinesi]: there, the two Mn interact with no other Mn around or in-between, whereas here there is another Mn in-between the two considered Mn atoms that are connected via $J_3$, along with other Mn atoms in the same plane that might also influence $J_3$. As a result, we get that the value of the exchange constants - at least for a high concentration of Mn - is rather sensibly affected by the magnetic environment. As expected for half-metals, where the presence of a minority band-gap causes a fast decay of exchange interactions as a function of distance, we find that interactions for Mn-Mn distances higher than $\sim$2$a$ are negligible. In addition, we remark that the interplanar interactions - which occurs at a large distance ([*i.e.*]{} 2$a$) and along the \[100\] direction for which also $J_2$ is already pretty small - are totally negligible, confirming the 2-dimensional character of the exchange-interactions in our DA model.
Let us now turn to the effects of a larger gap on the exchange constants. As a result of the introduction of U, the first neighbor interaction increases and also $J_2$ and $J_3$ become “less AFM", therefore leading to an overall enhanced FM coupling. The presence of a higher gap is consistent with our findings of a larger “damping" for exchange interactions, as a function of distance: interactions higher than $J_3$ are really negligible and, in any case, smaller in absolute value than those obtained within a bare-LSDA approach.
{width=".53\textwidth"}
Exchange constants: comparison between Mn/Ge and Mn/GaAs {#chemical}
========================================================
In Fig.\[fig:jconstgegaas\] we show our calculated exchange constants for Mn/Ge and Mn/GaAs, as a function of the Mn-Mn distance, in order to focus on the effects of the host on the exchange constants. As well known, Ge has a smaller gap and, obviously, a smaller ionicity than GaAs. This explains why the exchange constants fall off more rapidly in GaAs than in Ge as a function of the Mn-Mn distance. Moreover, the first-neighbor $J_1$ is smaller in GaAs than in Ge, suggesting somehow a less efficient FM coupling. This is even strengthened by the real value of the exchange constant: in fact, we show in Fig.\[fig:jconstgegaas\] the quantity $J_{ij}\cdot M^2$ and the values of the Mn magnetic moments in Mn/Ge and Mn/GaAs are $\sim$3.2 and $\sim$3.7 Bohr magnetons, respectively, therefore $J_1$ in Mn/GaAs is almost half of its same value in Mn/Ge. However, when moving to $J_3$ and $J_4$ ($J_2$ has basically the same value in both compounds), the values for GaAs are “less AFM" and FM, respectively, thus leading to a behaviour that compensates somehow the smaller FM $J_1$ coupling. Overall, the global behaviour should be similar in the two cases. Indeed, one could estimate the Curie temperature using a Montecarlo program along with a classical Heisenberg Hamiltonian; however, due to the two-dimensional nature of the systems, which in principle prevents long-range FM according to the Mermin-Wagner theorem[@mermin], one should include an anisotropy term - also calculated from first-principles -, which goes beyond the scope of the present work.
{width=".53\textwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
We presented first-principles calculations of the exchange constants and electronic structure of Mn/Ge and Mn/GaAs magnetic semiconductor “digital alloys". Upon increasing the band-gap in Mn/Ge digital alloys by means of the GGA+U approach, the half-metallicity is kept and the magnetic moments are almost totally unaffected. However, the exchange constants for different Mn-Mn distances show an increased FM value for first-neighbors and have a weaker AFM character for higher-order neighbors, so as to induce an overall enhanced ferromagnetism when the minority band-gap is increased. Upon comparing Mn/Ge and Mn/GaAs, the exchange constant for first-neighbor coupling is surprisingly larger in Mn/Ge than in Mn/GaAs, whereas the couplings for larger Mn-Mn distances show a stronger ferromagnetic behavior in Mn/GaAs. Finally, in both cases where there is a larger gap (either obtained via GGA+U in Mn/Ge or obtained via chemical effects in Mn/GaAs), the exchange constants fall off much more rapidly, therefore giving rise to almost negligible exchange couplings for Mn-Mn distances larger than twice the lattice constant.
[10]{} T. Dietl, H. Ohno, F. Matsukura, J. Cibert and D. Ferrand, Science [**287**]{}, 1019 (2000).
A. H. Mac Donald, P. Schiffer and N. Samarth, Nature Mater. [**4**]{}, 195 (2005) and references therein.
Y. D. Park [*et al.*]{}, Science [**295**]{}, 651 (2002).
Y. L. Soo [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2354 (2003).
X. Chen [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**81**]{}, 511 (2002); X. Kong, A. Trampert, X. X. Guo, D. Kolovos-Vellianitis, L. Däweritz, and K. H. Ploog, J. Appl. Phys. [**97**]{}, 094913 (2005); E. Johnston-Halperin, J. A. Schuller, C. S. Gallinat, T. C. Kreutz, R. C. Myers, R. K. Kawakami, H. Knotz, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 165328 (2003).
A. Stroppa, S. Picozzi, A. Continenza, and A. J. Freeman Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 155203 (2003); S. Picozzi, F. Antoniella, A. Continenza, A. MoscaConte, A. Debernardi, and M. Peressi Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 165205 (2004).
Y.J. Zhao, T. Shishidou and A. J. Freeman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 047204 (2003).
S. Cho [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 033303 (2002).
A. P. Li [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 195205 (2005).
L. Ottaviano, M. Passacantando, S. Picozzi, A. Continenza, R. Gunnella, A. Verna, G. Bihlmayer, G. Impellizzeri, and F. Priolo Appl. Phys. Lett. [**88**]{}, 061907 (2006); S. Picozzi, L. Ottaviano, M. Passacantando, G. Profeta, A. Continenza, F. Priolo, M. Kim, and A. J. Freeman Appl. Phys. Lett. [**86**]{}, 062501 (2005).
A. Continenza, F. Antoniella, and S. Picozzi Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 035310 (2004)
, A. Dargys A. and J. Kundrotas, Vilnius, Science and Encyclopedia Publishers, 1994
Yu-Jun Zhao, W. T. Geng, K. T. Park, and A. J. Freeman Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 035207 (2001)
J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3865 (1996).
E. Wimmer, H. Krakauer, M. Weinert and A. J. Freeman, Phys. Rev.B **24**, 864 (1981).
http://www.flapw.de
H.J.Monkhorst and J.D.Pack, Phys. Rev. B **13**, 5188 (1976).
L. M. Sandratskii and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 134435 (2002).
M. Ležaić, Ph. Mavropoulos, J. Enkovaara, G. Bihlmayer, S. Blügel, cond-mat/0512277.
V.I. Anisimov, F. Aryasetiawan, and A.I. Lichtenstein, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**9**]{}, 767 (1997).
A. Shick [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 10763 (1999).
G. Cubiotti, Yu Kucherenko, A. Yaresko, A. Perlov and V. Antonov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**11**]{}, 2265 (1999).
P. Mahadevan and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 115211 (2004).
H. Weng and J. Dong, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 035201 (2005).
N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**17**]{}, 1133 (1966).
[^1]: Corresponding author: e-mail: [[email protected]]{}, Phone: +390862433055, Fax: +390862433033
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
If $q$ copies of $K_{1,p}$ and a cycle $C_q$ are joined by merging any vertex of $C_q$ to the vertex with maximum degree of $K_{1, p}$, then the resulting graph is called the jellyfish graph $JFG(p, q)$ with parameters $p$ and $q$. Two graphs are said to be $Q$-cospectral (respectively, $L$-cospectral) if they have the same signless Laplacian (respectively, Laplacian) spectrum. A graph is said to be DQS (respectively, DLS) if there is no other non-isomorphic graphs $Q$-cospectral (respectively, $L$-cospectral) with it. In \[M. Mirzakhah and D. Kiani, The sun graph is determined by its signless Laplacian spectrum, Electron J. Linear Algebra, 20 (2010) 610–620\] it were proved that the sun graphs are DQS, where $Q(G)$ is used for the signless Laplacian matrix of $G$. Additionally, in \[R. Boulet, Spectral characterizations of sun graphs and broken sun graphs, Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. 11 (2) (2009) 149–160\] it was proved that the sun graphs are also DLS, where $L(G)$ denotes the Laplacian matrix of $G$. In this paper, it is proved that the jellyfish graphs, a natural generalization of sun graphs, are both DLS (for when $q$ is an even number) and DQS.
**Keywords:** Jellyfish graph; Sun graph; DMS graph; $M$-spectrum; $M$-cospectral.
**2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:** 05C50.
address:
- '**Ali Zeydi Abdian**, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Lorestan University, College of Science, Lorestan, Khoramabad, Iran, E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]'
- ' **Ali Reza Ashrafi**, Department of Pure Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences, University of Kashan, Kashan 87317-53153, E-mail: [email protected]'
author:
- '**A.Z. Abdian and A.R. Ashrafi$^\star$**'
title: '**[No two Jellyfish graphs are $L$-cospectral and $Q$-cospectral]{}**'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Throughout this paper, as usual $G = (V, E)$ will denote a simple graph having $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, with $V = \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_n\}$ and $E =\{e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_m\}$. The complement of $G$ is denoted $\overline{G}$. Another graph operation that will be useful here is the disjoint union of $r$ copies of a graph $G$ being denoted by $rG$. Consistent with this notation, we let $G + H$ denote the disjoint union of graphs $G$ and $H$. The join $G * H$ of graphs $G$ and $H$ is obtained from $G + H$ by joining each vertex of $G$ to each vertex of $H$. Our next operation applies only to rooted graphs, that is, graphs in which one vertex is singled out as being the root: if $G$ and $H$ are rooted graphs, then their coalescence $G \bullet H$ is obtained from $G + H$ by identifying their roots.
Suppose $M$ is a function from the set of all simple graphs into the set of all square matrices on $\mathbb{R}$ such that (i) for each graph $G$, the order of $G$ and the size of $M(G)$ are equal; and (ii) if $G \cong H$ then $M(G)$ and $M(H)$ are cospectral. Then the function $M$ is called a *graph characteristic function* and the matrix $M(G)$ is called the *$M$-matrix* of $G$. Two graphs $G$ and $H$ with this property that their $M$-matrices have the same spectrum are said to be $M$-cospectral. A graph is said to be DMS if there is no other non-isomorphic graphs $M$-cospectral with it. In literature, Three natural cases of the function $M$ are studied. These are as follows:
1. $M(G)=A(G)$ in which $A(G)$ denotes the *adjacency matrix* of $G$. The spectral graph theory originated with the study of eigenvalues of this matrix.
2. $M(G)=L(G)$, where $L(G) = A(G) - D(G)$ is the *Laplacian matrix* of $G$. Here, $D(G)$ is the diagonal matrix ${\rm{Diag}}(d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_n)$ in which $d_i$ is the degree of vertex $v_i$.
3. $M(G)=Q(G)$ such that $Q(G) = A(G) + D(G)$ is the signless Laplacian matrix of $G$.
In this paper we focus on the Laplacian matrix. Let $ \mu_1 > \mu_2 > \cdots > \mu_t$ be the distinct eigenvalues of $L(G)$ with multiplicities $m_1$, $ m_2$, $\cdots$, $m_t$, respectively. van Dam and Haemers [@VH] conjectured that almost all graphs are DQS or DLS. There a few classes of graphs which are known to satisfy this property, and so it is an interesting problem to find new classes of such graphs.
Suppose $ {\rm{Spec}}_{Q}(G) = \left\{ { [q_1]^{ m_1 } , [q_2]^{ m_2 } ,\cdots, [q _n]^{ m_n } } \right\}$ is the multi-set of eigenvalues of $ Q(G) $, where $ m_i $ denote the multiplicities of $q_i$. Conventionally, the signless Laplacian eigenvalues of graph $G$ are ordered respectively in non-increased sequence as follows: $q_1\geq q_2\geq \cdots\geq q_n$.
Mirzakhah and Kiani [@MK] proved that the sun graphs are DQS and Boulet [@B] proved that the sun graphs are also DLS. The aim of this paper is to generalize these results to the jellyfish graphs. In an exact phrase, we will prove the following result:
1. The jellyfish graphs $G = JFG(p, q)$ are DQS.
2. Let $H$ be any graph $L$-cospectral to a jellyfish graph $G = JFG(p, q)$. If $q$ is an even number, then $H$ and as a result its complement are DLS.
Our notations are standard and we refer to Cvetković, Rowlinson and Simić [@CRS] for basic definitions and results in algebraic graph theory.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section we present some results which are crucial throughout this paper. Suppose $G$ is a simple graph and $M_1(G) = \sum_{v \in V(G)}deg(v)^2$. The quantity $M_1(G)$ is well-studied in literature and is called the first Zagreb index of $G$, see [@gut1; @gut2] for details.
It is well-known that the Laplacian spectrum of a graph determines the number of vertices, the number of edges, the number of spanning trees, the number of components and the first Zagreb index of $G$. We note in passing that the spectrum of the adjacency matrix of a graph gives other information, including the number of closed walks of any given length, whether the graph is bipartite or not, whether it is regular or not, and if it is, the degree of regularity.
The next theorem relates the Laplacian spectra of complementary graphs.
\[thm 2-2\] Let $\mu_1 \geq \mu_2 \geq \ldots \geq \mu_n=0$ and $\overline{\mu} _1\geq \overline{\mu}_2\geq \ldots \geq \overline{\mu}_n=0$ be the Laplacian spectra of $G$ and $\overline{G}$, respectively. Then $\overline{\mu}_i = n - \mu_{n-i}$ for $i = 1,2,\ldots, n - 1$.
For graphs $G$ and $H$, we let $N_G(H)$ be the number of subgraphs of graph $G$ that are isomorphic to $H$. Further, let $W_G(i)$ be the number of closed walks of length $i$ in $G$ and $W'_H(i)$ be the number of closed walks of length $i$ in $H$ that cover the edges of $H$. Then $W_G(i)=\sum{{N_G(H)W'_H(i)}}$, where the sum is taken over all connected subgraphs $H$ of $G$ for which $W'_H(i)\neq 0$. This equation provides some formulas for calculating the number of some short closed walks in $G$. Note that if tr$(M)$ denotes the trace of a matrix M, then $W_G(3) = \mathrm{tr}(A^3(G))$. It is easy to see that an $n$-cycle have exactly $2n$ closed walks of length $n$.
\[thm 2-3\] The number of closed walks of lengths $2$, $3$, and $4$ in a graph $G$ with exactly $m$ edges are as follows: $(i)$ $W_G(2)=2m$, $(ii)$ $W_G(3) = {\mathrm{tr}(A^3(G))} = 6N_G(C_3)$, $(iii)$ $W_G(4)=2m+4N_G(P_3)+8N_G(C_4)$.
Turning to the degrees of the vertices in graphs, as before, we let $d_i$ denote the degree of vertex $v_i$ in a graph $G$, and assume that $d_1 \geq d_2 \geq \ldots \geq d_n$. In addition, the eigenvalues of $G$ are assumed to be $\mu_1 \geq \mu_2 \geq \ldots \geq \mu_n=0$.
\[thm 2-4\] If $G$ is a graph with at least one edge, then $\mu_1(G) \geq d_1(G) + 1$. Moreover, if $G$ is connected, then equality holds if and only if $d_1(G) = n-1$.
A graph with exactly two different vertex degrees is said to be semi-regular. The next result uses the quantity $\theta(v) = \Sigma \dfrac{{\rm{deg}} u}{\rm{deg} v}$, where the sum is taken over the neighbors $u$ of the vertex $v$.
\[thm 2-5\] If $G$ is a connected graph, then $\mu_1(G) \leq \max_v(\deg(v)+ \theta(v))$. Moreover, equality holds if and only if $G$ is a regular bipartite graph or a semi-regular bipartite graph.
In the following theorem, closed formulas for the first four coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of a graph $G$ are given.
\[thm 2-6\] The first four coefficients in the characteristic polynomial $\varphi(G) = \Sigma l_ix^i$ of a graph $G$ are $l_0=1$, $l_1=-2m$, $l_2=2m^2-m-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d^2_i}},$ and $l_3=\dfrac{1}{3}(-4m^3+6m^2+3m\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d^2_i}}-\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d^3_i}}-3\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d^2_i}}+6N_G(C_3))$.
Suppose $deg(G)=(d_1, \cdots, d_n)$ is the degree sequence of a graph $G$. In the following theorem some exact expressions for the first four spectral moments of the $Q$-spectrum of $G$ are given.
\[lem 2-10\] Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices, $m$ edges, $N_G(C_3)$ triangles and degree sequence $deg(G)=(d_1, \cdots, d_n)$. Let $T_k=\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{q^k_i}}$, $0 \leq k \leq n,$ be the k-th spectral moment for the $Q$-spectrum of $G$. Then $T_0=n$, $T_1=\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d_i}}=2m$, $T_2=2m+\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d^2_i}}$, $T_3=6N_G(C_3)+3\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d^2_i}}+\sum_{i = 1}^{{n}} {{d^3_i}}$.
Note that $q_n(G)\geq 0$ in general.
\[lem 2-11\] The multiplicity of the eigenvalue 0 in the $Q$-spectrum denotes the number of bipartite components.
A *unicyclic graph* is a connected graph with this property that the number of vertices and edges are equal. Such a graph has exactly one cycle. If this cycle has an odd length then the unicyclic graph is said to be odd.
\[lem 2-12\] Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges;
1. $det(Q(G)) = 0$ if and only if $G$ has at least one bipartite connected component.
2. $det(Q(G)) = 4$ if and only if $G$ is an odd unicyclic graph.
3. Suppose $u$ and $v$ are two non-adjacent vertices in the graph $G$ containing the same neighbors and $deg(u) =deg(v) =r$. Then $r\in {\rm{Spec}}_{Q}(G)$.
Suppose $G$ is a graph. The line graph of $G$, $\mathcal{L}(G)$, is a graph with vertex set $E(G)$ in which two edges of $G$ are adjacent if and only if they have a common vertex.
\[lem 2-13\] The following hold:
1. [([@S11])]{} Let $G$ be a connected unicyclic bipartite graph with $n$ vertices and $\mathcal{L}(G)$ its line graph. Then $\mu_i(G) =\lambda_i(\mathcal{L}(G))+2$, for $i= 1,2, . . . , n-1$, where $λi(\mathcal{L}(G))$ is the i-th largest adjacency eigenvalue of $\mathcal{L}(G)$.
2. [([@ZB])]{} If two graphs $G$ and $H$ are $Q$-cospectral, then their line graphs are $A$-cospectral. The converse is true if $G$ and $H$ have the same number of vertices and edges.
We end this section with the following useful result:
\[lem 2-16\] Let $H$ be a proper subgraph of a connected graph $G$. Then, $q_1(G)>q_1(H)$.
Proof of the Main Result
========================
The aim of this section is to prove that the jellyfish graphs $G = JFG(p, q)$ are both DLS (if $q$ is an even number) and DQS.
\[lem 3-1\] If $H$ is a graph $L$-cospectral with $G = JFG(p, q)$, then $p+3\leq \mu_1(H)\leq p+3+\dfrac{2}{p+2}$.
By Lemma \[thm 2-4\], $\mu_1(G)\geq p+3$ and by Lemma \[thm 2-5\], $\mu_1(G)\leq p+3+\dfrac{2}{p+2}$. This implies that $p+3\leq \mu_1(H)\leq p+3+\dfrac{2}{p+2}$, as desired.
Let $G$ be a connected graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges. If $k = m - n + 1$, then $G$ is said to be $k$-cyclic graph. Obviously, any $k$-cyclic graph consists of $k$ cycle(s). Consider the jellyfish graph $G = JFG(p, q)$, then $n=n(G)=q(1+p)$ and $m=m(G)=q(1+p)$ and so $m=n$. This shows that the jellyfish graph $G$ is an unicyclic graph.
\[lem 4-2\] If $H$ is a graph $L$-cospectral with $G = JFG(p, q)$ and $q$ is an even number, then they have the same degree sequence.
Since $H$ and $G$ are $L$-cospectral, $H$ is also connected, and has the same order, size, and the first Zagreb index as $G$. Let $n_i$ denote the number of vertices of degree $i$ in $H$, for $i=1, 2, \ldots, d_1(H)$. Then,
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 1}^{{d_1}(H)} {{n_i}} &=& n(G),\\
\sum_{i = 1}^{{d_1}(H)} {{in_i}} &=& 2m(G),\\
\sum_{i = 1}^{{d_1}(H)} {{i^2n_i}} &=& pq+(p+2)^2n^{'}_{p+2},\end{aligned}$$
where $n'_{p+2}$ is the number of vertices of degree $p+2$ in $G$. Clearly, $n(G)=n=q(p+1)$, $m(G)=q(p+1)$, $n^{'}_{p+2}=q$. By adding (1), (2), and (3) with coefficients $2, -3, 1$, respectively, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 1}^{{d_1}(H)} {(i^2-3i+2)n_i} = pq(p-1).\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[lem 3-1\], $p+3\leq \mu_1(H)\leq p+3+\dfrac{2}{p+2}$. It follows from Theorem \[thm 2-4\] that $d_1(H) +1 \leq \mu_1(H) = \mu_1(G)\leq p+3+\dfrac{2}{p+2}$, which leads to $d_1(H)\leq p+2$. Obviously, $H$ is an unicyclic graph. Since the number of spanning trees of $H$ and $G$ are the same, it is easy to see that the length of cycle of $H$ is also $q$, which implies that $H$ is also a bipartite unicyclic connected graph (Note that the number of spanning trees of a unicyclic graph equals the length of the cycle contained in it and the number of spanning trees in a connected graph $G$ and $H$ is $\dfrac{1}{n}\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{n - 1} {{\mu _i}}$). It follows from Lemma \[lem 2-13\] (1) and Theorem \[thm 2-3\] that
$$\begin{aligned}
t(\mathcal{L}(H))=t(\mathcal{L}(G))=\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{d_1}(H)} {{n_i}\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
i\\
3
\end{array}} \right)} = q\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
p+2\\
3
\end{array}} \right).\end{aligned}$$
We claim that $d_1(H)=p+2$. We assume on the contrary that $d_1(H)\leq p+1$. By (5), $q{p+2 \choose 3} = \sum_{i = 1}^{{d_1}(H)}n_i {i \choose 3} \leq \dfrac{p+1}{6}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{d_1}(H)} {(i^2-3i+2)n_i},$ which implies that $q{p+2 \choose 3} \leq \dfrac{p+1}{6}pq(p-1)$. This yields that ${p + 2 \choose 3} \leq \dfrac{(p-1)p(p+1)}{6}$ $=$ ${p+1 \choose 3}$, a contradiction. By a similar argument and this fact that $d_2(H)\leq \cdots \leq d_q(H)\leq p+2$, one can easily see that $d_2(H)=d_3(H)=\cdots=d_q(H)=p+2$. On the other hand, since $\delta(H)=d_{q(p+1)}(H)\geq 1$, it follows from (2) that $d_{q+1}(H)=\cdots=d_{q(p+1)}(H)=1$ and so $deg(H)=deg(G)$, proving the lemma.
\[T1\] Let $q$ be an even number. If $H$ is $L$-cospectral to a jellyfish graph, then $H$ DLS.
Let $H$ be $L$-cospectral with the jellyfish graph $G=JFG(p, q)$. It follows from Lemma \[lem 4-2\] that $deg(G)=deg(H)$. Since $H$ is an unicyclic graph, $H=G$.
The following corollary immediately follows from Theorems \[thm 2-2\] and \[T1\].
Let $q$ be an even number. If $H$ is $L$-cospectral to a jellyfish graph. Then the complement of $H$ is also DLS.
In the following lemma the signless Laplacian spectrum of a graph $Q$-cospectral with a jellyfish graph is calculated.
\[lem 5-1\] If $H$ is a graph that is $Q$-cospectral with the jellyfish graph $G = JFG(p, q)$, then the signless Laplacian spectrum of $H$ are:
$\dfrac{\lambda_i+p+3\pm \sqrt{\lambda_i^2+(2p+2)\lambda_i+p^2+2p+5}}{2}$ and 1 in which the multiplicity of 1 is an integer $a$ such that $1\leq a\leq n-q$. Here, $\lambda_i=Cos\dfrac{2\pi i}{q}$, for $i=1, 2,\cdots, q$.
By a suitable labeling of vertices of $G = JFG(p, q)$, we may assume that $Q(G) =\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{A_{q \times q}}}&{{B_{q \times (n - q)}}}\\
{{C_{(n - q) \times q}}}&{{D_{(n - q) \times (n - q)}}}
\end{array}} \right]$, where $$\begin{aligned}
A_{q \times q} &=& (p+2){I_q} + A_{C_q}, \ B_{q \times (n-q)} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{I_q}}& \cdots &{{I_q}}
\end{array}} \right],\\
\hspace{30mm}C_{(n - q) \times q } &=& \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{I_q}}\\
\vdots \\
{{I_q}}
\end{array}} \right], \ D_{(n - q) \times (n - q)}=I_{n-q}.\end{aligned}$$
Therefore $P_{Q(G)}(x) =det(xI_{n}-Q(G))= (x-1)^{n-q}P_{A_{C_q}}(x-(p+2)-\dfrac{1}{x-1})$, where $P_{Q(G)}(x)$ and $P_{A_{C_q}}(x)$ are characteristic polynomials of matrices $Q(G)$ and $A_{C_q}$, respectively. It follows from Lemma \[lem 2-12\] ($iii$) that for $p\geq 2$, $ G$ has 1 as its eigenvalue. Hence, for $x\neq 1$, $P_{A_{C_q}}(x-(p+2)-\dfrac{1}{x-1})=0$ if and only if $P_{Q(G)}(x)=0$. Therefore, $x=\dfrac{\lambda_i+p+3\pm \sqrt{\lambda_i^2+(2p+2)\lambda_i+p^2+2p+5}}{2}$, where $\lambda_i=Cos\dfrac{2\pi i}{q}$, for $i=1, 2, \cdots, q$.
\[cor 5-2\] If $H$ is a graph that is $Q$-cospectral with $G = JFG(p, q)$, then $q_1(H)=\dfrac{p+5+\sqrt{p^2+6p+13}}{2}$.
\[lem 5-2\] If $H$ is $Q$-cospectral with $G = JFG(p, q)$, then $det(H)\in \left\{ {0,4} \right\}$.
Suppose $q\geq 4$ is an even number. Since $G = JFG(p, q)$ is a bipartite graph, by Lemma \[lem 2-12\] ($i$), we have $det(Q(G))=det(Q(H))=0$. If $q$ is an odd number, then $G = JFG(p, q)$ is not a bipartite graph and so by Lemma \[lem 2-12\] ($ii$) $det(Q(G))=det(Q(H)=4$.
We are now ready to prove that a graph $Q$-cospectral with $JFG(p, q)$ have the same degree sequence as $JFG(p, q)$.
\[lem 5-4\] If $H$ is $Q$-cospectral with $G = JFG(p, q)$, then they have the same degree sequence.
Since $H$ and $G$ are $Q$-cospectral, by Lemma \[lem 2-10\] and the main properties of Laplacian spectrum, $H$ has the same order, size, and first Zagreb index as $G$. Let $n_i$ denote the number of vertices of degree $i$ in $H$, $0 \leq i \leq d_1(H)$. Then,
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i =0}^{{d_1}(H)} {{n_i}} &=& n(G), \\
\sum_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)} {{in_i}} &=& 2m(G),\\
\sum_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)} {{i^2n_i}} &=&pq+(p+2)^2n^{'}_{p+2},\end{aligned}$$
where $n'_{p+2}$ is the number of vertices of degree $p+2$ in $G$.
![[The jellyfish graph $JFG(p, q)$]{}](w4){height="8cm"}
It is clear that $n(G)=n=q(p+1)$, $m(G)=q(p+1)$ and $n^{'}_{p+2}=q$. By adding (6), (7), and (8) with coefficients $2, -3, 1$, respectively, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{10mm}\sum_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)} {(i^2-3i+2)n_i} = pq(p-1).\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)} {(i-1)n_i} =q(p+1).\end{aligned}$$
It follows from Lemma \[lem 2-13\] (2) and Theorem \[thm 2-3\] that
$$\begin{aligned}
t(\mathcal{L}(H)) &=& t(\mathcal{L}(G))=\sum_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)}{{n_i} {i \choose 3}} = q{p+2 \choose 3},\\
2m(\mathcal{L}(H)) &=& 2m(\mathcal{L}(G))=\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)} 2{{n_i}{i \choose 2}} = 2q{p+2 \choose 2}.\end{aligned}$$
We claim that $d_1(H)=p+2$. Suppose on the contrary that $d_1(H)\leq p+1$ or $d_1(H)\geq p+3$. We consider the following two cases:
1. $d_1(H)\leq p+1$. Then by (11), $q{p + 2 \choose 3} \leq \dfrac{p+1}{6}\sum_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)} {(i^2-3i+2)n_i}$. Hence $q{p + 2 \choose 3} \leq \dfrac{p+1}{6}pq(p-1)$ which yields that ${p + 2 \choose 3} \leq \dfrac{(p-1)p(p+1)}{6}$ $=$ ${p + 1 \choose 3}$, a contradiction.
2. $d_1(H)\geq p+3$. Then by (12), $2q{p + 2 \choose 2} \geq (p+3) \sum_{i = 0}^{{d_1}(H)} {(i-1)n_i}$. Thus, $2q{p + 2 \choose 2} \geq q(p+3)(p+1)$, which proves that $p+2\geq p+3$ that is impossible.
Therefore, $d_1(H)=p+2$. Since $d_2(H)\leq \cdots \leq d_q(H)\leq p+2$, by a similar argument one can see that $d_2(H)=d_3(H)=\cdots=d_q(H)=p+2$. On the other hand, $\delta(H)=d_{q(p+1)}(H)\in \left\{ {0,1} \right\}$. Note that $H$ has at most an isolated vertex; that is, $n_0\in \left\{ {0,1} \right\}$. This depends on $q$ is either an even or an odd number. Hence $d_{q(p+1)-1}(H)\geq 1$ and so it is easy to check that $deg(H)\in \left\{ {0,1,2,p+2} \right\}$. By (6), (7) and (8), we get $n_0 + n_1 + n_2 = qp,$ $n_1 + 2n_2+ (p+2)q = 2q(p+1)$ and $n_1 + 4n_2+ (p+2)^2q = pq + (p+2)^2q$. This implies that $n_1=pq$ and so $n_0=n_2=0$. Therefore, $deg(H)=deg(G)$.
\[lem 5-5\] If $H$ is $Q$-cospectral with $G = JFG(p, q)$ then $H$ is a connected graph.
Suppose on contrary that $H$ is a graph with exactly $i$ connected components $H_1, H_2, \cdots, H_i$. We also assume that $n(H_j)=n_j$, $1 \leq j \leq i$. Since $G$ is unicyclic, it has at most one zero eigenvalue and so one can deduce that one of the following happens:
1. $q$ is an odd number. In this case, all connected components are $k$-cyclic graphs such that at least one of these cycles is odd. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
n&=&m(H)=m(H_1)+m(H_2)+\cdots+m(H_i)\\ &=& (n_1+k_1-1)+ (n_2+k_2-1)+\cdots+ (n_i+k_i-1)\\ &=& (n_1+n_2+\cdots+n_i)-i+(k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_i)\\ &=&n-i+(k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_i)\end{aligned}$$ which shows that $k_1+k_2+\cdots+k_i=i$. Since $k_i\geq 1$, $k_1=k_2=\cdots=k_i=1$. We now apply Lemma \[lem 2-12\] (ii) to deduce that $det(Q(H))\geq 16$, contradiction to Lemma \[lem 5-2\].
2. $q$ is an even number. This means that $G$ is a bipartite graph. Without loss of generality we assume that $H_1$ is a bipartite graph and the other component are $k$-cyclic graphs such that at least one of these $k$ cycles is an odd cycle. Consider the following subcases:
1. $k_1=0$. This means that there exists $2\leq j\leq k$ such that $k_j=2$ and for any $i\neq j, 1$, $k_i=1$. By Lemma \[lem 5-4\], there exists a subgraph $G_1$ of $H_j$ such that $G_1 \cong JFG(p, q^{'})$. By Corollary \[cor 5-2\], $q_1(G)=q_1(G_1)=\dfrac{p+5+\sqrt{p^2+6p+13}}{2}$. On the other hand, it follows from Lemma \[lem 2-16\] that $q_1(H_j)>q_1(G_1)$. Thus, $q_1(H_j)>q_1(G)$ which is impossible.
2. $k_1=1$. Therefore, all $H_j$ are unicyclic graphs. On the other hand, by Lemma \[lem 5-4\], each $H_i$ is a jellyfish graph. By the Perron–Frobenius theorem, the multiplicity $q_1(G)=\dfrac{p+5+\sqrt{p^2+6p+13}}{2}$ is 1. On the other hand, by Corollary \[cor 5-2\], we get $q_1(H_1)=q_1(H_2)=\cdots=q_1(H_i)=\dfrac{p+5+\sqrt{p^2+6p+13}}{2}$. This means that the multiplicity of $q_1(G)$ is $i\geq 2$, which is our final contradiction.
Hence the result.
\[T2\] Any jellyfish graph is DQS.
Let $H$ be $Q$-cospectral with the jellyfish graph $G=JFG(p, q)$. It follows from Lemma \[lem 5-4\] that $deg(G)=deg(H)$. On the other hand, $H$ is an unicyclic graph and so $H=G$.
Note that the main result of this paper is a combination of Theorem \[T1\] and Theorem \[T2\].
Concluding Remarks {#concluding-remarks .unnumbered}
==================
In this paper, it is proved that jellyfish graphs $G=JFG(p, q)$ are DQS. Additionally, we prove that if $q$ is an even number, then for any graph $H$, $L$-cospectral to a jellyfish graph $G=JFG(p, q)$, $H$ and its complement are DLS. Now, we pose the following open problem.
**Conjecture**. If $q$ is an odd number and $H$ is a graph $L$-cospectral to a jellyfish graph $G=JFG(p, q)$, then $H$ is DLS.\
[**Acknowledgement**]{}. The research of the second author is partially supported by the university of Kashan under grant number 890190/6.
[99]{} A.Z. Abdian, A.R. Ashrafi, L.W. Beineke and M.R. Oboudi, Laplacian spectral determinations of path-friendship graphs, arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.11121.
R. Boulet, Spectral characterizations of sun graphs and broken sun graphs, *Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci.*, **11** (2) (2009) 149–160.
D. Cvetković, P. Rowlinson and S. Simić, [*An Introduction to the Theory of Graph Spectra*]{}, London Mathematical Society Student Texts 75, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
D. Cvetković, P. Rowlinson and S. Simić, Signless Laplacians of finite graphs, *Linear Algebra Appl.*, **423** (1) (2007) 155–171.
M. Chen and B. Zhou, On the signless Laplacian spectral radius of cacti, *Croat. Chem. Acta.* ,**89** (4) (2016) 1–6. R. Grone and R. Merris, The Laplacian spectrum of graph II, *SIAM J. Discrete Math.*, **7** (1994) 221–229. I. Gutman and N. Trinajstic, Graph theory and molecular orbitals, Total $\pi$-electron energy of alternant hydrocarbons, [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{}, [**17**]{} (1972) 535–538. I. Gutman and K. C. Das, The first Zagreb index 30 years after, [*MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem.*]{}, [**50**]{} (2004) 83–92. A. K. Kelmans, The number of trees in a graph I, II, *Automat, Remote Control* **26** (1965), 2118–2129 and **27** (1966), 233–241 (Translated from Avtomat. i Telemekh. **26** (1965), 2194–2204 and **27** (1966) 56-65 \[in Russian\]). M. Mirzakhah and D. Kiani, The sun graph is determined by its signless Laplacian spectrum, *Electron J. Linear Algebra.*, **20** (2010) 610–620. C S. Oliveira N. M. M. de Abreu and S. Jurkiewilz, The characteristic polynomial of the Laplacian of graphs in (a, b)-linear cases, *Linear Algebra Appl.*, [**356**]{} (2002) 113–121. S. K. Simić and Z. Stani, Q-integral graphs with edge-degrees at most five, *Discrete Math.*, [**308**]{} (2008), 4625-634. X. Shen, and H. Yaoping, A class of unicyclic graphs determined by their Laplacian spectrum, Electron. J. Linear Algebra 23.1 (2012), 26. E. R. van Dam and W. H. Haemers, Which graphs are determined by their spectrum?, *Linear Algebra Appl.*, **373** (2003), 241–272. F. Wen, Q. Huang, X. Huang and F. Liu, The spectral characterization of wind-wheel graphs, *Indian J. Pure Appl. Math.*, **46** (5) (2015) 613–631. J. Zhou and C. Bu, Spectral characterization of line graphs of starlike trees, *Linear and Multilinear Algebra*, **61** (2013) 1041–1050.
[^1]: $^\star$Corresponding author (Email: [email protected])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Simple algebraic rules can produce complex networks with rich structures. These graphs are obtained when looking at a monoid operating on a ring. There are relations to dynamical systems theory and number theory. This document illustrates this class of networks introduced together with Montasser Ghachem in [@GK1; @GK2]. Besides showing off pictures, we look at elementary results related to the Chinese remainder theorem, the Collatz problem, the Artin constant, Fermat primes and Pierpont primes.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
Harvard University\
Cambridge, MA, 02138, Harvard University
author:
- Oliver Knill
date: 'November 17, 2013'
title: Dynamically generated Networks
---
Introduction
============
In September 2013, we stumbled upon networks generated by finitely many maps $T_i$ on a ring $R$ [@GK1; @GK2]. The rule is that two different points $x,y$ in $R$ are connected if there is a map $T_i$ from $x$ to $y$. Some constructions of finite simple graphs can be seen below in this document. The idea is based on the old concept of [**Cayley graphs**]{} which visualizes finitely presented groups equipped with finitely many generators $T_i(x) = a_i x$ on groups. For a single transformation $T$ on a ring $R$, one has a dynamical system: $T: R \to R$. The networks visualize the orbit structure of these systems if we think of the monoid generated by $T$ as “time". We disregard here however the digraph structure, self-loops and multiple connections and look at finite simple graphs only. As in complex dynamics, where the simplest polynomial maps already produce a rich variety of fractals, the discrete structures can be complex. The maps $T_i$ on the ring do not have to be algebraic, they could be any permutation on a finite set. One can see these networks as graph homomorphic images of Cayley graphs generated by the transformations in the permutation groups of the vertex set. An other motivation comes from dynamical systems theory: since a computer always simulates a system on a finite set, it is interesting to see what the relation between this discrete and continuum is. The relation between the continuum and arithmetic systems have been investigated for example in [@vivaldi; @Rannou; @lanford98]; a dynamical system like $T(x) = cx(1-x)$ on the interval $[0,1]$ is realized on the computer as a map on a finite set leading to finitely many cyclic attractors. For two or more maps, this can become a rather complex and geometric network.\
The fact that simple polynomial maps produce arithmetic chaos is exploited by [**pseudo random number generators**]{}. There is a mild justification in that random variables like $x,T(x)=x^2+c$ are asymptotically independent [@knillprobability] on $Z_n$ in the limit $n \to \infty$. While the pseudo random nature given by the quadratic map $Z_n$ is unclear, the orbits are sufficiently random to be exploited or example in the “Pollard rho method" for integer factorization [@Riesel]. Maps like $x \to x^2$ modulo $p$ or cellular automata maps were visualized in [@WolframState1; @WolframState2] using state transition digraphs.\
What is new? By allowing more transformations, we can get more structure and more variety. Our point of view is motivated heavily from the study of deterministic and random networks. The generalization from groups to monoids and by looking at the state space instead of the group itself, we break symmetries: while Cayley graphs look more like rigid crystals, the monoid graphs tend to produce rather organic structures resembling networks we see in social networks, computer networks, synapses, chemical or biological networks and especially in peer to peer networks. This happens already in the simplest cases: we can for example take quadratic maps $T(x) = x^2+a, S(x)=x^2+b$ or affine maps like $T(x)=3x+1$ and $S(x)=3x+1$ on $Z_n$. Whether we take affine, or nonlinear or arithmetic functions, the networks obtained in such a dynamical way can be intriguing:\
[**a)**]{} The dynamical graphs show [**visually interesting structures**]{} which bring arithmetic relations to live. [**b)**]{} Their [**statistical properties**]{} of path length, global cluster and vertex degree are interesting. [**c)**]{} Some examples lead to [**deterministic small world examples**]{} with small diameter and large cluster. [**d)**]{} The graphs display [**rich-club phenomena**]{}, where high degree nodes are more interconnected. [**e)**]{} Many feature [**garden of eden states**]{}, unreachable configurations like transient trees. [**f)**]{} They can feature [**attractors**]{} like cycle sub graphs but also more complex structures. [**g)**]{} By definition, these graphs are [**factors of Cayley graphs**]{} on the permutation group of V. [**h)**]{} They are [**universal**]{} in the sense that any finite simple graph can be obtained like that. [**i)**]{} In many cases, classes of networks produce natural probability spaces as we can parametrize maps. [**j)**]{} In certain cases, the graphs appear to be [**triangularizations of manifolds**]{} or varieties. [**k)**]{} In the arithmetic case, the topology like connectivity and dimension leads to Diophantine problems.\
Some pictures can be seen at the end of the article. Here are two experimental observations:\
[**A)**]{} ([@GK1]) We measure that the mean length $\mu(G)$ and the global clustering coefficient $\nu(G)$ have the property that $\lambda(G) = -\mu(G)/\log(\nu(G))$ often has a compact limit set if the number of nodes go to infinity. When choosing random permutations and averaging, we see actual convergence in the limit $n \to \infty$. The two quantities $\mu(G)$ and $\nu(G)$ are essential to see small world phenomena as seen in [@WattsStrogatz]. A reasonable conjecture is that in the probability space of all pairs of random permutations $f,g$ on $Z_n$, the random variable $\lambda(G(f,g))$ has an expectation which converges for $n \to \infty$. There is strong numerical evidence for that. In [@GK1] we also showed how one can naturally construct large bipartite or multipartite graphs using dynamical constructions.\
[**B)**]{} ([@GK2]) We get deterministic examples of networks which feature all the statistical properties of Watts-Strogatz [@WattsStrogatz] in the sense that $\mu,\nu$ and vertex distributions behave in the same way. The statistic is almost indistinguishable from W-S. These examples are of the form $T_i(x) = [x^{1+\epsilon_i} + i]$, where at least one $\epsilon_i$ is $0$ and the others are equal to $p$, a permutation parameter. For $\epsilon_i=0$ and $k$ maps, we have the initial wiring setup of Watts-Strogatz for $p=0$. While in Watts-Strogatz, the rewiring is done in a probabilistic way, this is taken care by increasing the nonlinearity. If the maps are nonlinear but close to linear, we see interesting geometric features appearing discussed in [@GK2]. For example: if maps are close to linear maps, interesting topological structures can appear.\
In this paper, we prove a couple of elementary which indicate how these graphs can relate to elementary number theory. To do so, we have questions from dynamical systems as a guide. The subject of networks has exploded in the last decade, as a look onto the library shows [@Goyal; @BornholdtSchuster; @GoodmanORourke; @CohenHavlin; @newman2010; @nbw2006; @WassermanFaust; @Jackson; @SmallWorld; @BallobasKozmaMiklo; @ibe; @vansteen; @newman2010; @Meester; @Easley; @shen]. It has been made accessible to a larger audience in books like [@SixDegrees; @Buchanan; @Linked; @Sync; @Connected].\
The topics in the next sections are in an obvious way motivated from corresponding problems in complex dynamics, where the question of connectivity and dimension of the Julia sets is of interest. One can also look at the analogue of the Mandelbrot set, the set of parameters for which graphs are connected. If we have a class of dynamically generated graphs, we can ask how the clique size is distributed on the parameter space. As in dynamical system terminology, we look for the connectivity locus and the dimension of the object. The subject can lead to relatively simple but unexplored questions. It is suited for experimentation (as we have accessed it ourselves primarily) and is almost unexplored. We illustrate this by formulating some simple questions related to connectivity. Computer algebra code will be available on the project website and the Wolfram demonstration project.
Affine maps and smooth numbers
==============================
We first look at graphs generated by a single affine map $T(x)=ax+b$ on the ring $Z_n=Z/(nZ)$. Given parameters $(a,b)$, for which $n$ is the graph connected on $Z_n$? Lets assume first $T(x)= a x$ on $Z_n$. The following result will be used later on:
The graph on $Z_n$ generated by $T(x)=2x$ is connected if and only if $n$ is a power of $2$. \[lemma1\]
If $n$ is a power of $2$, then $T^k x = 2^k x$ is divisible by $n$ if $k$ is larger or equal than $n$. We see that every $x$ is eventually attracted by $0$ and that the graph is a tree. If $n = p 2^m$ with $p$ being relatively prime to $2$, we can look at the orbit $T^k x = x 2^k$ modulo $p$. If $x$ is divisible by $p$, then $T^kx$ stays divisible by $p$ and the graph is not connected.
If we look at $Z_n^*$, we get additionally some primes. Which ones? We see that $3, 5, 11, 13, 19, 29, 37, 53, 59, 61, 67, 83, 101, \dots $ lead to connected graphs while $7, 17, 23, 31, 41, 43, 47, 71, 73, 79, 89, 97, 103, \dots $ lead to disconnected ones.
The graph on $Z_n^*$ generated by $T(x)=2x$ has one component if and only if $n$ is a power of $2$ or a prime $p$ for which $2$ is a primitive root.
We look at the dynamics on $Z_n^* = Z_n \setminus \{0\}$, where $n$ is a prime. If $2$ is a primitive root modulo $n$, then by definition, the orbit $ \{ 2^k \; {\rm mod} \; n \; \}$ covers the multiplicative group $Z_n^*$ and the graph is connected. If $2$ is not a primitive root, then there exists $x$ for which the discrete logarithm problem $2^k = x \; {\rm mod} \; n$ has no solution. The graph is not connected.
[**Remarks.**]{}\
[**1)**]{} It is an open problem to determine the fraction of the set of primes is for which $2$ is a primitive root. Among the first $n=10^6$ primes, 374023 have this property. A conjecture of Artin implies that this probability should converge to the [**Artin constant**]{} $\prod_{p \; {\rm prime}} (1-1/(p (p-1))) = 0.3739558...$.\
[**2)**]{} There are analogous results, when $2$ is replaced with an other prime. What matters for prime $n$ whether $a$ is a primitive root in the field $Z_n$ or not.
Given a finite set $P$ of primes, we call the set of all products $\{ \prod_{p_i \in P} p_i^{n_i} \; | \; n_i \geq 0 \; \}$ the set of all [**$P$-smooth numbers**]{}. If $P$ is the set of $P$-smooth numbers, lets call the set $P \cup 2P$ the set of [**double $P$-smooth numbers**]{}. If $a$ is an integer, we call the set of numbers which have only prime factors from $a$ to be [**$a$-smooth** ]{}. Similarly, if $a,b$ are integers, the set of numbers which have only prime factors from $a,b$ are called $(a,b)$-smooth.
Double smooth numbers appear as the “connectivity locus” in the case $x \to 3x+1$: the graph is connected for $n=1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 27, 54, 81, \dots $ which is the set of double $\{3\}$ -smooth numbers, numbers which are a power of $3$ or twice a power of $3$. We do not have a complete picture yet but state only:
The set of $n$ which are connected for $T(x)=ax+b$ is a subset of all $\{ a,a-1 \; \}$ smooth numbers. \[lemma2\]
If $q$ is a prime factor of $n$ which does not divide $a-1$, then the graph is not connected: there is a congruence class modulo $q$ which is a fixed point of $T$. The reason is that $a x+b = x \; {\rm mod}(q)$ has a solution $x=-b (a-1)^{-1}$. For example, if $T(x) = 5x+1$ and $n=21$ which has a factor $q=3$, then the congruence class $2$ modulo $3$ is a fixed point of $T$. Since this congruence class is invariant, the graph is not connected. If $a$ divides $n$, then $n=k a$ and $T^a$ produces a translation on $Z_q$ and there is a chance that we have several graphs. If $a$ is prime and does not divide $n$,
Here are some results, where we denote by $(p_1,...,p_n)$ the $P=\{p_1,...,p_n\}$ smooth numbers and by $(2^*,p_1,..p_n)$ the double $P$ smooth numbers. We computed the table by constructing the graphs, seeing which are connected and matching it with $P$ smooth sequences.
$b=0$ $b=1$ $b=2$ $b=3$ $b=4$ $b=5$ $b=6$
------- --------- ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ---------
$a=2$ $(2)$ $(2)$
$a=3$ $(3)$ $(2^*,3)$ $(3)$
$a=4$ $(2)$ $(2,3)$ $(2,3)$ $(2)$
$a=5$ $(5)$ $(2,5)$ $(5)$ $(2,5)$ $(5)$
$a=6$ $(2,3)$ $(2,3,5)$ $(2,3,5)$ $(2,3,5)$ $(2,3,5)$ $(2,3)$
$a=7$ $(7)$ $(2^*,3,7)$ $(3,7)$ $(2^*,7)$ $(3,7)$ $(2^*,3,7)$ $(7)$
$a=8$ $(2)$ $(2,7)$ $(2,7)$ $(2,7)$ $(2,7)$ $(2,7)$ $(2,7)$
We always get smoothness sequences or double smoothness sequences involving the prime factors of $a$ and $a-1$. For $T(x)=px$ with prime $p$, we have connectivity for $\{p\}$-smooth numbers $\{p,p^2,p^3, ... \}$. For $T(x)=px+1$ with prime $p$ we have connectivity for $\{p,(p-1)\}$ smooth numbers if $p-1$ is divisible by $4$ and double $\{p,P(p-1) \setminus \{2\} \}$-smooth numbers if $p-1$ is divisible by $2$.\
We should also look at the case $a=1$. Now $T^k(x) = x+k b$ and the graph is connected if and only if $b$ has no common divisor with $n$. If $R=Z_n^m$ and $T(\vec{x}) = x+ k \vec{b}$, then the graph is connected if all $b_i$ have no common divisor with $n$. This is the Chinese remainder theorem.
Quadratic maps and Fermat primes
================================
An other simple example of a dynamically generated graph is obtained with $T(x)=x^2$ on $Z_n$. In [@WolframState1], this is attributed to a suggestion of Stan Wagon. How many components does the graph have? We see that for $n=2^k$ with $k \in N$, there are two components, the even and odd numbers.
A prime of the form $n=2^{2^k}+1$ is called a [**Fermat prime**]{}.
The graph on $Z_n^*$ is connected if and only if $n=2$ or if $n$ is a Fermat prime $n=2^{2^k}+1$.
If $n$ is not prime $n=pq$, then the orbit of $x=p$ has the property that every point $T^k(x)$ is divisible by $p$ modulo $n$ and the graph is not connected. We can therefore assume that $n$ is a prime. This allows find a primitive root $a$ and write $Z_n^* = \{a^k\}$. If $n$ is a Fermat prime, then the graph is a tree centered at $1$. The elements $1$ and the quadratic non residues have one neighbor, while the quadratic residues have $3$ neighbors $x^2, \pm \sqrt{x}$. If $n$ is not a Fermat prime, then $n-1$ is not a power $2$ and has therefore a factor $q$ different from a power of $2$. We look now on the dynamics of the system $x \to 2x$ modulo $q 2^l$. We have seen in Lemma (\[lemma1\]) that the graph is connected if and only if $q=1$. In other words, the graph is connected if and only if $n$ is a Fermat prime.
The only Fermat primes known are $F_0,F_1,F_2,F_3,F_4$. It would be interesting to know the Euler characteristic of the graphs $G_n$ generated by $T(x)=x^2$ on $Z_n$. The list of Euler characteristics starts with $$1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 6, 4, 2, 2, 6, 3, 4, 6, 4, 2, ... \; .$$ The graphs do not need to be simply connected. An example is $G_{59}$, a case with $3$ components and one large cycle. To get triangles, we have to solve $((x^2)^2)^2=x^8=x$ which is only possible if $x-0$ or $x^7-1$ is a multiple of $n$. Indeed, for $n=127$ we get the first such graph with $2$ triangles. Since graphs generated by one map never has a tetrahedron, the Euler characteristic of a graph $G_n$ is $v-e+f$, where $v$ is the number of vertices, $e$ the number of edges and $f$ the number of triangles.\
If we take $T(x)=x^3$, we see no nontrivial graphs with $1$ or $2$ components. Graphs with $n=3^k$ have three components. For $T(x)=x^n$ with even $n$ we have the same list of graphs with $2$ components as in the case of $n=2$. For $n=5$, the list of integers on which $T(x)=x^5$ has a graph with $3$ components starts with $3,4,11,251, \dots $.\
In the case $T(x) = 2^x$, the distribution of the number of components is smaller and we measure about $M/\log(M)$ graphs among all graphs with $n=1,\dots ,M$ which have one component. Now, we can ask for which $n$ the graphs generated by $x \to 2^x$ are connected.
A class of Collatz type networks
================================
This example is inspired by the famous Collatz $3x+1$ problem, a “prototypical example of an extremely simple to state, extremely hard to solve, problem” to cite [@lagarias]. It deals with two maps: a number $n$ is divided by $2$ if it is even and mapped to $3n+1$ if it is odd. The problem is whether every starting point converges to $1$ when applying this rule. We can look at networks generated by affine maps $T(x) = 2x$ and $S(x) = 3x+1$ on $Z_n$, disregarding the conditioning and ask about the structure of this network. Of course, we can not expect any trivial relations with the Collatz problem any more. The graphs look surprisingly random. It is the non-commutativity of the monoid generated by $T,S$ as well as the conditional application of these two maps which makes the original Collatz problem difficult. When the graph is generated by $T(2x+1)=6x+4, T(2x)=2x, S(2x)=x/2,
S(2x+1)=x$, then this leads to the Collatz graph which is believed to be a tree. Note that the original Collatz problem is generated by one map. We look at the two affine maps unconditionally.
We see experimentally that all networks $C_n$ on $Z_n^*$ generated by the dynamical system $(Z_n,T(x)=3x+1,S(x)=2x)$ are connected. This is not related to the Collatz problem, where connections are only done under conditions leading to a digraph called Collatz graph which if the Collatz conjecture is true, is a connected tree. The connectivity question is interesting for general affine maps. For $d \geq 2$-dimensional graphs, non-connectivity (ignoring the isolated vertex $0$) is more rare but still can happen. For the graph generated by $5x+2,3x+1$ for example, we have for prime $n$ about $2/3$ connected graphs and $1/3$ disconnected; the number of connected components looks exponentially distributed. For the graph generated by $5x+1,3x+1$ we appear to have connectivity for all primes.\
The connectivity question can be seen as a non-commutative Chinese remainder theorem problem because we want to solve $T^{n_1} S^{n_2} \dots T_{n_k} S_{n_k} x = y$. In the commutative case, this reduces to $T^n S^m x = y$. An example is $T(x) = a x$ and $S(x)=bx$ where the maps commute. It is enough to assure that for every $x$ we can find $u,v$ such that $a^u b^v = x {\rm mod}(n)$. If either $a$ or $b$ is a primitive root of unity, then $b=a^l$ and we have the problem to solve $a^{u+lv} = x$, which is no problem already for $v=0$.\
Here is an amusing fact for Collatz networks:
All Collatz networks $C_n = (Z_n,2x,3x+1)$ have exactly $4$ triangles if $n$ is prime and larger than $17$.
Since $Z_p$ is a field if $n=p$ is prime, a linear equation modulo a prime can be solved in a unique way. Let $T(x)=2x$ and $S(x)=3x+1$. Since $T^3(x)=8x=x$ has only the solution $x=0$ and $S^3(x) = 13+27x=x$ has a unique solution which is already a solution of $S(x)=x$, we see that every triangle must be formed with $2$ maps $T$ and one map $S$ or two maps $S$ and one map $T$. In each of the four possible cases $T^2(S(x))$ and $T(S(T(x))$ and $S^2 T(x)$ $STS(x))$ we have exactly one solution. Now for small primes, there are either less or more solutions. For $n=13$ for example, the equation $S^3(x)=x$ is solved by any $x$. There are $6$ triangles. The combinations of three maps from $T,S,T^{-1},S^{-1}$ produces $4^3=64$ possible polynomials. The largest coefficient which appears is $27$. For $p>27$ there are exactly $4$ solutions. We check by hand that also for $p=19,23$, there are exactly $4$ solutions.
[**Remark**]{}. This result is neither special nor universal. The dynamical graph generated by $2x+1,3x+1$ also has $4$ triangles for prime $n>17$. Similarly, the graph generated by $5x+1,3x+1$, but the one generated by $T(x)=5x+2,S(x) =3x+1$ has no triangles for prime $n>37$. Why? For $n=41$ for example, we have $T(S(T(20))=20$ but also $T(20)=20$ and $S(20)=20$. For prime $n$, the point $(n-1)/2$ is a fixed point of both $T$ and $S$ so that $x,T(x),S(T(x))$ is not a triangle but a point. What about non-prime $n$? It can be subtle for $n=pq$ already, where we can see different numbers of triangles.\
The statistics of the Collatz networks on $Z_n$ generated by $T(x)=3x+1,S(x)=2x$ is typical among other dynamical networks. We see that the mean path length-mean cluster coefficient relation $\lambda(C_n) = - \mu(C_n)/\log(\nu(C_n))$ converges for $n \to \infty$. The dimension of the Collatz graphs converges to $1$ for $n \to \infty$ as the number of triangles are rare. It would be nice to know the exact number of triangles in the general case (not only for primes). This might gives hope that we might be able to compute the Euler characteristic of $C_n$ exactly.
Arithmetic functions
====================
The map $T(x) = \sigma(x)-x$ gives the sum of the proper divisors of $x$. Fixed points of $T$ are called [**perfect numbers**]{}. While the structure of even perfect numbers is known it is an ancient problem whether there are odd perfect numbers. Periodic points of period $2$ are [**amicable numbers**]{}. It is not known whether there are infinitely many. The dynamical system generated by $T$ on ${\mathbb{Z}}$ is the Dickson dynamical system [@dicksonI]. We call the graphs on $Z_n$ generated by $T$ Dickson graphs. Their topological properties depend on number theoretical properties. We can now play with other graphs like graphs generated by $T(x)$ and $S(x)=x+1$.
As the Dickson dynamical system illustrates, questions involving the iteration of arithmetic functions can be difficult. The oldest known open problem in mathematics is related to it.
Pierpont primes
===============
One of the simplest nonlinear cases with two dimensional time is $T(x) = x^2$ and $S(x) = x^3$ on $Z_n$. This is a case where the monoid is commutative. One can ask, for which $n$, the graph on $\{2, \dots, n-1\}$ generated by $x^2,x^3$ is connected. This can be answered because $T(x) = x^2$ and $S(x)=x^3$ commute. We have $T^n(S^m(x)) = x^{2^n 3^m}$.
A prime $n$ is called a Pierpont prime if is of the form $2^t 3^s+1$, where $s,t$ are integers.
The list of Pierpont primes starts with $$2,3,5,7,13,17,19,37,73,97,109,163,193,257,433,487,577, ... \; .$$ It is unknown whether there are infinitely many. Gleason has shown that these primes play an important role with ruler, compass and angle trisection [@gleason88]. He was also the first to conjecture that there are infinitely many Pierpont primes. Here is an elementary proposition which illustrates the relation between arithmetic and graph theory:
The graph on $Z_n^*$ generated $T(x)=x^2$ and $S(x)=x^3$ is connected if and only if $n$ is a Pierpont prime.
If $n=pq$, then any multiple of $p$ will remain a multiple of $p$ after applying $T$ or $S$. This implies that the graph is not connected. We therefore need that $n$ is prime. If $n$ is prime, then the multiplicative group of $Z_n$ is cyclic. A generator is a primitive root. We can now look at indices (discrete logarithms) and get maps $x \to 2x$ and $x \to 3x$ on the multiplicative group $\{1, \dots ,n-1 \; \}$. Either $n$ is even and equal to $2$ in which it is a Pierpont prime or $n$ is odd and of the form $2^t k + 1$, where $k$ is an integer. The proof is concluded with two things: (i) if $k=3^s$, then the graph is connected. (ii) If $k$ has a factor different from $2$ and $3$, then the graph is disconnected. Part (i) is clear because the maps $U(x) = 2x, V(x) = 3x$ on $Z_{n-1} = Z_{2^t 3^s}$ eventually lead to $0$ modulo $2^t 3^s$, showing that the graph is connected. Part (ii) follows from Lemma (\[lemma2\]).
This can be generalized. For example a graph generated by $x^2,x^5$ is connected if and only if the primes are of the form $2^t 5^u+1$. The sequence of these primes is $2,3,5,11,17,41,101,...$.\
Rings with more structure
=========================
Lets take the non-commutative ring $R=M(2,Z_n)$. If $T(x)=x^2$, then since diagonal matrices are left invariant by $T$ we can not have one component but have at least two components in the graph. We need a Fermat prime $n$ to have two components.
Lets stay with $M(2,Z_n)$ and consider maps $T_i(x) = x^2 +c_i$. The networks generated like that look more complex but the statistics is not much different than in the commutative case.
We can also look at polynomial rings $R[x]/(p)$ where $p$ is a polynomial.
More generally, one can look at small rings. For example, there are 11 rings of size $4$.\
Finally, we can look at transformations of the finite vector space $Z_p^n$. A natural choice are [**elementary cellular automata**]{}. With the Wolfram numbering for the 256 possible rules, we have for every $n$ a parameter space with $2^{16}$ elements. We see experimentally that for some parameters, the connectivity fluctuates with $n$ while for others, the connectivity stays. We could explore this however only for $n \leq 25$ because this produces already graphs with number of entries reaching the human population on earth.
Five Mandelbrot Problems
========================
Here are five connectivity problems which are unsettled at the moment but look accessible.\
We have seen that $n$ is a (double) $P$ smooth number where $P$ is a subset of the union of primes of $a$ and $a-1$.\
We have checked this at the moment only for all graphs up to $n=200'000$ nodes.\
We have seen that if $a=2$ and $n$ is a Fermat prime, then the graph is connected because it is already connected for one transformation. An example is $n=257, a=5, b=56$.\
An example of a connected graph is obtained for $n=5$ with $A = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 2 \\ 2 & 4 \\ \end{array} \right]$.
For every $n$ there are $2^{16}$ possible graphs. One can ask whether we have for fixed $a,b$ convergence of the number of connectivity components when $n \to \infty$. This seems to be the case for $a=101,b=110$. For other pairs like $a=3,b=4$ we see fluctuations in $n$ which seem to depend on the prime factorization of $n$ at least for the $n$ in which we can construct the graphs like $n \leq 25$.
Pictures
========
The following pictures have been produced with code we will submit to a demonstration project allowing readers to draw the graphs on their own. In the mean time the code is also available on the project website.
[10]{}
A-L. Barabasi. . Perseus Books Group, 2002.
B. Bollob[á]{}s, R. Kozma, and D. Mikl[ó]{}s, editors. , volume 18 of [ *Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies*]{}. Springer, Berlin, 2009.
S. Bornholdt and H. Schuster, editors. . Viley-VCH, 2003.
M. Buchanan. . W.W. Norton and Company, 2002.
N. Christakis and J.H. Fowler. . Little, Brown and Company, 2009.
R. Cohen and S. Havlin. . Cambridge University Press, 2010.
L.E. Dickson. Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1966.
D. Easley and Jon Kleinberg. . Cambridge University Press, 2010.
M. Franceschetti and R. Meester. . Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. From statistical physics to information systems.
M. Ghachem and O. Knill. Deterministic [Watts-Strogatz]{} type graphs. Preliminary notes, 2013.
M. Ghachem and O. Knill. Simple rules for natural networks. Preliminary notes, 2013.
Andrew M. Gleason. Angle trisection, the heptagon, and the triskaidecagon. , 95(3):185–194, 1988.
J.E. Goodman and J. O’Rourke. . Chapman and Hall, CRC, 2004.
S. Goyal. . Princeton University Press, 2007.
O.C. Ibe. . Wiley, 2011.
M.O. Jackson. . Princeton University Press, 2010.
O. Knill. . Overseas Press, 2009.
J.C. Lagarias. The [$3x+1$]{} problem: an overview. In [*The ultimate challenge: the [$3x+1$]{} problem*]{}, pages 3–29. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2010.
D. Watts M. Newman, A-L. Barab[á]{}si, editor. . Princeton Studies in Complexity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.
M.E.J. Newman. . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010. An introduction.
III O.E. Lanford. Informal remarks on the orbit structure of discrete approximations to chaotic maps. , 7(4):317–324, 1998.
F. Rannou. Étude numérique de transformations planes discrètes conservant les aires. In [*Transformations ponctuelles et leurs applications ([C]{}olloq. [I]{}nternat. [CNRS]{}, [N]{}o. 229, [T]{}oulouse, 1973)*]{}, pages 107–122, 138. Éditions Centre Nat. Recherche Sci., Paris, 1976. With discussion.
H. Riesel. , volume 57 of [*Progress in Mathematics*]{}. Boston Inc., 1985.
H-W. Shen. . Springer Theses. Springer, Heidelberg, 2013.
S. H. Strogatz. . Hyperion, 2003.
M. van Steen. . Maarten van Steen, ISBN: 778-90-815406-1-2, 2010.
F. Vivaldi. Algebraic number theory and [H]{}amiltonian chaos. In [*Number theory and physics ([L]{}es [H]{}ouches, 1989)*]{}, volume 47 of [*Springer Proc. Phys.*]{}, pages 294–301. Springer, Berlin, 1990.
S. Wasserman and K. Faust. . Cambridge University Press, 1994.
D. J. Watts. . Princeton University Press, 1999.
D. J. Watts. . W. W. Norton and Company, 2003.
D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz. Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks. , 393:440–442, 1998.
S. Wolfram. State transition diagrams for modular powers. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/StateTransitionDiagramsForModularPowers/, 2007.
S. Wolfram. Cellular automata state transition diagrams. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/CellularAutomatonStateTransitionDiagrams, 2008.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
by J. Klusoň\
Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics\
Faculty of Science, Masaryk University\
Kotlářská 2, 611 37, Brno\
Czech Republic\
E-mail:
title: 'D-Branes from N Non-BPS D0-Branes'
---
Introduction {#first}
============
In the recent years there was a significant progress in the understanding of the unstable configurations in superstring theories. This work has been pioneered with the seminar papers by A. Sen [@SenP]. It was argued in [@witen; @Horava] that all D-branes can arise as solitonic solutions in the world-volume theory of the unstable configurations of D-branes. (For review of the relation between K-theory and D-branes, see [@Olsen], for recent discussion, see [@witen2; @Matsuo; @Moore].)
Evidence for this proposal was given from the analysis of CFT description of this system [@SenP], for review of this approach, see [@Lerda; @Schwarz]. It was also shown on many examples that string field theory approach to this problem is very effective one which allows to calculate tachyon potential [@SenFT1; @SenFT2; @BerkovitzFT1; @HarveyFT; @SenFT3; @TaylorFT; @KochFT; @Desmet; @NaqviFT; @SenFT4; @DavidFT; @WittenFT; @RasteliFT; @SenFT5; @TaylorFT2; @KochFT2; @NaqviFT2]. Recently this problem was also studied from the point of view of the Witten’s background independent open string field theory [@WittenBT; @WittenBT1; @WittenBT2; @ShatasviliBT; @ShatasviliBT1; @ShatasviliBT2; @MooreBT; @SenBT]. Success of string field theory in the analysis of tachyon condensation indicates that string field theory could play more fundamental role in the nonperturbative formulation of string theory.
The second approach to the problem of tachyon condensation is based on the noncommutative geometry [@WittenNG]. This analysis has been inspired with the seminal paper [@StromingerA]. Application of this approach to the problem of the tachyon condensation was pioneered in [@Gopakumar; @Harvey]. This research was then developed in other papers [@Harvey2; @Strominger2; @Rey; @Matsuo; @SenTP; @Mukhi].
In this paper we would like to discuss the problem of the tachyon condensation from slightly different point of view. We would like to show that nontrivial tachyon condensation is also possible in the action for $N$ non-BPS D0-branes, which results in the emergence of higher dimensional BPS and non-BPS D-branes in the process similar to the emergence of higher dimensional branes in Matrix theory [@BanksM; @Banks] (For review, see [@Taylor; @BanksR1; @BanksR2; @Taylor2].). However, there is an important difference. In matrix theory we work with the exact form of the action and with the maximal supersymmetric theory which allows to obtain exact result. On the other hand, we do not know exactly the form of a non-BPS D-brane action which can be guessed only on some general grounds. Possible form of this action was proposed in seminal paper [@SenNA], other attempts to define this action appeared in [@KlusonP; @KlusonP1; @KlusonP2; @Garousi; @Bergshoff; @Kluson]. We also study system with maximally broken supersymmetry so that the analysis is much more difficult. However, we still believe that our approach is useful since it presents an evidence of the emergence of higher dimensional D-branes from lower dimensional ones thanks to the tachyon condensation. As we will see the resulting configurations carry the correct RR charges which allows us to expect that these solutions are well defined.
We start in the section (\[second\]) with discussion of the bosonic form of the action for $N$ non-BPS D9-branes. Then we use T-duality transformation, following [@Garousi], in order to obtain an action for $N$ non-BPS D0-branes.
In section (\[third\]) we will discuss possible applications of this action. Since we do not know the exact form of this action, we restrict ourselves only to the linear approximation. We also show that the whole action (without restriction to the linear approximation) contains the solution corresponding to collection of non-BPS D0-branes. We also show that this action has a solution corresponding to the tensionless D0-branes, discussed recently in the case of noncommutative field theories [@Gopakumar; @Harvey].
In sections (\[fourth\]) and (\[fifth\]) we will show that from the collection of $N$ non-BPS D-branes we can obtain all BPS and non-BPS D-branes in the limit $N\rightarrow
\infty$ when we can replace infinite dimensional matrices with operators acting on some abstract Hilbert space. We will proceed in the same way as in the study of tachyon condensation in noncommutative theories [@Gopakumar; @Harvey; @Strominger2] and we will show that these D-branes carry nonzero RR-charge thanks to the existence of generalised Wess-Zumino term [@Mayers].
In the next section we start with the action for non-BPS D0-branes, which can be obtained from the action for non-BPS D9-branes through T-duality transformation.
Non-BPS D-brane action {#second}
======================
In this section we will discuss the possible form of the action for $N$ non-BPS D-branes, following the seminal paper [@SenNA]. Similar discussions were presented in [@KlusonP; @KlusonP1; @KlusonP2; @Garousi; @Bergshoff].
We start with the most general form [^1] of the action for $N$ non-BPS D9-branes in the form $$\label{Action}
S=-\frac{C_9}{g_s}\int d^{10}x \str\left(\sqrt{
-\det(E_{\mu\nu}+\lambda F_{\mu\nu})}
\left[\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}f_n(T^2)(
\lambda E^{\mu\nu}
D_{\mu}T D_{\nu}T)^n+V(T) \right]\right) \ ,$$ where $$\lambda=2\pi\alpha', C_p
=\sqrt{2}T_p, T_p=\frac{2\pi}
{(4\pi^2\alpha')^{(p+1)/2}}$$ and $$E_{\mu\nu}=G_{\mu\nu}+B_{\mu\nu},
\ D_{\mu}T=\partial_{\mu}T+i[A_{\mu},T] , \
F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}+
i[A_{\mu},A_{\nu}] , \ \mu,\nu=0,\dots,9 \ .$$ The gauge field $A_{\mu}$ belongs to the adjoint representation of the gauge group $U(N)$. Finally, $V(T)$ is the potential for the tachyon. We do not know much about functions $f_n(T^2)$ with exception that should be even functions of its argument [@SenNA]. There is also one intriguing conjecture [@Garousi; @Bergshoff] which says that these functions could be equal to the tachyon potential and consequently should be equal to zero for $T^2=T_{min}^2$, where $T_{min}$ is a tachyon value at the local minimum. In this paper we will suppose that these functions do not need directly equal to $V(T)$ but we will assume that they are zero for $T=T_{min}$ and also that they obey $\frac{df_n(T)}{dT}=0$ for $T=T_{min}$. In other words, we expect these functions in the form $$f_n(T^2)=\sum_{m=1}b_{nm}(T^2-T_{min}^2)^m \ .$$ Then the kinetic term has a form $$\sum_{n=1}\sum_{m=1}b_{nm}(T^2-T_{min}^2)^m
(\lambda E^{\mu\nu}D_{\mu}TD_{\nu}T)^n \ .$$ In (\[Action\]) the $\str $ means the symmetrised trace [@Tseytlin] $ \str(A_1,\dots,A_n)=\frac{1}{n!}(\tr A_1\dots
A_n+ permutations)$. In this trace we consider the field strength $F$ and covariant derivative $DT$ as a single object as well as $(T^2-T_{min}^2)$, otherwise we could not obtain the result that the action is equal to zero for $T=T_{min}$. The prescription for including the symmetrised trace was suggested in [@Tseytlin]. The evidence for this proposal was further given in [@TaylorM; @TaylorM2]. We must also stress one important thing. It seams to us that the tachyon potential should appear as a single object in the action (as for example a covariant derivative) in order to obtain from the action the correct value of the tachyon ground state and also in order to obey the requirement that for the tachyon equal to its vacuum value the action should vanish. When we used the potential as a matrix valued function, than the symmetrised trace would lead to the different arrangements of the various terms from the tachyon potential and we do not know how we could get a sensible result.
In order to obtain the action for lower dimensional D-brane, we use T-duality in the same manner as in [@Garousi; @Mayers]. Let us consider T-duality on a set of directions denoted with $i,j=p+1,\dots,9$. The fields transform as [@Giveon] $$\label{Trule}
\tilde{E}_{ab}=E_{ab}-
E_{ai}E^{ij}E_{jb}, \
\tilde{E}_{aj}=E_{ak}E^{kj},
\ \tilde{E}_{ij}=E^{ij} , $$ where $a,b=0,1,\dots,p$ and $E^{ij}$ denotes the inverse of $E_{ij}$, i.e., $E_{ik}E^{kj}=
\delta_i^j$. One also has a dilation transformation $$\label{Tdilaton}
e^{2\tilde{\phi}}=e^{2\phi}\det (
E^{ij}) \ .$$ Now T-duality acts to change the dimension of D-brane world-volume. We have two possibilities: If a coordinates transverse to Dp-brane, e.g. $y=x^{p+1}$ is T-dualised, it becomes D(p+1)-brane where $y$ is now extra world-volume dimension. If a coordinate on the world-volume of Dp-brane is T-dualised, e.g. $y=x^p$, it becomes D(p-1)-brane where $y$ is now extra transverse dimension. In the first case, we have a rule for transformation of the world-volume fields $$\Phi^{p+1} \Rightarrow A_{p+1} \ ,$$ and in the second case $$A_{y} \Rightarrow \Phi^y \ .$$ In the second case, the corresponding field strength transforms as $$F_{ay} \Rightarrow D_a\Phi^y \ .$$ In the T-duality transformation along the world-volume coordinate $x^p$ we presume that all field are independent on this coordinate $$\partial_p \Psi =0 \ .$$ However, this rule does not imply that $D_{x^p}\Psi$ is equal to zero, rather we obtain $$D_p\Psi \Rightarrow i[\Phi^p,\Psi ] \ .$$ Now we are ready to discuss the action for non-BPS Dp-brane. We obtain this action from (\[Action\]) applying T-duality transformations in $p+1,\dots, 9$ dimensions, following [@Garousi; @Mayers]. We will discuss the term $$\tilde{D}=\det (\tilde{E}_{\mu\nu}+\lambda F_{\mu\nu}) \ .$$ With using (\[Trule\]) we get $$D=\det \left(\begin{array}{cc}
E_{ab}-E_{ak}E^{kj}E_{jb}+
\lambda F_{ab} &
E_{ak}E^{kj}+\lambda D_a \Phi^j \nonumber \\
-E^{ik}E_{kb}-\lambda D_b\Phi^i &
E^{ij}+i\lambda [\Phi^i,\Phi^j]
\nonumber \\
\end{array}\right) \ .$$ When we use the mathematical formula $$\det \left (\begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\
C & D \\ \end{array}\right)=
\det \left(\begin{array}{cc}
A-BD^{-1}C & B \\
0 & D \\ \end{array}\right)=
\det( A-BD^{-1}C)\det(D) \ ,$$ we obtain [@Mayers] $$D=\det \left(P\left[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(X^{ij}-\delta^{ij})E_{jb}\right]
\right)\det(Q^{i}_m)\det(E^{mj}) \ ,$$ where we have defined $$Q^{ij}=E^{ij}+i\lambda [\Phi^i,\Phi^j] \ ,
P[E_{ab}]=E_{ab}+2\lambda E_{ai}D_b\Phi^i+
\lambda^2E_{ij}D_a\Phi^iD_b\Phi^j \ ,$$ and $$X^{kl}=E^{ki}(Q)^{-1}_{ij}E^{jl} \ .$$ We have also used $$\det (Q^{ij})=\det(Q^{im}E_{mk}
E^{kj})=\det (Q^i_m)\det(E^{mj}) \ .$$ The analysis of $F$ function in (\[Action\]) is straightforward and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ftdual}
F=V(T)-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}f_n(T)\lambda^n
\left((E^{ab}-E^{ai}E_{ij}E^{jb})D_aTD_bT
+\right.\nonumber \\
\left. +2iE^{ak}E_{kj}[\Phi^j,T]D_aT-
E_{ij}[\Phi^i,T][\Phi^j,T]\right)^n \ .\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ With using (\[Tdilaton\]) we obtain the action for non-BPS Dp-brane $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action2}
S=-\frac{C_p}{g_s}\int d^{p+1}\sigma\str\left(\sqrt{-
\det(P[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(X^{ij}-\delta^{ij})
E_{jb}]}\sqrt{\det Q^i_j}F(T,DT,\dots)\right) \ . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$
Applications {#third}
============
In this section we will discuss the various applications of the previous action. We will work with the non-abelian action for $N$ non-BPS D0-branes in Type IIB theory. Thanks to gauge invariance, we can pose $A_0=0$. Than the covariant derivative is $D_t\Phi=
\dot{\Phi}$. We will work in the flat space-time background $$E_{ab}=\eta_{ab}, \ a,b=0, \
E^{ij}=\delta^{ij}, \ i,j=1,\dots,9 \ .$$ Then we have $$Q^{ij}=\delta^{ij}+i\lambda [\Phi^i,\Phi^j] \ ,$$ $$P[E_{ab}]=-1+\lambda^2(\dot{\Phi}^i)^2 \ ,$$ $$P[E_{ai}X^{ij}E_{jb}]=\lambda^2\dot{\Phi}^k
\delta_{ki}X^{ij}\delta_{jl}\dot{\Phi}^l \ ,$$ and finally $$\label{PE}
P[E_{ab}+E_{ai}(X^{ij}-\delta^{ij})E_{jb}]=
-1+\lambda^2(\dot{\Phi}^i)^2+\lambda^2
\dot{\Phi}^k\delta_{ki}(X^{ij}-\delta^{ij})\delta_{jl}
\dot{\Phi}^l \ .$$ We will work in the leading order in $\lambda$ in which the previous expression reduces into $$-1+\lambda^2(\dot{\Phi}^i)^2$$ and $F(T,\dots)$ in the leading order approximation has a form $$\label{TD0}
F=V(T)+f(T)\lambda \dot{T}\dot{T}
+\lambda f(T)\delta_{ij}[\Phi^i,T][\Phi^j,T] \ .$$ Using these results we obtain the action for $N$ non-BPS D0-branes in the leading order approximation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{actD0}
S=\frac{C_0}{g_s}\int dt
\str \left(-V(T)+\frac{\lambda}{2}\dot{\Phi}^i
\dot{\Phi}^j\delta_{ij}-\frac{\lambda^2}{4}
\delta_{kl}\delta_{mi}[\Phi^i,\Phi^k]
[\Phi^l,\Phi^m]V(T) \right. + \nonumber \\
\left. +\lambda f(T)\dot{T}\dot{T}+
\lambda f(T)\delta_{ij}[\Phi^i,T][\Phi^j,T] \right) \ .
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ In what follows we will consider static configurations only, when all fields are time independent. Then the action is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Npot}
S=-\frac{C_0}{g_s}\int dt \mathcal{V}(T,\Phi) \ , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{V}(T,\Phi)=\str \left(
V(T)+\frac{\lambda^2}{4}[\Phi^i,\Phi^j]
[\Phi^j,\Phi^i]V(T)-\lambda f(T)[\Phi^i,T]
[\Phi^i,T] \right) \ . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ We will also consider the coupling of the non-BPS D-brane to the external RR field. This term was calculated in [@Billo] for single non-BPS D-brane and we have generalised this term for $N$ non-BPS D-branes in [@KlusonP1; @KlusonP2]. Applying T-duality rules on these terms give complicated expression which was discussed recently in [@Janssen]. However in this paper we will discuss only the leading order term which for non-BPS D0-branes has a form $$\label{WZcal}
\frac{\mu_{-1}}{2T_{min}}\int dt \str P\left[
e^{i\lambda\I_{\Phi}\I_{\Phi}}\left(\dot{T}+i[\I_{\Phi},T]\right)
\sum_n C^{(n)}\right] \ ,$$ where $P$ is a pull-back to the world-volume of D0-brane and $\I_{\Phi}$ is the interior product [@Nakahara]. Acting on forms, the interior product is an anticommuting operator of form degree $-1$, e. g., $$\begin{aligned}
C^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}C_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}
dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu} \ , \nonumber \\
\I_{v}C^{(2)}=v^{\mu}C_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}dx^{\nu} \ ,
\nonumber \\
\I_{w}\I_{v}=w^{\nu}v^{\mu}C_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}=
-\I_{v}\I_{w}C^{(2)} \ .\end{aligned}$$ We will see that this Wess-Zumino term (WZ) correctly reproduces the charges of higher dimensional D-branes arising from tachyon condensation on the system of $N$ non-BPS D0-branes.
We start with simple examples of tachyon condensation which are the solutions of the whole action as well. The first one is [@Harvey2] $$T=T_{min}(1-P_k)=
\mathrm{diag} (0,\dots, 0^k, T_{min},\dots,T_{min}^{N-k}), \
\Phi^i=0 \ ,$$ where $P_k$ is a projector on the fist $k$ states which has the form $P_k=\mathrm{diag}(1,\dots,1^k)$. It is easy to see that this is a solution of the equation of motion since all commutators vanish (we do not need presume the condition $f_n(T_{min})=0$) and also it is easy to see that $\frac{dV}{dT}=0$. The energy of this configuration is equal to $$E=\frac{C_0}{g_s}\str V(T)=\frac{C_0}{g_s}\tr V(T)=
\frac{C_0}{g_s}k \ ,$$ where we have used $V(0)=1$ [@SenFT1]. This is the rest energy of $k$ non-BPS D0-branes. However, there is also one nontrivial solution corresponding to tensionless D0-branes [@Harvey2] $$\label{tensionless}
T=T_{min}(1-2P_k)=
\mathrm{diag}(-T_{min},\dots,-T_{min}^k,T_{min},
\dots, T_{min}^{N-k}), \ \Phi^i=0 \ .$$ As in the previous solution commutators are equal to zero and the variation of the potential gives $$\frac{\delta V(T)}{\delta T}=
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n a_n 2T(T^2-T_{min}^2)^{n-1} \ ,$$ since we can presume that the potential has a form $V(T)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n (T^2-T_{min}^2)^n$. Then we can immediately see that (\[tensionless\]) is a solution which is a extreme of the potential since $$T_{min}^2(1-2P_k)^2=T_{min}^2 \ .$$ The energy of this configuration is equal to $$E=\frac{C_0}{g_s}\tr V(T)=0 \ ,$$ since $T^2=T_{min}^21_{N\times N}$. What is a physical meaning of this object? We think that this object is equivalent to the tensionless D0-branes discovered recently in [@Gopakumar; @Harvey] in the framework of noncommutative theory. It was argued in [@Harvey2] that these objects are gauge equivalent to the vacuum. The same problem was discussed in [@WittenFT]. We see that we can obtain tensionless D0-brane in our approach. It would be very interesting to study fluctuation around this solution. We hope to return to this puzzle in the future.
D1-brane {#fourth}
========
In this section we will consider more general solution when $V(T)$ and $f(T)$ does not commute with $\Phi$. Then the equation of motion for $\Phi^i$ has a form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationX2}
\lambda [T,[\Phi^i,T]f(T)]+
\lambda[T,f(T)[\Phi^i,T]]
+\nonumber \\
+\frac{\lambda^2}{2}[\Phi^k,[\Phi^i,\Phi^k]V(T)]+
\frac{\lambda^2}{2}[\Phi^k,V(T)[\Phi^i,\Phi^k]]=0 \ ,\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and the equation of motion for tachyon $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationTf2}
\frac{dV(T)}{dT}\left(1-
\frac{\lambda^2}{4}[\Phi^i,\Phi^j]
[\Phi^i,\Phi^j]\right)-\lambda
\frac{df(T)}{dT}
[\Phi^i,T][\Phi^i,T]
-\nonumber \\
-\lambda\left(
[[\Phi^i,T]f(T),\Phi^i]+
[f(T)[\Phi^i,T],\Phi^i]\right)=0 \ . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ We take an ansatz $$\label{clas}
T=F(\hat{x}_1)=\sum b_n \hat{x}_1^n, \ \Phi^2=
k^{-1}\hat{x}_2, \
[\hat{x}_1,\hat{x}_2]=ik, \
\Phi^i=0, \ i=1,3,\dots,9 \ ,$$ where $F(x)$ approaches $T_{min}$ for $x\rightarrow -\infty$ and $-T_{min}$ for $x\rightarrow \infty$. Then $$[\hat{x}^2_1,\hat{x}_2]=2ik\hat{x}_1 , \
[\hat{x}_1^3,\hat{x}_2]=3ik\hat{x}_1^2,\
\dots, \ [\hat{x}_1^{n},\hat{x}_2]=
nik \hat{x}_1^{n-1} \ .$$ Using this result we obtain $$\label{tachderivative}
[T,\Phi^2]=k^{-1}[\sum_{n}b_n\hat{x}_1^n,
\hat{x}_2]
=i\sum_n b_n \hat{x}_1^{n-1}n
=i\frac{dT}{d\hat{x}_1} \ ,$$ and consequently $$\label{tachderivative2}
[T^2,\Phi^2]=2iT\frac{dT}{d\hat{x}_1} \ ,
[T^4,\Phi^2]=4iT^3\frac{dT}{d\hat{x}_1},
\ \dots, \ [T^{2n},\Phi^2]=i 2n T^{2n-1}
\frac{dT}{d\hat{x}_1} \ .$$ With these results in hand we obtain $$[[\Phi^2,T]f(T),\Phi^2]=\frac{d}{d\hat{x}_1}
(T' f(T))
\ ,
[f(T)[\Phi^2,T],\Phi^2]=\frac{d}{d\hat{x}_1}
(T'f(T)) \ ,$$ where $T'=\frac{dT}{d\hat{x}_1}$. Then the equation of motion for tachyon has a form $$\label{xx}
\frac{dV}{dT}
-\lambda\frac{df}{dT}T'^2
-2\lambda fT''=0 \ .$$ After multiplication with $T'$ we get the result $$\label{garousi}
V'(T(\hat{x}_1))
=(\lambda fT'^2)'
\rightarrow V(T)=\lambda f(T)T'^2 \ ,$$ where the integration constant has been set to zero. In the previous expression we have used $$\label{pp}
(V(T(\hat{x}_1)))'=\sum a_n (T^{2n})'=
\sum a_n 2nT^{2n-1}T'=\frac{dV}{dT}T' \ .$$ The equation of motion for $\Phi^2$ is trivially satisfied since $$[T,[\Phi^2,T]f(T)]=-i[T,T'V(T)]=0 \ .$$ An energy of this solution is $$\label{erg}
E=\frac{C_0}{g_s}\str\mathcal{V}(T)=
2\frac{C_0}{g_s}\tr V(T(\hat{x}_1)) \ ,$$ where we have used (\[garousi\]). Since we do not known the exact form of the $f(T)$ function we cannot determine the tachyon field so that we will work with (\[erg\]) without exact form of the tachyon field $T=
F(\hat{x}_1)$. Note that in this solution we do not need to presume that $T_{min}$ is extreme of $f(T)$ with $f(T_{min})=0$. It seams that this solution is more general one than the solution given in the section (\[third\]).
We must stress one important thing. We work in this section in the limit $N\rightarrow \infty$, when we can replace the matrices with the abstract operators action on Hilbert space, in the same way as in Matrix theory [@BanksM; @Banks; @Taylor; @Taylor2]. Then $\hat{x}_1,\hat{x}_2$ are as the same operators as operators of coordinate and impuls for one particle system in standard quantum mechanics and we can easily calculate the trace in (\[erg\]) $$\begin{aligned}
E=\frac{C_0}{g_s}\tr 2V(T(\hat{x}_1))
=2\frac{C_0}{g_s}\int dx_2\bra{x_2}
V(T(\hat{x}_1))\ket{x_2}=\nonumber \\
=\frac{2C_0}{g_s}\int dx_2dx'_1dx''_1
\left<x_2|x'_1\right>V(T(x_1))
\left<x'_1|x''_1\right>\left<x''_1|x_2\right>=
\nonumber \\
=2\frac{C_0}{g_s}\int dx_2dx_1
|\left<x_2|x_1\right>|^2 V(T(x_1))=
\frac{2C_0}{g_s2\pi k}
\int dx_1dx_2 V(T(x_1)) \ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the standard normalisation $$\left<x_1|x_2\right>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi k}}e^{ix_1x_2/k} \ ,$$ where $\ket{x_1},\ket{x_2}$ are eigenvectors of $\hat{x}_1$ and $\hat{x}_2$ with the normalisation condition $\left<x_1|x'_1\right>=\delta (x_1-x'_1),
\left<x_2|x'_2\right>=\delta (x_2-x'_2)$. In [@SenFT3; @Kluson] the energy of tachyon lump on unstable non-BPS D-brane was calculated. It was shown that the tension of resulting lump (in linearised approximation) is given with the integral $C_0 \int dx V(T(x))\sim T_{-1}=2\pi$. We cannot write equality since we do not know the precise form of $T=F(x)$ and we do not know the exact form o tachyon potential. However we can expect that this integral gives the result proportional to the tension of D(-1)-brane and then we get $$E\sim\frac{2\pi}{g_s4\pi^2\alpha' \tilde{k}g_s}\int dx_2=
\frac{T_1}{g_s \tilde{k}} \int dx_2 \ , \tilde{k}=k\lambda^{-1} \ ,$$ which corresponds to the energy of D1-brane. The factor $\tilde{k}$ can be absorbed with coordinate redefinition. We claim that the energy of this configuration corresponds to the energy of D1-brane. This conclusion is also supported with the analysis of the WZ term (\[WZcal\])\
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{charges}
I_{WZ}=\frac{\mu_{-1}}{
2T_{min}}\int dt \tr i[\Phi^2,T]C_{2t}^{(2)}
=\frac{\mu_{-1}}{
2T_{min}}\frac{1}{2\pi k}
\int dt dx_1 dx_2 \frac{dT(x_1)}{dx_1}C_{2t}^{(2)}=\nonumber \\
=\frac{\mu_{-1}}{
2T_{min}}\frac{1}{4\pi^2 \alpha'\tilde{k}}
\int dt dx_1 \left(T(\infty)-T(-\infty)\right)C_{2t}^{(2)}
=\mu_1\int dt dx_2 C_{t2}^{(2)} \ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $ T(\infty)=-T_{min},
T(\infty)=T_{min}$, and have dropped the factor $\tilde{k}$. This is precisely the coupling between D1-brane and RR two form. It is remarkable that this exact result does not depend on the precise form of tachyon field. We hope that this result gives strong evidence that (\[clas\]) really leads to the emergence of D1-brane. However, we must stress again that it seams to be hopeless to calculate exactly the energy of resulting configuration without knowledge of exact BI action for non-BPS D0-brane. On the other hand, recent results given in [@SenTP] suggest that higher derivative terms could be gauge artefacts only and then it seams to be possible to obtain exact solution.
Other BPS D-branes from non-BPS D0-branes
-----------------------------------------
In this subsection we will see that we can obtain all BPS D-branes through tachyon condensation in the same way as a D1-brane. Let us consider an ansatz $$\begin{aligned}
\label{clas2}
T=F(\hat{x}_1), \Phi^1=
k^{-1}\hat{x}_2, \
[\hat{x}_1,\hat{x}_2]=ik \ , \nonumber \\
\Phi^{2i}=k_i^{-1}\hat{p}_{i},\
\Phi^{2i+1}=k_i^{-1}\hat{q}_{i}, \
[\hat{p}_{i},\hat{q}_{i}]=ik_i, \ i=1,\dots,p \ ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi^i=0, \ i=2p+2,\dots, 9 \ . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that this ansatz solves (\[equationX2\]) and from (\[equationTf2\]) we obtain $$V(T(\hat{x}_1))(1+\frac{\lambda^2}{2}
\sum_{i=1}^p\frac{1}{k_i})=\lambda
f(T(\hat{x}_1)) T'^2 \ .$$ We choose the Hilbert space basis $$\ket{\psi}=\ket{x_1}\otimes
\ket{p_1}\otimes \dots \otimes\ket{p_p}
\ ,
\left<\psi|\psi'\right>=\delta (x_1-x_1')
\delta (p_1-p_1')\dots \delta (p_p-p'_p) \ .$$ Then the energy of given configuration is equal to $$E=\frac{C_0}{g_s}2\tr V(T(x_1))(1+\frac{\lambda^2}
{2}\sum_{i=1}^p\frac{1}{k_i^2})\sim
\frac{T_{2p+1}}{\tilde{k}\prod_{i=1}^p
\tilde{k}_i}(1+\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i=1}^p\frac{1}{\tilde{k}_i^2})\int dx_2dp_1dq_1
\dots dp_pdq_p \ .$$ This is proportional to the energy of D(2p+1)-brane since this energy scales as $V_{2p+1}$ which is a volume on which this D-brane is wrapped. We have also defined $\tilde{k}_i=\lambda^{-1}
k_i$. These factors can be dropped out from the action after redefinition $dp_i dq_i/\tilde{k}_i\rightarrow dx_{2i}dx_{2i+1}$. Since we used the action in linear approximation, the commutators should obey $$\lambda^2 [\Phi^i,\Phi^k]^2\ll 1 \Rightarrow
\frac{\lambda}{k}\ll 1 \ .$$ In limit $k\rightarrow \infty$ we can neglect the second term in the bracket and after the second redefinition $x_2\rightarrow x_1 $ we obtain the result $$E\sim T_{2p+1}\int dx_1 dx_2\dots dx_{2p+1} \ ,$$ which suggests that the resulting configuration is D(2p+1)-brane. This claim is also supported with the analysis of the Wess-Zumino term which has a form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chargegeneral}
I_{WZ}=\frac{\mu_{-1}}
{2T_{min}}\int dt \str \left(
e^{i\lambda \I_{\Phi}\I_{\Phi}}
i[\I_{\Phi},T] \sum_n C^{(n)}\right)=
\frac{\mu_{-1}}{2T_{min}}\int dt \str i[\Phi^1,T]
C_{1t}^{(2)}-\nonumber \\
-\frac{\mu_{-1}}{4T_{min}}\sum_{i=1}^p
\int dt \str \lambda [\Phi^{2i},\Phi^{2i+1}]
[\Phi^1,T]C_{1,2i+1,2i,t}^{(4)}- \nonumber \\
-\frac{i\mu_{-1}}{8T_{min}}
\sum_{i=1,j\neq i}^p
\int dt\str\lambda^2 [\Phi^{2i},
\Phi^{2i+1}][\Phi^{2j},\Phi^{2j+1}]
[\Phi^1,T]C_{1,2j+1,2j,2i+1,2i,t}^{(6)}+ \nonumber \\
\dots+
\frac{i(i)^p\lambda^p\mu_{-1}}{2T_{min}}
\int dt \str [\Phi^{2},\Phi^3]\dots [
\Phi^{2p},\Phi^{2p+1}][\Phi^1,T]
C_{1,2p+1,2p,\dots,3,2,t}^{(2p+2)} \ .\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ The first term in (\[chargegeneral\]) corresponds to the coupling of D1-brane to two form $C^{(2)}$, as we have seen in (\[charges\]). We will see that this configuration is charged with respect to $C^{(2)},C^{(2)},\dots,
C^{(2p)}$ [^2]. The same thing also arises in the construction of higher dimensional objects in Matrix theory [@BanksM; @Banks; @Taylor; @BanksR1; @BanksR2; @Taylor2]. The second term in (\[chargegeneral\]) gives $$\sum_{i=1}^p \frac{\mu_{1}}{2\pi \lambda \tilde{k}_i}
\int dt dx_1 dp_{i}dq_{i}C_{t1,2i,2i+1}^{(4)}=
\sum_{i=1}^p\mu_3
\int dt dx_1 dx_{2i}dx_{2i+1}C_{t1,2i,2i+1}^{(4)}=
\sum_{i=1}^p\mu_3\int_{M_i} C^{(4)} \ ,$$ where $M_i$ is a submanifold parameterised with $t,x_1,x_{2i},
x_{2i+1}$. It is clear that the previous term corresponds to $p$ D3-branes wrapped submanifolds $M_i$. Again, their interpretation is the same as in Matrix theory.
In the same way we can proceed with other terms. For example, let us consider the third term in (\[chargegeneral\]) with $i=1,j=2$. Then we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{i\mu_{-1}\lambda^2}{2T_{min}}
\int dt \str [\Phi^2,\Phi^3][\Phi^4,\Phi^5][\Phi^1,T]
C^{(6)}_{15432t}=-\frac{\mu_{5}}{\tilde{k}_1^2
\tilde{k}_2^2\tilde{k}}\int dtdx_2
dp_1dq_1dp_2dq_2 C_{15432t}=\nonumber \\
=\mu_{5}\int dt dx_1 dx_2 \dots dx_5 C_{t1\dots 5}=
\mu_{6}\int_{M_{12}} C^{(6)} \ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{12}$ is a six dimensional submanifold parameterised with coordinates $t,x_1,\dots, x_5$. Finally, the last term in (\[chargegeneral\]) gives $$\mu_{2p+1}\int dt dx_1 dx_2 \dots dx_{2p} C_{t12\dots 2p}
^{(2p+2)}=\mu_{2p+1}\int C^{(2p+2)} \ .$$ We see that this configuration really corresponds to the BPS D(2p+1)-brane. The fact that $\Phi^i$ in (\[clas2\]) do not commute suggests that the world-volume of resulting configuration is noncommutative. It would be nice to study the fluctuation around this static solution. We hope to return to this interesting question in the future.
In the next section we would like to show that the action for $N$ non-BPS D0-branes naturally leads to the non-commutative action for any higher dimensional non-BPS D-brane, following [@Seiberg].
Non-BPS D-branes from non-BPS D0-branes {#fifth}
=======================================
We have seen in the (\[third\]) section that the action for $N$ non-BPS D0-branes has a trivial solution $$T=T_{min} 1_{N\times N} , \Phi^i=0
\ , i=1,\dots,9 \ ,$$ corresponding to the unstable vacuum with $N$ non-BPS D0-branes. There is a question whether we can construct other non-BPS D-branes. Let us answer this question, following [@Seiberg] and also earlier works [@Banks; @Li; @Aoki; @Ishibashi; @Ishibashi1].
We start with the action $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action3}
S=-\frac{C_0}{g_s}
\int dt\str\left(\sqrt{-
\det(P[E_{tt}+E_{tI}(X^{IJ}-\delta^{IJ})
E_{Jt}]}\right)\times\nonumber \\
\times\sqrt{\det (Q^I_J})\times F(T,\dot{T},\Phi^I,\dots) \ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ftdual2}
F=V(T)-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}f_n(T)\lambda^n
\left((E^{tt}-E^{tI}E_{IJ}E^{Jt})\dot{T}\dot{T}
+\right.\nonumber \\
\left.+iE^{tK}E_{KJ}[\Phi^J,T]\dot{T}-
E_{IJ}[\Phi^I,T][\Phi^J,T]\right)^n \ .
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ We introduce the constant background metric $E_{IJ}=g_{IJ}$, with vanishing $B_{IJ}$ and with $E^{tI}=0$. Then $Q^{IJ}=g^{IJ}+i\lambda[\Phi^I,\Phi^J]$.) We also use the notation $I,J,K,\dots=1,\dots, 9 ;
i,j,k,\dots=1,\dots, 2p ; a,b,c,\dots=2p+1,\dots,9$. We also assume that this background metric is block-diagonal with the blocks $g_{ij},g_{ab}$ with $g_{ia}=0$. Let us propose an ansatz $$\label{ansatznBPS}
T=0 \ ,
\Phi^i_{clas}=\lambda^{-1} x^i, \ i=1,\dots, 2p, \
[x^i,x^j]=i\Theta^{ij}$$ and other fields $\Phi^{a}, \ a=2p+1,
\dots, 9$ in the form $\Phi^a=x^a 1_{N\times N}$, which describe the transverse positions of the resulting D-brane. It is easy to see that this ansatz (\[ansatznBPS\]) is a solution of the equation of motion of the whole action since the commutators between tachyon and scalar field vanish and also from the fact that commutators of two $\Phi's$ are pure numbers and consequently $[\Phi^i,[\Phi^j,\Phi^i]]=0$.
Next we will analyse the fluctuation around this background. We will closely follow [@Seiberg] and write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ansatz}
C_i=\lambda B_{ij}\Phi^j=\lambda B_{ij}\Phi_{clas}^j+\lambda \Phi^j_{fluct}=
B_{ij}x^j+\hat{A}_i, \ i=1,\dots ,2p \ , \nonumber \\
\Phi^a=\Phi^a, \ a=2p+1,\dots, 9, \
T_{fluct}=T \ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ and calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CC}
[C_i,C_j]=-iB_{ij}+
B_{ik}[x^k,\hat{A}_j]-B_{jl}[x^l,\hat{A}_i]+
[\hat{A}_i,\hat{A}_j] \ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ $$[C_i,\Phi^a]=B_{ik}[x^k,\Phi^a]+
[\hat{A}_i,\Phi^a] \ ,$$ where we have used $$B_{ik}B_{jl}[x^k,x^l]=
-B_{ik}i(B^{-1})^{kl}B_{lj}=-iB_{ij} \ .$$ Using $$\Phi^i=\lambda^{-1}\Theta^{ik}C_k \ ,$$ we obtain $$i\lambda [\Phi^i,\Phi^j]
=\lambda^{-1}\Theta^{ik}(
\hat{F}_{kl}-B_{kl})\Theta^{lj} \ ,$$ where $$\hat{F}_{kl}=-iB_{ik}[x^k,\hat{A}_l]+
iB_{jl}[x^l,\hat{A}_i]-i[\hat{A}_i,\hat{A}_j] \ .$$ The best thing how we can study the fluctuation around the classical solution is to start with the original form of the determinant $$D=\det \left(\begin{array}{cc}
g_{tt}&\lambda D_{t}\Phi^J \nonumber \\
-\lambda D_t\Phi^I&
g^{IJ}+i\lambda [\Phi^I,\Phi^J]
\nonumber \\
\end{array}\right)=
\det \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
D_{tt} & D_{tj} & D_{tb} \\
D_{it} & D_{ij} & D_{ib} \\
D_{at} & D_{aj} & D_{ab} \\ \end{array}\right) \ ,$$ with the action in the form $$\label{actionD}
S=-\frac{C_0}{g_s}\int dt
\str \sqrt{\det g_{IJ}}\sqrt{-\det D}\times F(T,\Phi,\dots)
\ ,$$ where the factor $\sqrt{\det g_{IJ}}$ arises from T-duality transformation of the dilation (\[Tdilaton\]).
We have also written $D_t$ instead $\partial_t$ in order to obtain more symmetric expression. (Remember, we are working in gauge $A_0=0$.) Then we obtain $$D_{tb}=\lambda D_t\Phi^b \ ,
D_{it}=-\Theta^{ik} D_t\hat{A}_k \ ,
D_{tj}= -D_t\hat{A}_k\Theta^{kj} \ ,
D_{at}=-\lambda D_t\Phi^a \ ,$$ $$D_{ij}=g^{ij}+i\lambda[\Phi^i,\Phi^j]
=g^{ij}+\lambda^{-1}\Theta^{ik}(
\hat{F}_{kl}-B_{kl})\Theta^{lj}\ ,$$ $$D_{ib}=-\Theta^{ik}D_k\Phi^b \ ,
D_{aj}=-D_k \Phi^a\Theta^{kj} \ ,$$ where $$iD_kM=[C_k,M]=B_{kl}[x^l,M]+
[\hat{A}_l,M] \ .$$ Finally we have $$D_{ab}=g^{ab}+i\lambda [\Phi^a,\Phi^b]
=Q^{ab} \ .$$ Then $$D=\det\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
D_{tt}-D_{tb}(Q^{-1})_{bc} D_{ct} &
D_{tj}-D_{tb}(Q^{-1})_{bc}D_{cj} & D_{tb} \\
D_{it}-D_{ib}(Q^{-1})_{bc}D_{ct} &
D_{ij}-D_{ib}(Q^{-1})_{bc}D_{cj} & D_{ib} \\
0 & 0 & Q^{ab} \\ \end{array}\right)$$ The first block-diagonal term suggests emergence of D(2p)-brane. We will show this more precisely $$D_{tt}-D_{tb}(Q^{-1})_{bc}D_{ct}=
g_{tt}+\lambda^2D_t\Phi^a (Q^{-1})_{ab}D_t\Phi^b
=P[g_{tt}+g_{ta}(X^{ab}-\delta^{ab})
g_{bt}] \ ,$$ where meaning of various terms it the same as in the section (\[third\]). In the similar way we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
D_{tj}-D_{tb}(Q^{-1})_{bc}D_{cj}=
(-D_t\hat{A}_k+\lambda D_t\Phi^b
(Q^{-1})_{bc}D_k\Phi^c)\Theta^{kj}
=\nonumber \\
=(-\lambda \hat{F}_{tk}+
P[g_{tk}+g_{ta}(X^{ab}-\delta^{ab})g_{bk}]
)\lambda^{-1}\Theta^{kj} \ , \nonumber \\
D_{it}=-\lambda^{-1}\Theta^{ik}
(-\lambda \hat{F}_{kt}
+P[g_{kt}+g_{ka}(X^{ab}-\delta^{ab})g_{bt}]) \ ,
\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
D_{ij}-D_{ib}(Q^{-1})_{bc}
D_{cj}=g^{ij}-\lambda^{-1}(\Theta B \Theta)^{ij}
+\lambda^{-1}(\Theta \hat{F}\Theta)^{ij}-\Theta^{ik}
D_k\Phi^b(Q^{-1})_{bc}D_b\Phi^c\Theta^{kj}
=\nonumber \\
=-\Theta^{ik}\lambda^{-1}(B_{kl}-
\hat{F}_{kl}+
P[G_{kl}+G_{ka}(X^{ab}-\delta^{ab})G_{bl}])
\Theta^{lj} \ ;
G_{ij}=-\lambda^2\Theta_{ik}g^{kl}\Theta_{lj} \ .
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ We combine $D_{tt}$ with $D_{ij},D_{it},D_{ij}$ into one single matrix $\mathcal{D}_{ij},
i,j=0,1,\dots,2p$. Then $D$ is equal to $$D=(\det \lambda \Theta)^2\det \mathcal{D}'\det Q^{ij} \ ,
\mathcal{D}=\Theta \mathcal{D}'\Theta \ ,$$ where we have used $$\mathcal{D}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & BX \\
YC & -YPX \\ \end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -Y \\ \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\
-C & P \\ \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & X \\ \end{array}\right) \ .$$ In previous expression $X=Y=\lambda \Theta$. We can also write $$\det{g}\det{Q^{ab}}=\det(Q^a_b) \ ,$$ where we have used the fact that the original action (\[actionD\]) contains the factor $\sqrt{\det(g_{IJ})}=\sqrt{\det(g_{ij})}\sqrt{\det
(g_{ab})}$. We can analyse $F$ function (\[Ftdual2\]) in the similar way. More precisely $$-\lambda^{-1}\Theta^{ik}
\Theta^{jl}[C_k,T][C_l,T]=
\lambda^{-1}\Theta^{ik}
\Theta^{jl}D_kTD_lT=
-\lambda^{-1}(\Theta DT DT\Theta)^{ij} \ ,$$ and consequently $$\begin{aligned}
-g_{ij}[\Phi^i,T][\Phi^j,T]=
-g_{ij}\lambda^{2}[\Theta^{ik}C_k,T]
[\Theta^{jl}C_l,T]=\nonumber \\
=-G^{kl}[C_k,T][C_l,T]=G^{ij}D_iTD_jT \ . \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ As a result we obtain $$F=V(T)-\sum_{n=1}f_n(T)\lambda^n\left(
G^{ij}D_iTD_jT-g_{ab}[\Phi^a,T][\Phi^b,T]\right)^n \ ,$$ where we have included $g_{tt}$ into the definition of $G_{ij}$.
With these results in hand we get the final result $$\begin{aligned}
\label{actionfinal}
S=-\frac{C_0}{g_s}\str\int dt
\sqrt{\det(g_{ij})}\det(\lambda^{-1} \Theta)
\times \nonumber \\
\times\sqrt{-\det(\lambda
(\hat{F}_{kl}-B_{kl})+
P[G_{kl}+G_{ka}(X^{ab}-\delta^{ab})G_{bl}]}
\sqrt{\det(Q^a_b)}\times
F(T,DT,\dots) \ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$\det(A+B)=\det(A+B)^T=
\det(A-B) \ , A^T=A, B^T=-B \ .$$ In the previous equation the trace goes over $N\times N$ matrices. Following [@Seiberg], we can take the limit $N\rightarrow \infty$. Then there is a standard relation between the trace over Hilbert space and integration in noncommutative theory, see [@StromingerA; @Seiberg] $$\int d^{2p}x=(2\pi)^n\sqrt{\det{\Theta}}\tr \ .$$ We must also remember that the multiplication in the resulting action is noncommutative one with the ordinary product replaced with the star product since, as we can see from (\[ansatznBPS\]), the world-volume of a non-BPS D(2p)-brane is noncommutative. With using $$G_s=g_s\sqrt{\frac{\det\lambda B}{\det g}} \ ,
\sqrt{\det{\lambda^{-1}\Theta}}=\lambda^{-p}
\sqrt{\det \Theta} \ ,$$ we obtain from (\[actionfinal\]) the action for non-BPS D(2p)-brane $$\begin{aligned}
\label{actionfinal2}
S=-\frac{C_{2p}}{G_s}
\int dt d^{2p}x
\sqrt{-\det\left(\lambda
(\hat{F}_{kl}-B_{kl})+
P[G_{kl}+G_{ka}(X^{ab}-\delta^{ab})G_{bl}]\right)}
\times \nonumber \\
\times \sqrt{\det(Q^a_b)}
\left(V(T)-\sum_{n=1}f_n(T)\lambda^n\left(
G^{ab}D_aTD_bT-g_{ij}
[\Phi^i,T][\Phi^j,T]\right)^n\right)
\ , \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$\frac{C_0}{(2\pi \lambda)^p}=C_{2p} \ .$$ We have seen that $N$ non-BPS D-branes in the limit $N\rightarrow \infty$ have solution corresponding to non-BPS D-branes of higher dimension. This solution is in some sense dual to the tachyon condensation on the world-volume of space-time filling branes with non-commutative world-volume. In fact, there is a closed relation between non-BPS D0-branes and action for non-BPS D-brane written in operator formalism [@StromingerA; @Harvey; @SenTP]. In this section we have demonstrated this relation more explicitly. The generalisation to the case of non-abelian non-BPS D(2p)-brane is straightforward [@Seiberg].
Conclusion
==========
In this short note we have presented some results considering tachyon condensation in the system of $N$ non-BPS D0-branes. We have seen in the section (\[second\]) that there is a solution with zero mass which we have interpreted as a tensionless D0-brane [@Harvey; @Gopakumar]. This problem is similar to the problem of tensionless circular D8-brane in [@WittenFT]. However, there is a puzzle. If this was genuine light state in Type II string theory they should have been known already from other studies. At present we do not know how resolve this puzzle. Resolution of this problem has been suggested in [@Harvey2] in the framework of noncommutative geometry which was based on the extra $Z_2$ discrete gauge symmetry of the action for non-BPS D-brane. We hope to return to this important question in the future.
In section (\[fourth\]) we have proposed an ansatz which leads to the emergence of BPS D-branes from non-BPS D0-branes. Unfortunately, we were not able to calculate the tension of resolution object directly, since we have used the linear approximation only. However, from the form of the energy of this configuration which scales as a energy of BPS D-brane and also from the charge of resulting configuration we can claim the these solutions really describe BPS D-branes in Type IIB theory since non-BPS D0-branes are present in Type IIB theory. It would be nice to go beyond linear approximation which seams to be impossible at present since we do not know the exact form of the action. On the other hand, it was suggested in [@SenTP] that it is possible that higher order terms in the action are only gauge artefacts. It would be nice to have some exact proof this intriguing conjecture.
We have also seen that from the action for non-BPS D0-branes we can obtain action for higher dimensional non-BPS D(2p)-branes in the very elegant way used in the construction of higher dimensional branes in Matrix theory and in Type IIB theory. We have seen that this analysis is valid for the whole effective action without restriction to the linear approximation. The same analysis could be possible with the Wess-Zumino term for a non-BPS D0-branes which could lead to the Wess-Zumino term for noncommutative D-branes presented recently in the beautiful paper [@Mukhi]. We hope to return to this question in the future.
[20]{} A. Sen, *“Stable non-BPS bound states of BPS D-branes,”* , ;
*“SO(32) spinors of type I and other solitons on brane-antibrane pair,”* , ;
*“Type I D-particle and its interactions,”* ;
*“Non-BPS states and branes in string theory,”* , and reference therein. E. Witten, *“D-branes and K-theory,”* , . P. Hořava, *“Type II D-branes, K-Theory and Matrix Theory,”* , . K. Olsen and R. J. Szabo, *“Constructing D-branes from K-theory,”* . E. Witten,*“Overview Of $K$-theory Applied To Strings,”* . Y. Matsuo, *“Topological Charges of Noncommutative Soliton,”* . J. Harvey and G. Moore, *“Noncommutative Tachyons and K-Theory,”* . A. Lerda and R. Russo, *“Stable non-BPS D-states in string theory: a pedagogical review,”* . J. Schwarz, *“TASI Lectures on Non-BPS D-Branes Systems,”* . A. Sen, *“Universality of the tachyon potential,”* , . A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, *“Tachyon Condensation in String Field Theory,”* . N. Berkovits, *“The Tachyon Potential in Open Neveu- Schwarz String Field Theory,”* . J. A. Harvey and P. Kraus, *“D-Branes as Lumps in Bosonic Open String Field Theory,”* , . N. Berkovits, A. Sen and B. Zwieabach, *“Tachyon Condensation in Superstring Field Theory,”* . N. Moeller and W. Taylor, *“Level truncation and the tachyon in open bosonic string field theory,”* . R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu and R. Tatar, *“Lumps and p-branes in open string field theory,”* , . P. J. De Smet and J. Raeymaekers, *“Level-four approximation to the tachyon potential in superstring field theory,”* . A. Iqbal and A. Naqvi, *“Tachyon Condensation On A Non-BPS D-Brane,”* . N. Moeller, A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, *“D-branes as Tachyon Lumps in String Field Theory,”* . J. R. David, *“$U(1)$ gauge invariance from open string field theory,”* . E. Witten, *“Noncommutative Tachyons And String Field Theory,”* . L. Rasteli and B. Zwiebach, *“Tachyon Potentials, Star Products and Universality,”* . A. Sen and B. Zwiebach, *“Large Marginal Deformations in String Field Theory,”* . W. Taylor, *“Mass generation from tachyon condensation for vector fields on D-brane,”* . R. de Mello Koch and J. P. Rodrigues, *“Lumps in level truncated open string field theory,”* . A. Iqbal and A. Naqvi, *“An Marginal Deformations in Superstring Field Theory,”* . A. Kostelecky and R. Potting, *“Analytical construction of a nonperturbative vacuum for the open bosonic string,”* . E. Witten, *“On background independent open string field theory,”* , . E. Witten, *“Some computations in background independent off-shell string theory,”* , . K. Li and E. Witten, *“Role of short distance behaviour in off-shell open string field theory,”* , . S. L. Shatashvili, *“Comment on the background independent open string theory,”* , . S. L. Shatashvili, *“On the problems with background independence in string theory,”* . A. A. Gerasimov and S. L. Shatashvili, *“On exact tachyon potential in open string field theory,”* . D. Kutasov, M. Marino and G. Moore, *“Some exact results on tachyon condensation in string field theory,”* . D. Ghoshal and A. Sen, *“Normalisation of the Background Independent Open String Field Theory Action,”* . N. Seiberg and E. Witten, *“String Theory and Noncommutative Geometry,”* , . R. Gopakumar, S. Minwalla and A. Strominger, *“Noncommutative solitons,”* , . K. Dasgupta, S. Mukhi and G. Rajesh, *“Noncommutative Tachyons,”* . J. A. Harvey, P. Kraus, F. Larsen and E. J. Martinec, *“D-branes and strings as noncommutative solitons,”* . N. Seiberg, *“A Note on Background Independence in Noncommutative Gauge Theories, Matrix Model and Tachyon Condensation,”* . J. A. Harvey, P. Kraus and F. Larsen, *“Tensionless Branes and Discrete Gauge Symmetry,”* . R. Gopakumar, S. Minwalla and S. Strominger, *“Symmetry Restoration and Tachyon Condensation in Open String Theory,”* . G. Mandal and S. J. Rey, *“A note on D-Branes of Odd Codimensions from Noncommutative Tachyons,”* . A. Sen,*“Some Issues in Non-Commutative Tachyon Condensation,”* . S. Mukhi and N. V. Suryanarayana, *“Chern-Simons Terms on Noncommutative Branes,”* . T. Banks, W. Fischer, S. Shenker and L. Susskind, *“M Theory as a Matrix Model: A Conjecture,”* , . T. Banks N. Seiberg and S. Shenker, *“Branes from Matrices,”* , . W. Taylor, *“Lectures on D-branes, gauge theory and M(atrices),”* . T. Banks, *“Matrix Theory,”* , . T. Banks, *“TASI lectures on Matrix Theory,”* . W. Taylor, *“The M(atrix) model of M-theory,”* . A. Sen, *“Supersymmetric World-volume Action for Non-BPS D-branes,”* , . J. Klusoň, *“Remark about non-BPS D-brane in Type IIA theory,”* . J. Klusoň, *“D-branes from N non-BPS D9-branes in IIA theory,”* , . J. Klusoň, *“D-branes in Type IIA and Type IIB theories from tachyon condensation,”* . M. R. Garousi, *“Tachyon coupling on non-BPS D-branes and Dirac-Born-Infeld action,”* . E. A. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, T. C. de Wit, E. Eyras and S. Panda, *“T-duality and Action for Non-BPS D-branes,”* , . J. Klusoň, *“Proposal for non-BPS D-brane action,”* to be published in Phys. Rev. D, . R. C. Myers, *“Dielectric D-branes,”* , . A. A. Tseytlin, *“On non-abelian generalisation of Born-Infeld action in string theory,”* . W. Taylor, W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, *“Supergravity currents and linearised interactions for matrix theory configurations with fermion backgrounds,”*, . W. Taylor and M. Van Raamsdonk, *“Multiple D0-branes in weakly curved backgrounds,”* . A. Giveon, M. Porrati and E. Rabinovici, *“Target Space Duality in String Theory,”* , . M. Billo, B. Crasp and F. Roose, *“Ramond-Ramond Coupling of Non-BPS D-branes,”* , . B. Janssen and P. Messen, *“A non-Abelian Chern-Simons term for non-BPS D-branes,”* . M. Nakahara, *“Geometry, Topology and Physics,”* IOP Publishing, 1990. M. Li, *“Strings from IIB Matrices,”* , . H. Aoki, N. Ishibashi, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and T. Tada, *“Noncommutative Yang-Mills in IIB Matrix Model,”* , . N. Ishibashi, *“A relation between commutative and noncommutative descriptions of D-branes,”* . N. Ishibashi, H. Kawa and Y. Kitizawa, *“Wilson Loops in Noncommutative Yang-Mills,”* .
[^1]: We mean the most general form up to the first derivatives. Of course, there could be infinite number of higher derivatives. In the case when commutators are small the action with the first derivatives is the appropriate one.
[^2]: Since the various commutators are pure numbers we can replace the symmetrised trace with the ordinary one.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[A schematic model for hadronic states, based on constituent quarks and antiquarks and gluon pairs, is discussed. The phenomenological interaction between quarks and gluons is QCD motivated. The obtained hadronic spectrum leads to the identification of nucleon and $\Delta$ resonances and to pentaquark and heptaquark states. The predicted lowest pentaquark state ($J^{\pi} = \frac{1}{2}^-$) lies at the energy of 1.5 GeV and it is associated to the observed $\Theta^+(1540)$ state. For heptaquarks ($J^{\pi} = \frac{1}{2}^+, \frac{3}{2}^+$) the model predicts the lowest state at 2.5 GeV. ]{}'
author:
- 'M. Nuñez V., S. Lerma H. and P. O. Hess,'
- 'S. Jesgarz'
- 'O. Civitarese and M. Reboiro'
title: Modelling Pentaquark and Heptaquark States
---
In a series of previous publications [@paperI; @paperII; @paperIII] a schematic model for QCD was developed. The model was used to test the meson spectrum of QCD. In spite of its schematic nature the model seems to contain the relevant degrees of freedom, as it was shown in the comparison between calculated and experimental meson spectra [@paperII]. This letter is devoted to the extension of the model to accommodate baryonic features. Particularly, we shall concentrate on the appearance of exotic baryonic states, like pentaquark and heptaquark states [@exp1; @exp11; @exp2; @exp22; @exp3].
The essentials of the model were discussed in detail in Ref. [@paperII]. It consists of two fermionic levels in the quark ($q$) and antiquark ($\bar{q}$) sector and a gluonic ($g^2$) state containing pairs of gluons. These are the elementary degrees of freedom of the model. The interaction among these degrees of freedom is described by excitations of pairs of quarks and antiquarks mediated by the exchange of pairs of gluons. The pairs of quarks are classified in a flavor-spin coupling scheme. The pairs of gluons are kept in the angular momentum ($J$), parity ($\pi$) and charge conjugation ($C$) state $J^{\pi C} = 0^{++}$. The strength of various channels of the interaction, as well as the constituent masses, are taken from a phenomenological analysis. The model describes meson ($(q\bar{q})^n (g^2)^m$) states and baryonic ($q^3(q\bar{q})^n
(g^2)^m$) states. Among these states we focus on $q^3(q\bar{q})$ states (pentaquarks) and $q^3(q\bar{q})^2$ states (heptaquarks), where the configurations indicated represent the leading terms in an expansion over many quark-antiquark and gluon states. The basis states are classified using group theoretical methods [@paperII]. The interaction of quark-antiquark pairs with gluon pairs is particle non-conserving.
The above described model belongs to a class of exactly solvable models of coupled fermion and boson systems [@lipkin; @schutte; @pittel; @ocmr]. Alternative descriptions of pentaquark states were proposed in Ref. [@bijker], enforcing particle number conservation.
In what follows we shall classify the basis states and solve the Hamiltonian in the framework of the boson expansion method [@klein; @chh]. Finally, we shall compare the results of the calculations with recently published experimental data [@exp1; @exp11; @exp2; @exp22]
The model Hamiltonian is written
$$\begin{aligned}
{ \mbox{\boldmath $H$}} & = & 2\omega_f { \mbox{\boldmath $n_f$}} + \omega_b { \mbox{\boldmath $n_b$}} \nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{\lambda S} V_{\lambda S} \left\{ \left[ ({ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda
S}^\dagger )^2 + 2{ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S}^\dagger { \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S} +
({ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S})^2 \right] (1-\frac{{ \mbox{\boldmath $n_f$}}}{2\Omega}){ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}
\right.
\nonumber \\
&+& \left. { \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}^\dagger (1-\frac{{ \mbox{\boldmath $n_f$}}}{2\Omega})
\left[ ({ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S}^\dagger )^2 +
2{ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S}^\dagger { \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S}+ ({ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S})^2
\right] \right\} \nonumber \\
&+ & { \mbox{\boldmath $n$}}_{(0,1)0} \left( D_1 { \mbox{\boldmath $n_b$}} + D_2({ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}^\dagger +
{ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}) \right)\nonumber \\& +& { \mbox{\boldmath $n$}}_{(2,0)1} \left( E_1
{ \mbox{\boldmath $n_b$}} + E_2({ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}^\dagger + { \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}) \right) ~~~.
\label{hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$
The distance between the fermion levels is $2\omega_f$=0.66 GeV, $\omega_b$=1.6 GeV is the energy of the glue ball, ${ \mbox{\boldmath $n_f$}}$ and ${ \mbox{\boldmath $n_b$}}$ are the number operators for fermion and gluon pairs, respectively, $V_{\lambda S}$ is the strength of the interaction in the flavor$(\lambda$) and spin ($S$) channel. The actual values $\lambda$ = 0, 1 refer to flavor (0,0) and (1,1) configurations, while the spin channel is $S$=0 or 1. The adopted values are: $V_{00}$=0.0337 GeV, $V_{01}$=0.0422 GeV, $V_{10}$=0.1573 GeV, and $V_{11}$=0.0177 GeV [@paperII] . The operators ${ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S}^\dagger$ and ${ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}_{\lambda S}$ are boson images of quark-antiquark pairs [@paperII]. The products which appear inside brackets in (\[hamiltonian\]) are scalar products. The factor $(1-\frac{{ \mbox{\boldmath $n_f$}}}{2\Omega})$ results from the boson mapping [@paperII]. The mapping is exact for the channel $[\lambda , S]=[0,0]$ and simulates the effect of the boson mapping for the other channels. The operator ${ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}^\dagger$ (${ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}$) creates (annihilates) gluon pairs with spin-color zero, and ${ \mbox{\boldmath $n$}}_{(\lambda_0,\mu_0)S_0}$ is the number operator of di-quarks coupled to flavor-spin $(\lambda_0,\mu_0)S_0$. The parameters $D_{1(2)}$ and $E_{1(2)}$ are adjusted to the nucleon and $\Delta$ resonances. The corresponding terms describe the interaction between valence quarks and glueballs. The Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian\]) does not contain terms which distinguish between states with different hypercharge and isospin. It does not contain flavor mixing terms, either. Therefore, the predicted states have to be corrected in the way described in [@gursey] to allow a comparison with data. The adopted values of $D_{1(2)}$ and $E_{1(2)}$ are: $D_1=$-1.442GeV, $D_2$=-0.4388GeV, $E_1$=-1.1873GeV and $E_2$=-0.3622GeV. The Hamiltonian contains all relevant degrees of freedom requested by QCD. The complete classification of quark-antiquark configurations was given in Ref. [@paperII].
The unperturbed ground state is composed by 18 quarks occupying the lowest fermionic level. The baryonic states are described by three quarks in the upper fermionic level to which we add $(q\bar{q})^n$ states. The group chain which describes these states is
$$\begin{aligned}
[1^N] & [h]=[h_1h_2h_3] & [h^T] \nonumber \\
U(4\Omega ) & \supset U(\frac{\Omega}{3}) \otimes & U(12)
\label{group1}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Omega$=9 accounts for three color and three flavor degrees of freedom. The irreducible representation (irrep) of $U(4\Omega )$ is completely antisymmetric, and $[h^T]$ is the transposed Young diagram of $[h]$ [@hamermesh]. For $N$ particles, and due to the antisymmetric irrep $[1^N]$ of $U(4\Omega)$, the irreps of $U(\Omega /3)$ and $U(12)$ are complementary and the irrep of $U(\Omega /3)$ is the color group, which is reduced to $SU_C(3)$ with the color irrep $(\lambda_C,\mu_C)$. The $U(12)$ group is further reduced to
$$\begin{aligned}
U(12) \supset & U_f(3) \otimes U(4) & \supset SU_f(3) \otimes SU_S(2)
\nonumber \\
&~~~~~ [p_1p_2p_3p_4] & (\lambda_f,\mu_f) ~~~~ S,~M ~~~,
\label{u12}\end{aligned}$$
where $(\lambda_f,\mu_f)$ is the flavor irrep and $[p_1p_2p_3p_4]$ denotes the possible $U(4)$ irreps. The group reduction is done using the methods exposed in Ref. [@ramon]. The basis is spanned by the states $$\begin{aligned}
|N, [p_1p_2p_3p_4] (\lambda_C ,\mu_C), \rho_f (\lambda_f,\mu_f) Y T T_z, \rho_S S M> ~~~,
\label{state}\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the number of particles, $Y$ is the hypercharge and ($T$,$T_z$) denotes the isospin and its third component, $\rho_f$ and $\rho_S$ are the multiplicities of the flavor and spin representations. The color labels $(\lambda_C,\mu_C)$ are related to the $h_i$ via $\lambda_C = h_1-h_2$ and $\mu_C = h_2-h_3$. To obtain the values of $h_i$ one has to consider all possible partitions of $N=h_1+h_2+h_3$, which fixes the color. For colorless states we have $h_1=h_2=h_3=h$. Each partition of $N$ appears only once. The irrep $[hhh]$ of $U(\frac{\Omega}{3})=U(3)$ fixes the irrep of $U(12)$, as indicated in (\[group1\]). For $\Omega = 9$ and color (0,0) the irrep of $U(12)$ is given by $[3^6 0^6]$ for mesons, and by $[3^7 0^5]$ for baryons. As an example, Table \[table1\] shows the relevant irreps for mesonic states. (More details are given in Ref. [@long]).
$SU_f(3)$ $U(4)$ $[q_1 q_2]$ $n_q$ $S_q$ $[\bar{q}_1 \bar{q}_2]$ $n_{\bar{q}}$ $S_{\bar{q}}$ $S$
--------------------- ---------- ------------- ------- --------------- ------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------
(0,0), (1,1), (2,2) $[8811]$ $[11]$ 2 0 $[88]$ 2 0 0
(1,1), (3,0), (0,3) $[9711]$ $[11]$ 2 0 $[97]$ 2 1 1
(1,1), (3,0), (0,3) $[8820]$ $[20]$ 2 1 $[88]$ 2 0 1
(0,0), (1,1), (2,2) $[9720]$ $[20]$ 2 1 $[97]$ 2 1 0, 1, 2
(1,1) $[9810]$ $[10]$ 1 $\frac{1}{2}$ $[98]$ 1 $\frac{1}{2}$ 0, 1
(1,1) $[9810]$ $[11]$ 2 0 $[97]$ 2 1 1
(1,1) $[9810]$ $[11]$ 2 0 $[88]$ 2 0 0
(1,1) $[9810]$ $[20]$ 2 1 $[97]$ 2 1 0, 1, 2
(1,1) $[9810]$ $[20]$ 2 1 $[88]$ 2 0 1
(0,0) $[9900]$ $[00]$ 0 0 $[99]$ 0 0 0
(0,0) $[9900]$ $[10]$ 1 $\frac{1}{2}$ $[98]$ 1 $\frac{1}{2}$ 0, 1
(0,0) $[9900]$ $[20]$ 2 1 $[97]$ 2 1 0, 1, 2
: Flavor irreps coupled to the quark-antiquark content of some different $U(4)$ irreps. Shown are the irreps which contain, at most, two quarks and two antiquarks. The number of quarks (antiquarks) in a given configuration are denoted by $n_q$ ($n_{\bar{q}}$). []{data-label="table1"}
In the boson representation, the states are given by the direct product of one-, three-, eight and 24-dimensional harmonic oscillators [@paperII]. For each harmonic oscillator the basis states are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_{N_{\lambda S}\nu_{\lambda S}} ({ \mbox{\boldmath $b$}}^{\dagger~2}_{\lambda S}
)^{\frac{N_{\lambda S}-\nu_{\lambda S}}{2}}
|\nu_{\lambda S}\alpha_{\lambda S} > ~~~,
\label{basis}\end{aligned}$$
where $N_{\lambda S}$ is the number of bosons of type $[\lambda ,S]$, $\nu_{\lambda S}$ is the corresponding seniority and ${\cal N}_{N_{\lambda S}\nu_{\lambda S}}$ is a normalization constant. The seniority is defined as the number of uncoupled bosons. The quantity $\alpha_{\lambda S}$ represents the other quantum numbers needed to specify a particular harmonic oscillator.
a) Nucleon resonances {#a-nucleon-resonances .unnumbered}
=====================
The quality of the model predictions, concerning meson states, was discussed in Ref. [@paperII]. Figure 1 shows the lowest nucleon and $\Delta$ resonances predicted by the model. In the same Figure are shown the calculated penta- and heptaquark low lying states. For each state we indicate the spin, parity ($J^{\pi}$), and the quark and gluon content ($n_q+n_{\bar{q}}$, $n_g$). The quantity $n_q+n_{\bar{q}}$ is the total number of quarks and antiquarks, which is equal to the number of valence quarks (0 for mesons, 3 baryons) plus the number of quarks and antiquarks of the $q\bar{q}$-pairs, and $n_g$ gives the number of gluons. As shown in the Figure, nucleonic states contain on the average about half an additional quark-antiquark pair (equivalent to one extra quark), and approximately 2.8 gluons. This implies a content of 59$\%$ in the quark sector and of 41$\%$ in the gluon sector. The theoretical Roper resonance (first excited nucleon resonance) lies near the experimental energy of 1.44 GeV. This is a nice feature of the model, which is shared only with the constituent quark model [@bijker-r]. The first negative parity state with $J^{\pi}=\frac{1}{2}^-$ appears at 1.51 GeV, also in good agreement with the data.
![ Nucleon resonances (first group of levels), $\Delta$ resonances (second group), pentaquarks (third group) and heptaquarks (fourth group). On the right side of each level are given the assigned spin and parity ($J^\pi$), and the total quark and anti-quark ($n_q+n_{\bar{q}}$) and gluon ($n_g$) contents (see the text)[]{data-label="fig-pref1"}](figure1.eps){width="9.0cm"}
b) $\Delta$ resonances {#b-delta-resonances .unnumbered}
======================
The simplest way to obtain a $\Delta$ resonance is to couple the three valence quarks in the (3,0)$\frac{3}{2}$ configuration with $q{\bar q}$ pairs in a (0,0)$J=0$ configuration. This scheme leads to the $\Delta (1232)$ resonance. The quark-antiquark and gluon content of the calculated $\Delta (1232)$ turns out to be lower than that of the nucleon, while the structure of the state at 1.57GeV can be compared with the Roper resonance. Concerning negative parity states, Fig. 1 shows a $\frac{3}{2}^-$ state at 1.79 GeV. $\Delta$ resonances can also be obtained by coupling the three valence quarks in the $(1,1)\frac{1}{2}$ configuration with $(1,1)S$ $q\bar{q}$ states. The lowest state of this type is at 1.51 GeV, and it should be compared with the experimental value ($\Delta$ resonance) at 1.62 GeV [@databook].
c) Pentaquarks and heptaquarks {#c-pentaquarks-and-heptaquarks .unnumbered}
==============================
In the present calculation the minimal representation of pentaquark-like states includes the following configurations: (0,0)$\frac{1}{2}^-$, (1,1)$\frac{1}{2}^-$, (3,0)$\frac{1}{2}^-$, (0,3)$\frac{1}{2}^-$ and (2,2)$\frac{1}{2}^-$. Only the (0,3)$\frac{1}{2}^-$ and (2,2)$\frac{1}{2}^-$ configurations contains hypercharge and isospin combinations which can not be obtained in a pure $q^3$ coupling scheme, like $T=0$, $Y=2$ in (0,3) and $T=1$, $Y=2$ in (2,2). Within the model, the lowest pentaquark state $\Theta^+(1540)$ [@exp1; @exp11; @exp2; @exp22; @exp3] is interpreted as a coupling of the three valence quarks in (1,1)$\frac{1}{2}^+$ with the $q\bar{q}$ background in (1,1)$0^-$ to the final irrep (1,1)$\frac{1}{2}^-$. Thus, within our model, the calculated pentaquark state at 1.51 GeV may correspond to the observed $\Theta^+(1540)$ state [@exp1; @exp11; @exp2; @exp22; @exp3]. Anther predicted pentaquark state is shown in Figure. 1.
Within the model, the lowest pentaquark has negative parity in accordance with QCD sum-rules and lattice gauge calculations [@sum1; @sum2; @lat1; @lat2]. If the orbital spin $L$ is included, pentaquark states with positive parity may exist with $L$=1. However, these states include an orbital excitation and should appear at higher energies.
The model contains heptaquarks, characterized by two $q\bar{q}$ pairs added to the three valence quarks. The lowest state has an energy of approximately 2.5 GeV and it has a content of 3.9 $q\bar{q}$ pairs of the type $(1,1)1^+$ coupled to the three valence quarks in the configuration (1,1)$\frac{1}{2}^+$. This coupling scheme yields three exotic flavor irreps: (3,3)$\frac{1}{2}^+$,$\frac{3}{2}^+$, (4,1)$\frac{1}{2}^+$,$\frac{3}{2}^+$ and (1,4)$\frac{1}{2}^+$,$\frac{3}{2}^+$. The lowest heptaquark state contains, basically, three ideal valence quarks, four $q{\bar q}$ pairs and 4.6 gluons. This implies a quark content of 70$\%$ and a gluon content of 30$\%$. The model predicts other heptaquark states at higher energies, which are obtained by coupling the three ideal valence quarks with the $(3,0)1^+$ and $(0,3)1^+$ $q\bar{q}$ configurations. This leads to exotic flavor irreps like (4,1), (1,4) and (3,3) with spin $\frac{1}{2}^+$ and $\frac{3}{2}^+$. The coupling of the three valence quarks with a $q\bar{q}$ irrep (2,2) $S$= 0, 1, 2 leads to exotic flavor irreps of the type (3,3), (1,4) with spin-parity $\frac{1}{2}^+$, $\frac{3}{2}^+$ and $\frac{5}{2}^+$ [@long].
d) Higher multiquark states {#d-higher-multiquark-states .unnumbered}
===========================
In this letter we do not go further into the discussion of all possible states with the structure $q^3(q\bar{q})^{n_2}g^{n_3}$, since the number of these configurations increases with the energy. A more complete overview of these states will be presented in Ref. [@long] with its complete classification of states.
0.5cm To conclude, we have applied a schematic model based on QCD degrees of freedom, to describe nucleon and $\Delta$ resonances and more exotic penta- and heptaquark states. The basis states were classified by applying group theoretical methods. The Hamiltonian, used in the calculations, was tested to the mesonic spectrum, nucleon and $\Delta$ resonances. After fixing the parameters in this manner, we have investigated the appearance of penta- and heptaquark states. The results of the calculations show that the model predicts reasonably well the $\Theta^+$(1540) resonance. The lowest pentaquark state is obtained at an energy of approximately 1.5 GeV and it has $J^\pi$=$\frac{1}{2}^-$. The lowest heptaquark state has an energy of approximately 2.5 GeV and $J^\pi$ either $\frac{1}{2}^+$ or $\frac{3}{2}^+$. In addition, other penta- and heptaquark states are predicted to appear at higher energies.
The model allows for a complete classification of many quark-antiquark and gluon systems. As we have shown, the exotic configurations which appear in our classification scheme can not be obtained in a simple constituent quark picture. The overall agreement with the experimental data supports the claim about the suitability of the procedure.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work obtained financial support from the DGAPA project IN119002 and from CONACyt, CONICET. SJ thanks the [*German Academic Interchange Service*]{} (DAAD) for financial support.
[99]{} S. Lerma, S. Jesgarz, P. O. Hess, O. Civitarese and M. Reboiro, Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{} (2002), 045207.
S. Lerma, S. Jesgarz, P. O. Hess, O. Civitarese and M. Reboiro, Phys. Rev. C [**67**]{}, (2003), 055209.
S. Jesgarz, S. Lerma, P. O. Hess, O. Civitarese and M. Reboiro, Phys. Rev. C [**67**]{}, (2003), 055210.
T. Nakano et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003), 012002.
V. V. Barmin et al. (DIANA collaboration), preprint hep-ex/0304040, Yed. Fis. (in press).
S. Stepanyan et al. (CLAS collaboration), preprint hep-ex/0307018.
J. Barth et al. (SAPHIR collaboration), preprint hep-ex/307083, Nucl. Phys. B (in press).
A. E. Asratyan, A. G. Dolgolenko and M. A. Kubantsev, preprint hep-ex/0309042, submitted to Yad. Fis. (2003).
H. J. Lipkin, N. Meschkov and S. Glick, Nucl. Phys. A [**62**]{} (1965), 118.
D. Schütte and J. Da Providencia, Nucl. Phys. A [**[282]{}**]{}(1977), 518.
J. Dobes and S. Pittel, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{} (1998), 688
O. Civitarese and M. Reboiro, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{} (1998), 2787.
R. Bijker, M. M. Giannini and E. Santopinto, hep-ph/0310281 and hep-ph/0312380.
A. Klein and E. R. Marshalek, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**63**]{} (1991), 375.
J. G. Hirsch, P. O. Hess and O. Civitarese, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{} (1999), 064303.
F. Gürsey and L. A. Radicati, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{} (1964), 173.
M. Hamermesh, [*Group Theory and its Application to Physical Problems*]{} (Dover Publications, New York, 1989).
R. López, P. O. Hess, P. Rochford and J. P. Draayer, Jour. Phys. A [**23**]{} (1990), L229. M. Nuñez, S. Lerma, P. O. Hess, S. Jesgarz, O. Civitarese and M. Reboiro, to be published (2004).
R. Bijker, F. Iachello and A. Leviatan, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**236**]{} (1994), 69.
K. Hagi et al.,The Particle Data Group. Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{} (2002), 010001. Shin-Lin Zhu, preprint hep-ph/0307345.
J. Sugiyama, T. Doi and M. Oka, preprint hep-ph/0309271.
F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz and T. G. Kovács, hep-lat/0309090.
S. Sasaki, hep-lat/0310014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study in this paper a compartmental SIR model for a population distributed in a bounded domain D of $\mathbb{R}^d$, d= 1, 2 or 3. We describe a spatial model for the spread of a disease on a grid of D. We prove two laws of large numbers. On the one hand, we prove that the stochastic model converges to the corresponding deterministic patch model as the size of the population tends to infinity. On the other hand, by letting both the size of the population tend to infinity and the mesh of the grid go to zero, we obtain a law of large numbers in the supremum norm, where the limit is a diffusion SIR model in D.'
author:
- 'M. N’zi [^1]'
- 'E. Pardoux [^2]'
- 'T. Yeo [^3]'
title: |
A SIR model on a refining spatial grid\
- Law of Large Numbers
---
Keywords: spatial model, deterministic, stochastic, law of large numbers\
Funding: Ténan Yeo was supported by a thesis scholarship from the government of Ivory Coast, and a salary as instructor at University of Aix–Marseille, and the two other authors by their respective university.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Introduction
============
There is by now a good number of books and a huge number of papers treating mathematical models of epidemics. Most of them treat deterministic models, while some of them discuss as well stochastic models. Let us quote among many others Kermack $\& $ McKendrick (1927), Anderson $\& $ Britton (2000), Britton $\& $ Pardoux (2019). These last two works show that the standard deterministic models are law of large numbers limits of individual–based stochastic models. They also study fluctuations around the law of large numbers limit, via the central limit theorem, and concerning the last reference, the large deviations. Those fluctuations allow to explain extinction of an endemic disease, which is a stable equilibrium of the deterministic model.
The classical SIR model ignores the fact that a population spreads over a spatial region. However environmental heterogeneity, spatial connectivity and movement of individuals play important roles in the spread of infectious diseases. Spatially uniform models are not sufficient to give a realistic picture of the spread of the disease. There is by now quite an important literature on spatial epidemics model, both in discrete and in continuous space, see e.g. Allen, Bolker, Lou $\&$ Nevai (2007) and Allen, Bolker, Lou $\&$ Nevai (2008), and the references therein.
In the present paper, we consider both deterministic and stochastic models in discrete and continuous space. More precisely, we start with an individual based stochastic model for a population with constant size $\mathbf{N}\ep^{-d}$, distributed on the nodes of a regular grid discretizing $[0,1]^d$, with $d=1,2$ or $3$ (we shall concentrate mainly on the case $d=2$, which seems to us most relevant). Letting first $\mathbf{N}\to\infty$, while ${\varepsilon}$, the mesh size, is kept fixed, we shall obtain as law of large numbers limit a system of ODEs on the grid, which is a patch epidemics model. Letting then ${\varepsilon}\to0$, we will show that the system of ODEs converges to a system of PDEs on $[0,1]^d$, which is a deterministic epidemic model in continuous space. It is rather clear that one cannot hope to get the same result by letting first ${\varepsilon}\to0$, and then $\mathbf{N}\to\infty$. Indeed, the first limit should be a continuous space model for quantities which take their values in the set $\{k/\mathbf{N},\, 0\le k\le\mathbf{N}\}$, with a partial differential operator for the displacement of the population, which would not make much sense. Consequently, if one wants to obtain a limit while letting jointly $\mathbf{N}\to\infty$ and ${\varepsilon}\to0$, there must be a constraint which limits the speed of convergence of ${\varepsilon}$ to $0$, in terms of the speed of convergence of $\mathbf{N}$ to $+\infty$. The weakest possible such constraint seems to be the one which has been first introduced by Blount (1992) for chemical reaction models, namely the restriction that $\mathbf{N}/\log(1/{\varepsilon})\to\infty$, see also Debussche $\&$ Nankep (2017). We shall extend that result to our situation where the limit is not a single PDE, but a system of PDEs.
The model is constructed on a $d$–dimensional bounded domain $[0,1]^d$ $(d= 1, 2,3)$. We first suppose that the population is spatially distributed on the nodes of a grid $ D_{\varepsilon} := [0,1]^d \cap \varepsilon \mathbb{Z}^d=\left\{ x_i,\; 1\le i\le \varepsilon^{-d} \right\} $ of $[0,1]^d$, where $0<\varepsilon<1$ (two neighboring sites are at distance $ \varepsilon$ apart, see Figure 1). Nodes represent communities in which the disease can grow. The population is divided in three compartments S, I and R. For a space-time coordinate (t, $x_i$), we denote by
1. $S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ the number of susceptibles at site $x_i$ at time $t$,
2. $I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ the number of infected at site $x_i$ at time $t$,
3. $R^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ the number of removed at site $x_i$ at time $t$.
In this case the deterministic model is given by a system of ordinary differential equation (ODE) and the stochastic one by a jump Markov process. Note that Arnold $\&$ Theodosopulu (1980), Kotelenez (1986), Blount (1992), and also some of the references therein, describe such spatial models for chemical reactions. The resulting process has one component and is compared with the corresponding deterministic model.
In the present paper, we focus our attention on the law of large numbers. In future works, we intend to discuss the fluctuations around the law of large numbers.
Let us briefly describe the content of this paper. In section 1, we introduce a deterministic model on the grid $ D_{\varepsilon}$ of the bounded domain $[0,1]^d$ and we recall the relation between this model and the limiting PDE model on $[0,1]^d$ as $ \varepsilon\to 0 $. Then we introduce the stochastic model on the same grid for a population of total size $\mathbf{N}\ep^{-d}$. In section 2, we fix the parameter $ \varepsilon $ and let the initial average number $ \mathbf{N}$ of individuals in each site tend to infinity: the limiting law of large numbers limit is the already introduced deterministic model. As $\varepsilon\to 0 $ our system of ODEs converges towards a system of PDEs. Finally in section 3, we prove a law of large numbers in the supremum norm when we let both the size of the population go to infinity and the mesh of the grid go to zero, under the weak restriction that $\dfrac{\mathbf{N}}{\log(1/\varepsilon)}\longrightarrow \infty$.
iin [0,...,6]{}[ (i,0)–(i,6); in [0,...,6]{}[ (0,)–(6,); (i,) circle(5pt); ]{} ]{}
\
Figure 1- $[0,1]\times [0,1]$ grid
The models
==========
Suppose that individuals are living in the bounded domain $D:=(0,1)^d\subset \mathbb{R}^d$. We consider an infectious disease which spreads in the population. Consider at each point of a grid (see Figure 1 ) on the d-dimensional domain $D$ a deterministic and a stochastic SIR model, with migration between neighboring sites (two neighboring sites are at distance $ \varepsilon $ apart). We assume that the mesh size of the grid $ \varepsilon $ is such that $\varepsilon^{-1}\in \mathbb{N} $, where $ \mathbb{N}$ is the set of positive integers. We assume that the studied epidemic concerns a population of fixed size. In this model, infections are local. We let $ \beta \, : \, \mathbb{R}^d\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ and $ \alpha\, : \, \mathbb{R}^d \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ be continuous functions and we set $ \bar{\beta}={\underset}{x\in D}{\sup}\beta(x)$ and $ \bar{\alpha}={\underset}{x\in D}{\sup}\alpha(x)$. For each site $x_i$
1. Susceptible individuals become infectious at rate $ \beta(x_i)\dfrac{S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+R^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$.\
Note that an individual chosen uniformly at random site $x_i$ at time $t$ is susceptible with probability $\dfrac{S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+R^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}$;
2. each infectious recovers at rate $ \alpha(x_i) $, so the total recovery rate at time t is $\alpha(x_i)I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$;
3. the migrations of susceptible, infected and removed individuals between location $x_i$ and its neighboring sites occur at rate $\dfrac{\mu_S}{\varepsilon^2}S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$, $\dfrac{\mu_I}{\varepsilon^2}I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ and $\dfrac{\mu_R}{\varepsilon^2}R^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ respectively. $ \mu_S$, $\mu_I$ and $\mu_R$ are positive diffusion coefficients for the susceptible, infected and removed subpopulations, respectively.
Here, we assume that the compartment $R$ contains individuals who are dead or who have recovered and have permanent immunity. We can assume boundary conditions of the Neumann or periodic type. In this paper, we focus our attention on Neumann boundary conditions (representing a closed environment i.e. there is no flux of individuals through the boundary). The choice $D=(0,1)^d$ as the spatial domain is made for the sake of simplifying the analysis, but our results can be extended to any bounded domain $ D \subset \mathbb{R}^d $, with a reasonably smooth boundary.
Initially $\mathbf{N}\ep^{-d}$ individuals are distributed on the grid. That is, there is an average of $\mathbf{N}$ individuals on each site. We first introduce the deterministic model and then we construct the corresponding stochastic model.\
In the following we use the generic notation $C$ for a positive constant, the value of which may change from line to line. These constants can depend upon some parameters of the model, as long as these are independent of $ \varepsilon $ and $ \mathbf{N}$.
The deterministic model
-----------------------
The space is the grid $D_{\varepsilon}$ of D. In order to take into account Neumann boundary conditions, we add some fictitious sites which extend the grid outside the domain, as shown in Figure 2 below. We denote by $ \partial_{\vec{n}.out} D_{\varepsilon}$ the set of those fictitious sites. We use the notation $ y_i \sim x_i $ to mean that the sites $y_i$ and $x_i$ are neighbors. Each interior point of $ D_{\varepsilon}$ has $2d$ neighbours. Each boundary point has at least one fictitious site among its neighbors.
(0.5,0.5)–(0.5,6.5)–(6.5,6.5)–(6.5,0.5)–cycle; iin [1,...,6]{}[ (i,1)–(i,6); in [1,...,6]{}[ (1,)–(6,); (i,) circle(5pt); ]{} ]{}
iin [1,...,6]{}[ (i,0)–(i,7); in [0,7]{}[ (i,) circle(5pt); ]{} ]{} in [1,...,6]{}
(0,)–(7,); iin [0,7]{}
(i,) circle(5pt);
(8.7,5) node
$\bullet$
= fictitious sites
; (9.9,4) node[[$ \partial_{\vec{n}.out} D_{\varepsilon}$]{}:= the set of fictitious sites]{}; (4,4) node\[below left\] [$x_i$]{};
(3+.1,4+.05) to\[out=15,in=165\](4-.1,4+.05); (4+.1,4+.05) to\[out=15,in=165\](5-.1,4+.05);
(4-.1,4-.05) to\[out=-165,in=-15\](3+.1,4-.05); (5-.1,4-.05) to\[out=-165,in=-15\](4+.1,4-.05);
(4+.05,3+.1) to\[out=75,in=-75\](4+.05,4-.05); (4+.05,4+.1) to\[out=75,in=-75\](4+.05,5-.1);
(4-.05,4-.1) to\[out=-105,in=105\](4-.05,3+.1); (4-.05,5-.1) to\[out=-105,in=105\](4-.05,4+.1);
\
$\hspace{-6cm} {\boldmath \text{Figure 2}-\text{Modeling the Neumann condition}}$
By thinking of an infinite size population allowing “proportions” in each compartment to be continuous, we have the following deterministic model for “proportions” (this point of view will become quite clear in section 2 below): $$\label{eqdet}
\hspace{-2cm}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\,S_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t,x_i) &= - \dfrac{\beta(x_i)\, S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+R_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}+ \mu_S\,\Delta_{\varepsilon} S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) \\
\bigskip
\dfrac{d\,I_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t,x_i) &= \dfrac{\beta(x_i)\, S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+R_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}-\alpha(x_i) \,I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) + \mu_I\,\Delta_{\varepsilon} I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) \\
\dfrac{d\,R_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t,x_i) & = \alpha(x_i) \,I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) +\mu_R\,\Delta_{\varepsilon} R_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) , \; \;
(t,x_i) \in (0,T)\times D_{\varepsilon} \\
& \left.
\hspace{-1.8cm} \begin{array}{rl}
S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)= S_{\varepsilon}(t,y_i)\\
I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)= I_{\varepsilon}(t,y_i)\\
R_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)= R_{\varepsilon}(t,y_i)
\end{array} \right\} \text{for} \; x_i\in \partial D_{\varepsilon}, \; x_i \sim y_i \; \text{and} \; y_i \in \partial_{\vec{n}.out} D_{\varepsilon} \\
& \hspace{-1.5cm} S_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i), I_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i), R_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)\ge 0, \; 0<S_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)+ I_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)+ R_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i) \le M,\\
&\hspace{-1.5cm} \text{for some} \; M < \infty ,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $ S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ (resp. $I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$, resp. $R_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$) is the proportion of the total population which is both susceptible (resp. infectious, resp. removed) and located at site $x_i$ at time $t$. $\Delta_{\varepsilon}$ is the discrete Laplace operator defined as follows: $ {\displaystyle}\Delta_{\varepsilon}f(x_i) = \varepsilon^{-2}\sum_{j=1}^{d}\big[f(x_i+\varepsilon e_j)-2f(x_i)+f(x_i-\varepsilon e_j) \big].$
Note that (\[eqdet\]) is the discrete space approximation of the following system of PDE $$\label{cdm}
\hspace{-4.5cm}\left \{
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\partial\,\mathbf{s}}{\partial t}(t,x)= & \;-\dfrac{\beta(x)\, \mathbf{s}(t,x)\mathbf{i}(t,x) }{\mathbf{s}(t,x)+\mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mathbf{r}(t,x)} + \mu_S \,\Delta \mathbf{s}(t,x) \\
\dfrac{\partial\,\mathbf{i}}{\partial t}(t,x)=&\;\dfrac{\beta(x)\, \mathbf{s}(t,x)\mathbf{i}(t,x) }{\mathbf{s}(t,x)+\mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mathbf{r}(t,x)} - \alpha(x)\, \mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mu_I\, \Delta \mathbf{i}(t,x)\\
\dfrac{\partial\,\mathbf{r}}{\partial t}(t,x)=&\;\alpha(x)\, \mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mu_S\, \Delta \mathbf{r}(t,x), \quad (t,x) \in (0,T)\times D \\
&\hspace{-1.7cm} \dfrac{\partial \,\mathbf{s}}{\partial n_{\text{out}}}(t,x)=\; \dfrac{\partial\, \mathbf{i}}{\partial n_{\text{out}}}(t,x)=\dfrac{\partial\, \mathbf{r}}{\partial n_{\text{out}}}(t,x) = 0, \; \; \; \text{for}\; x\in \partial D \\
&\hspace{-1.5cm} \mathbf{s}(0,x), \mathbf{i}(0,x), \mathbf{r}(0,x)\ge 0 , \; 0< \mathbf{s}(0,x)+\mathbf{i}(0,x)+\mathbf{r}(0,x)\le M,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $ \dfrac{\partial}{\partial n_{\text{out}}}$ denotes differentiation in the direction of the outward normal to $ \partial D$ and $ \Delta $ denotes the d-dimensional Laplace operator.\
System (\[cdm\]) is a reaction-diffusion epidemic model which has been studied by several authors. Webb (1981) gave a similar reaction-diffusion model for a deterministic diffusive epidemic model, established the existence of solutions and analyzed their behavior as $ t\to \infty$. His method exploits tools of functional analysis and dynamical systems, specifically the theory of semigroups of linear and nonlinear operators in Banach spaces and Lyapunov stability techniques for dynamical systems in metric spaces. In the same way Yamazaki $\&$ Wang (2016) gave a reaction-convection-diffusion epidemic model for cholera dynamics and studied the global well-posedness and the asymptotic behavior of the solutions. See also Du $\&$ Peng (2016), Yamazaki (2018a), Yamazaki (2018b). Let us mention that the SIR model (\[eqdet\]) describes the spread of an infectious disease where recovered individuals gain immunity from re-infection. Of course in some cases recovered individuals have not permanent immunity. Hence individuals in the compartiment R can experience reinfection. Moreover, susceptible individuals that become infected can first pass through a latent stage (exposed). Such models are used to study the transmission dynamics of the Ebola virus disease as treated in Agusto (2017a). Also, in Agusto et al. (2017b) the authors used such model to explore the Zika virus transmission dynamics in a human population. Another model which received attention in the literature is the diffusion epidemic SIS model. In this model, when an infectious individual cures, he immediately becomes susceptible again. Such model has been considered in Allen et al. (2008). Although we restrict ourselves to the SIR model, our results can easily be adapted to SIRS, SIS, SEIR, SEIRS models.
Before describing the stochastic model, we introduce some notations and preliminaries, and then discuss the relation between the system of PDEs (\[cdm\]) and its discretisation.
### Some notations and preliminaries
In this subsection we introduce some notations and also give preliminary lemmas which will be needed in our subsequent work. For all $ x_i \in D_{\varepsilon}$, let $V_i$ be the cube centered at the site $ x_i$ with volume $ \varepsilon^d$. Let $ H^{\varepsilon} \subset L^2\big(D\big)$ denote the space of real valued step functions that are constant on each cell $ V_i$. For $f\in H^{\varepsilon} $, let us define $$\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,+}f(x_i) =\frac{f(x_i +\varepsilon e_j)-f(x_i)}{\varepsilon},$$ $$\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,-}f(x_i) =\frac{f(x_i)- f(x_i-\varepsilon e_j)}{\varepsilon}.$$ It is not hard to see that $$\langle \; \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,+}f, g \; \rangle = -\langle \; f , \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,-}g \; \rangle ,$$ $$\Delta_{\varepsilon}f(x_i)=\sum_{j=1}^{d}\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,-}\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,+}f(x_i).$$
We introduce the canonical projection $ {\displaystyle}P_{\varepsilon} : L^2(D)\longrightarrow H^{\varepsilon} $ given by $$\varphi\longmapsto P_{\varepsilon}\varphi(x)= \varepsilon^{-d}\int_{V_i} \varphi(y)dy \; \; \; \; \; \text{if}\; x\in V_i .$$
Throughout this paper, we assume that the initial condition satisfies
\[a1\] $ \mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(0,x)=P_{\varepsilon}\, \mathbf{s}(0,x)$, $ \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(0,x)=P_{\varepsilon}\,\mathbf{i}(0,x)$, $ \mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(0,x)=P_{\varepsilon}\,\mathbf{r}(0,x)$ and
$ ~\hspace{2.7cm}{\displaystyle}\int_D\big(\mathbf{s}(0,x)+\mathbf{i}(0,x)+\mathbf{r}(0,x)\big)dx=1$.
Here, we describe some of the spectral properties of the (discrete)-Laplacian which will play an important role in the sequel. More details can be found in Kotelenez(1986).
$\bullet $ For a multiindex $ {\displaystyle}m = (m_1 , \ldots , m _d ) $, where $m_j\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$, and $ x\in \mathbb{R} $, we define $$f_{m_j}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
& \hspace{-.5cm}\sqrt{2}\cos(m_j\pi x), \; \text{for} \; \; m_j\ge 1 \\
& 1 \; , \qquad \qquad \; \;\, \mbox{for} \; \; m_j= 0 \; .
\end{array}
\right.$$
For $ \varphi, \psi \in L^2\big(D\big)$, ${\displaystyle}\langle \; \varphi , \phi \; \rangle := \int_D \varphi(r)\phi(r)dr $ denotes the scalar product in $L^2\big(D\big).$\
For each $m\in \mathbb{Z}_+^d$, $x\!=\!(x^1,\cdots,x^d)\in D$, we define ${\displaystyle}{\mathbf{f}}_{m}(x)\!=\!\prod_{j=1}^{d}f_{m_j}(x^j)$. ${\displaystyle}\big\{\, {\mathbf{f}}_{m},\, m\in \mathbb{Z}_+^d \,\big\} $ is a complete\
orthonormal system (CONS) of eigenvectors of $ \Delta $ in $L^2(D)$ with eigenvalues ${\displaystyle}-\lambda_{m}\!\!=\!\!-\pi^2\sum_{j=1}^{d}m_j^2. $ Consequently, the semigroup $\mathsf{T}(t)\!:= \!\exp\big(\Delta \,t\big)$ acting on $ L^2\big(D\big)$ generated by $ \Delta $ can be represented by
${\displaystyle}\hspace{3cm} \mathsf{T}(t)\varphi\!=\!\sum_m\exp(-\lambda_{m} t )\langle \; \varphi , {\mathbf{f}}_m \; \rangle {\mathbf{f}}_m ,\; \; \varphi\in~
L^2\big(D\big)$.
$\bullet$ For $ i = ( i_1, \ldots , i_d)\in \left\{ 0, 1 , \ldots , \varepsilon^{-1}-1\right\}^d$, let ${\displaystyle}V_i = \prod_{j=1}^{d}\Big[\big(i_j-\dfrac{1}{2}\big)\varepsilon , \big(i_j+\dfrac{1}{2}\big)\varepsilon\Big) \subset [0,1]^d $ and for
$ m \in \left\{ 0 , 1 , \ldots , \varepsilon^{-1} \right\}^d $, we define ${\displaystyle}{\mathbf{f}}_{m}^{\varepsilon}(x)=\prod_{j=1}^{d}f_{m_j}(i_j \varepsilon) \; \; \text{if}\; \; x\in V_i. $ $ \big\{\, {\mathbf{f}}_{m}^{\varepsilon}, \, m\in \mathbb{Z}_+^d \,\big\} $ form an orthonormal basis of $ H^{\varepsilon} $ as a subspace of $ L^2\big([0,1]^d\big)$ and are eigenfunctions of $ \Delta_{\varepsilon} $ with eigenvalues\
${\displaystyle}-\lambda_{m}^{\varepsilon}=-2\varepsilon^{-2}\sum_{j=1}^{d}\Big( 1 - cos(m_j\pi\varepsilon) \Big). $ Note that $ {\displaystyle}\lambda_{m}^{\varepsilon} \longrightarrow \lambda_{m}$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$.\
$\bullet$ Basic calculations show that there exists a constant $ c$, such that for each $m_j$, $\varepsilon^{-2}\big( 1 - cos(\pi m_j \varepsilon) \big) > c\, m_j^2 .$\
$\bullet$ $ \Delta_{\varepsilon} $ generates a contraction semigroup $ \mathsf{T}_{\ep}(t) :=\exp \big(\Delta_{\varepsilon} t\big) $ represented on $ H^{\varepsilon} $ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rept}
\mathsf{T}_{\ep}(t)\varphi= \sum_m\exp(-\lambda_{m}^{\varepsilon} t )\langle \; \varphi , {\mathbf{f}}_{m}^{\varepsilon} \; \rangle {\mathbf{f}}_{m} ^{\varepsilon} ,
\end{aligned}$$ where the summation is taken on the $\ep^{-d}$ eigenvectors of $\Delta_{\ep}$. Note that both $ \Delta_{\varepsilon}$ and $\mathsf{T}_{\ep}(t)$ are self-adjoint and that $ \mathsf{T}_{\ep}(t)\Delta_{\varepsilon}\varphi=\Delta_{\varepsilon}\mathsf{T}_{\ep}(t)\varphi.$ Note also, for any $ J\in\{S, I, R\}$, the semigroup generated by $ \mu_J\Delta$ is ${\mathsf{T}}(\mu_Jt)$. In the sequel, we will use the notation $ {\mathsf{T}_{\!J}}(t):={\mathsf{T}}(\mu_Jt)$ and similarly, in the discrete case, we will use the notation ${\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t):={\mathsf{T}_{\ep}}(\mu_Jt)$. Also, for any $J\in \{S, I, R\}$, we let $ \lambda_{m,J}:=\mu_J\lambda_{m}$ and $ \lambda_{m,J}^{\ep}:=\mu_J\lambda_{m}^{\varepsilon}. $\
$\bullet\;$ We use $ {\big\Vert}\varphi {\big\Vert}_{\infty}\! \!:= {\underset}{x\in D}{\sup}\big\vert \varphi(x) \big\vert$ to denote the supremum norm of $\varphi$ in $D$, and we define $ \Big\Vert \bigg( \begin{array}{cr}
\varphi\\
\phi
\end{array}\bigg) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \!\!:=~{\big\Vert}\varphi {\big\Vert}_{\infty} +~{\big\Vert}\phi {\big\Vert}_{\infty}. $\
$\bullet\;$ If $Z$ is a space-time function, we use the notation $ Z(t)=Z(t,.)$.\
$\bullet\; $ For $ n \ge 1 $, $ C^n(D)$ denotes the space of real valued continuous functions on $ D$ with continuous partial derivatives of all orders from 1 to $n$ . We use the standard partial ordering of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and the classical notations:\
$u\le v $ if, for all $1\le i\le d$, $u_i\le v_i$.
### Existence and uniqueness
Let us set $ {\displaystyle}X_{\ep}= \big( S_{\varepsilon}, I_{\varepsilon}, R_{\varepsilon}
\big)^T.$ We introduce the function $G : (x;u,v,w) \longmapsto \left( \begin{array}{cl}
-\dfrac{\beta(x)\,u\,v}{u+v+w} \\
\dfrac{\beta(x)\,u\,v}{u+v+w}-\alpha(x)\, v\\
\alpha(x)\, v
\end{array}\right)$.\
We use the notation $ \widetilde{\Delta}_{\varepsilon} X_{\varepsilon} = \Big(
\mu_S\Delta_{\varepsilon}S_{\varepsilon},\,
\mu_I\Delta_{\varepsilon}I_{\varepsilon},\,
\mu_R\Delta_{\varepsilon}R_{\varepsilon}
\Big)^T $. Then the compact form of system (\[eqdet\]) is
$$\hspace{-3cm}\left \{
\begin{aligned}\label{fcds1}
\dfrac{dX_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t,x_i) & = \widetilde{\Delta}_{\varepsilon} X_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) + G\big(x_i ; X_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\big), \; \; (t,x_i) \in (0,T)\times D_{\varepsilon} \\
X_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)& = X_{\varepsilon}(t,y_i) , \; \text{for} \; x_i\in \partial D_{\varepsilon},\; x_i \sim y_i \; \text{and} \; y_i \in \partial_{\vec{n}.out} D_{\varepsilon}\\
&\hspace{-1.4cm} X(0,x_i) \ge 0 \; \; \text{and} \; \; 0<S_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)+I_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)+R_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)\le M, \; \forall \,x_i \in D_{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
We have
\[ro\] For each $ \varepsilon >0 $ fixed, the system (\[fcds1\]) has a unique non-negative solution $ X_{\varepsilon}\in C^1\big( \mathbb{R}_+ ; \mathbb{R}^{3\varepsilon^{-d}}_+ \big)$. Moreover ${\underset}{0\le t\le T}{\sup}\Big\Vert X_{\ep}(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}\le C(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta})$.
Let us define $g :\mathbb{R}^3 \longrightarrow \mathbb{R} $\
$(u,v,w)\longmapsto g(u,v,w)=\dfrac{uv}{u+v+w}. $\
We have $ G(x ; u,v,w)= \left( \begin{array}{cl}
-\beta(x)\, g(u,v,w) \\
\beta(x)\, g(u,v,w)-\alpha(x)\, v\\
\alpha(x) \, v
\end{array}\right).$ We introduce\
$ g^+(u,v,w)\!=\!\! \left\{ \!\begin{array}{rl}
\dfrac{u^+v^+}{u^++v^++w^+}, & \mbox{if} \, u^++v^++w^+>0 ;\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{array}\right. $ where we used the notation $ u^+=\sup(u,0)$. We set
${\displaystyle}G^+(x ; u,v,w)= \left( \begin{array}{cl}
-\beta(x)\, g^+(u,v,w) \\
\beta(x)\, g^+(u,v,w)-\alpha(x)\, v\\
\alpha(x) \, v
\end{array}\right).$ Let us consider the system of ODEs $$\label{lc}
\hspace{-3.5cm}\left \{
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{dX_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t,x_i) & = \widetilde{\Delta}_{\varepsilon} X_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) + G^+\big(x_i ; X_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\big), \; \; (t,x_i) \in (0,T)\times D_{\varepsilon} \\
X_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)& = X_{\varepsilon}(t,y_i) , \; \text{for} \; x_i\in \partial D_{\varepsilon}, x_i \sim y_i \; \text{and} \; y_i \in \partial_{\vec{n}.out} D_{\varepsilon}\\
&\hspace{-1.4cm} X(0,x_i) \ge 0 \; \; \text{and} \; \; 0<S_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)+I_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)+R_{\varepsilon}(0,x_i)\le M, \; \forall \,x_i \in D_{\varepsilon}.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Since $ G^+ $ is globally Lipschitz and $ \widetilde{\Delta}_{\varepsilon}$ is linear, then by the Picard-Lindelöf theorem the Cauchy problem (\[lc\]) has a unique solution $ \tilde{X}_{\varepsilon}\in C^1\big( \mathbb{R}_+ ; \mathbb{R}^{3\varepsilon^{-d}} \big)$. Now let us show that $X_{\varepsilon}(t)\ge0$ for all $t\ge 0.$ Let us set $ t_1=\inf\{t>0 : \text{there exists an index i such that} \; S_{\ep}(t,x_i)< 0\}.$ If $t_1<\infty$ then there exists $i_1$ such that $S_{\ep}(t_1,x_{i_1})=0 $ and for all $j\neq i_1$ $S_{\ep}(t_1,x_j)\ge 0. $ So that $\dfrac{dS_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_{i_1})\ge 0 .$ Thus, either there exists an index $j$ such $x_j\sim x_{i_1}$ and $ S_{\ep}(t_1,x_j)>0$ or else $ S_{\ep}(t_1,x_j)=0 $ for all $x_j \sim x_{i_1}$.\
**(i)** In the first case $\dfrac{dS_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_{i_1})> 0$, which contradicts the definition of $ t_1$.\
**(ii)** Let us set $ {\displaystyle}\mathsf{I}_1=\{\;x_i\in D_{\ep} : S_{\ep}(t_1,x_i)>0\;\}$. If $ \mathsf{I}_1=\varnothing $ then $S_{\ep}(t_1,x_i)=0$, for all $x_i\in D_{\ep} $. The uniqueness of the solution entails that the null vector is solution for the equations satisfied by $S_{\ep}$ on the time interval $[t_1,+\infty)$. We now assume that $\mathsf{I}_1\ne\varnothing$, and define
$$\mathscr{V}_1(\mathsf{I}_1)=\{\; x_i\in D_{\ep}: x_i\notin \mathsf{I}_1 ,\; \exists\, x_j \in \mathsf{I}_1 \,\text{such that}\, x_i\sim x_j \;\},$$ $$\mathscr{V}_2(\mathsf{I}_1)=\{\; x_i\in D_{{\varepsilon}}: x_i\notin \mathscr{V}_1(\mathsf{I}_1)\cup \mathsf{I}_1,\; \exists\, x_j \in \mathsf{I}_1 \,\text{such that}\, x_i\sim x_j \;\},$$
$$\vdots$$
$$\mathscr{V}_{k}(\mathsf{I}_1)=\{\; x_i\in D_{{\varepsilon}}: x_i\notin \mathscr{V}_{k-1}(\mathsf{I}_1)\cup\cdots\cup\mathscr{V}_1(\mathsf{I}_1)\cup \mathsf{I}_1,\;\exists\, x_j \in \mathscr{V}_{k-1}(\mathsf{I}_1) \,\text{such that}\, x_i\sim x_j\;\},\; k\ge 1.$$
First, note that there exists a positive integer $k$ such that $ \mathscr{V}_{k}(\mathsf{I}_1)= \varnothing$, because there is a finite number of sites. Now, if $ x_i\in \mathscr{V}_1(\mathsf{I}_1)$, then $ S_{{\varepsilon}}(t_1, x_i)=0$ and $\dfrac{dS_{{\varepsilon}}}{dt}(t_1, x_i)>0$, which contradicts the definition of $t_1$. Else, assume that $x_i\in \mathscr{V}_2(\mathsf{I}_1)$. On the one hand, we have $ S_{{\varepsilon}}(t_1, x_i)=0$, $\dfrac{dS_{{\varepsilon}}}{dt}(t_1, x_i)=0$. On the other hand,
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{since}\; \; \dfrac{d^2\,S_{\varepsilon}}{dt^2}(t_1,x_i)& = &- \beta(x_i)\dfrac{ I_{\varepsilon}(t_1,x_i)\frac{dS_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_i)+S_{{\varepsilon}}(t_1,x_i)\frac{dI_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_i)}{S_{\varepsilon}(t_1,x_i)+I_{\varepsilon}(t_1,x_i)+R_{\varepsilon}(t_1,x_i)}\nonumber\\
&+&\beta(x_i)\dfrac{S_{{\varepsilon}}(t_1,x_i)I_{{\varepsilon}}(t_1,x_i)\Big( \frac{dS_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_i)+\frac{dI_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_i)+\frac{dR_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_i) \Big)}{\Big(S_{\varepsilon}(t_1,x_i)+I_{\varepsilon}(t_1,x_i)+R_{\varepsilon}(t_1,x_i)\Big)^2}+ \mu_S\,\Delta_{\varepsilon} \dfrac{dS_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_i), \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
then $ {\displaystyle}\dfrac{d^2\,S_{\varepsilon}}{dt^2}(t_1,x_i) = \mu_S\,\Delta_{\varepsilon} \dfrac{dS_{\varepsilon}}{dt}(t_1,x_i)>0$, because $ x_i\in \mathscr{V}_2(\mathsf{I}_1)$, and we obtain again a contradiction. If $x_i\in\mathscr{V}_j(\mathsf{I}_1),$ for $j\ge 2$, we iterate the above argument to obtain a contradiction. Then in all cases we obtain a contradiction. So that $ t_1= \infty.$ Thus $ S_{{\varepsilon}}(t,x_i)\ge 0$ for all $ (t,x_i) \in [0,T]\in D_{{\varepsilon}}.$ Similar arguments hold for $I_{\varepsilon}$ and $R_{\varepsilon}.$ It follows from the positivity of the solution and the fact that $ G = G^+ $ on $ \mathbb{R}_+^3$, that the system (\[fcds1\]) has a unique global solution $ X_{\varepsilon}\in C^1\big( \mathbb{R}_+ ; \mathbb{R}_+^{3\varepsilon^{-d}} \big)$. Furthermore, writing the solution of (\[fcds1\]) in its mild semigroup form, and using successively the fact that $ \widetilde{\mathsf{T}}_{{\varepsilon}}:=(
{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}},
{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,I}},
{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,R}})^T$ is a contraction semigroup on $\Big( H^{\varepsilon} , \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3 \Big)$, the fact that $ X(0,x_i)\le 1$ for all $x_i \in D_{\varepsilon}$ and applying Gronwall’s Lemma, we easily obtain that ${\underset}{0\le t\le T}{\sup}\Big\Vert X(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}\le C(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta})$. This concludes the proof of the lemma.
$\blacksquare$
Let us now define $\; {\displaystyle}\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} S_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x),\;$ $\; {\displaystyle}\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} I_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x), \;\; $ ${\displaystyle}\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} R_{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x),$ ${\displaystyle}\beta_{\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}}\beta(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x),$ ${\displaystyle}\alpha_{\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \alpha(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x),$ and we set $ {\displaystyle}\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}= \big(
\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}, \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}, \mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}
\big)^T .$\
Note that the previous lemma is true with $\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}$ in place of $ X_{\varepsilon}$. Let us set $ {\displaystyle}X= \big(\mathbf{s}, \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{r}\big)^T .$ Then the compact form of the model (\[cdm\]) is $$\label{sytc}
\hspace{-6cm}\left \{
\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-1.8cm} \dfrac{\partial X}{\partial t}(t,x) = \widetilde{\Delta}X(t,x) + G\big(x ; X(t,x)\big), \; \; (t,x) \in [0,T]\times D \\
\dfrac{\partial X}{\partial n_{\text{out}}}(t,x) & = 0, \; \; \; \text{for}\; x\in \partial D\\
&\hspace{-1.8cm} X(0,x)\ge 0 \; \text{and} \; 0< \mathbf{s}(0,x)+\mathbf{i}(0,x)+\mathbf{r}(0,x)\le M.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
Writing the solution of (\[sytc\]) in its mild semigroup form, we have ${\displaystyle}X(t) = \widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t)X(0)+ \int_0^t\widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t-r)G\big(X(r)\big)dr$, where we used the notation $ {\displaystyle}\widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t)X:= \left( \begin{array}{cl}
{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t)\mathbf{s} \\
{\mathsf{T}_{\!I}}(t)\mathbf{i} \\
{\mathsf{T}_{\!R}}(t)\mathbf{r}
\end{array}\right)$ and similarly for $\widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t-r)G\big(X(r)\big).$
The initial value probem (\[sytc\]) has a unique solution $ X\in C\Big([0,T]\,; \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3\Big)$.
For $0\le u(0,.)\le 1$, we define a mapping F $:{\displaystyle}C\Big([0,T]\,; \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3\Big)\longrightarrow C\Big([0,T]\,; \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3\Big)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f}
(Fu)(t) = \widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t)u(0)+ \int_0^t\widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t-r)G\big(u(r)\big)dr.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $ u,v \in C\Big([0,T]\,; \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3\Big)$ such that $u(0)=v(0)$. Using the fact that $\widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}$ is a contraction semigroup on $\big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3$ and G is globally Lipschitz, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert (Fu)(t)-(Fv)(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}\le C\int_0^t \Big\Vert u(r)-v(r)\Big\Vert_{\infty}dr,\; \; \text{for all} \; t\in[0,T],\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is the Lipschitz constant of $G$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{if}
\Big\Vert (Fu)(t)-(Fv)(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}\le CT {\underset}{0\le r\le T}{\sup} \Big\Vert u(r)-v(r)\Big\Vert_{\infty}.
\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[f\]), (\[if\]) and induction on $n$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
{\underset}{0\le t\le T}{\sup}\Big\Vert (F^nu)(t)-(F^nv)(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}\le \dfrac{(CT)^n}{ n!} {\underset}{0\le t\le T}{\sup} \Big\Vert u(t)-v(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}.
\end{aligned}$$ For $n$ large enough $F^n$ is a contraction (since $ \dfrac{(CT)^n}{ n!}<1$). It follows from the Banach contraction principle that F has a unique fixed point in $ X\in C\Big([0,T]\,; \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3\Big).$ This fixed point is the solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{msol}
X(t) = \widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t)X(0)+ \int_0^t\widetilde{{\mathsf{T}}}(t-r)G\big(X(r)\big)dr.
\end{aligned}$$ The mild solution of (\[msol\]) is in fact a classical solution of (\[sytc\]), see Theorem 3.1, Chapter 7 of Smith (1995). Note that the Corollary 3.1, Chapter 7 of the above reference ensures that $ X(t)\ge 0$, $\forall \,t \ge 0$.
$\blacksquare$
### Relation between the system of PDEs and its discretisation
We will now prove that $ \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}$ converges to X as the mesh size $ \varepsilon$ of the grid tends to zero.
\[ct\] Let us consider an initial condition $ X(0) \in \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3$. For all $T > 0 $,\
${\displaystyle}{\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}\Big\Vert \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}(t)- X(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 $, as $ \varepsilon \to 0 . $
Using the variation of constants formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(t)
&=& {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t)\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(0) - \int_0^t {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) }\Big]dr, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\mathbf{s}(t) = {\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t)\mathbf{s}(0) - \int_0^t{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]dr.$$ Recall that $ \mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(0)= P_{\varepsilon}\,\mathbf{s}(0) $, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(t) -\mathbf{s}(t)
&=& {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t) P_{\varepsilon}\,\mathbf{s}(0) -{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t)\mathbf{s}(0) - \int_0^t {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) }\Big]dr \nonumber\\
&&+ \int_0^t{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]dr. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqm}
\Big\Vert \mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(t) - \mathbf{s}(t) \Big\Vert_{\infty}
&\le& \Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t) P_{\varepsilon}\,\mathbf{s}(0) -{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t)\mathbf{s}(0) \Big\Vert_{\infty}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-2cm}+\int_0^t \Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) }\Big]- {\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big] \Big\Vert_{\infty} dr \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-2cm} \le \Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t) P_{\varepsilon}\,\mathbf{s}(0) -{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t)\mathbf{s}(0) \Big\Vert_{\infty}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-2cm} + \int_0^t\Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) }\Big]-{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big] \Big\Vert_{\infty} dr\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{-2cm} +\int_0^t \Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]-{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big] \Big\Vert_{\infty} dr.
\end{aligned}$$
Let us estimate each term of the right-hand side of this inequality.
Since $ \mathbf{s}(0)\in L^{\infty}(D)$, it then follows from Kato ( [@Kato66] pp. 512-513 ), that
$~\hspace{2cm}\Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t)P_{\varepsilon}\mathbf{s}(0) -{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t)\mathbf{s}(0) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0, \; \; \text{uniformly on} \; [0,T].$
Using the fact that $ {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}$ is a contraction semigroup on $\Big( H^{\varepsilon} , \Vert . \Vert_{\infty}\Big)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^t\bigg\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) }\Big]-{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big] \bigg\Vert_{\infty}dr
&&\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-8cm}\le \bar{\beta}\int_0^t\bigg\Vert \dfrac{\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r) +\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) }-\dfrac{\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)} \bigg\Vert_{\infty} dr \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-8cm}+\int_0^t \bigg\Vert P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]- \dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)} \bigg\Vert_{\infty} dr \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-8cm} \le \bar{\beta}\int_0^t \Bigg( 2 \bigg\Vert \mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) - \mathbf{s}(r) \bigg\Vert_{\infty} + 2\bigg\Vert \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)-\mathbf{i}(r)\bigg\Vert_{\infty} +\bigg\Vert \mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) - \mathbf{r}(r) \bigg\Vert_{\infty} \Bigg) dr \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-8cm}+ \int_0^t\bigg\Vert P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]- \dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)} \bigg\Vert_{\infty} dr. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\in L^{\infty}(D)$, then for the last term (\[eqm\]), we have $$\bigg\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]-{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big] \bigg\Vert_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0, \; \text{uniformly on}\; [0,T],$$ ( , ). Consequently $$\hspace{-5cm} \int_0^t \bigg\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]-{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big] \bigg\Vert_{\infty}dr \longrightarrow 0 .$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert \mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(t)-\mathbf{s}(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}
&\le& a_{\ep}(t)+C(\bar{\beta}) \int_0^t \Bigg(\Big\Vert \mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon}(r) -\mathbf{s}(r) \Big\Vert_{\infty} + \Big\Vert \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(r)-\mathbf{i}(r)+ \Big\Vert \mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(r) -\mathbf{r}(r) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \Bigg) dr, \; \; \text{where} \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
a_{\ep}(t)&=&\Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t) P_{\varepsilon}\,\mathbf{s}(0) -{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t)\mathbf{s}(0) \Big\Vert_{\infty}+ \int_0^t \bigg\Vert P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]- \dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)} \bigg\Vert_{\infty} dr \nonumber\\
&&+\int_0^t \bigg\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)P_{\varepsilon}\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big]-{\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}(t-r)\Big[\dfrac{\beta(.)\mathbf{s}(r) \mathbf{i}(r)}{\mathbf{s}(r)+\mathbf{i}(r)+\mathbf{r}(r)}\Big] \bigg\Vert_{\infty} dr, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Exactly in the same way we have a similar inequality for $\Big\Vert \mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}(t)-\mathbf{i}(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}$ and $\Big\Vert \mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}(t)-\mathbf{r}(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}$ with ${\mathsf{T}_{\!I}}$, ${\mathsf{T}_{\!R}}$ in place of ${\mathsf{T}_{\!S}}$, and ${\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,I}}$ , ${\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,R}}$ in place of ${\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}$, respectively. Combining those estimates we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}(t)-X(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}
&\le & \tilde{a}_{\ep}(t) + C(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta}) \int_0^t \Big\Vert \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}(r) - X(r) \Big\Vert_{\infty}dr, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\displaystyle}{\underset}{0\le t\le T}{\sup} \tilde{a}_{\ep}(t) \longrightarrow 0,$ as $\ep \to 0.$ Applying Gronwall’s Lemma, it follows that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{nx}
{\underset}{0\le t\le T}{\text{sup}}\Big\Vert \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}(t)-X(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}
&\le & {\underset}{0\le t\le T}{\sup} \tilde{a}_{\ep}(t) e^{C(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta})T}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, the theorem follows from the fact that the right-hand side tends to zero as $ \varepsilon \to 0 $.
$\blacksquare$
The stochastic model
--------------------
Deterministic models describe the spread of disease under the assumptions of mass action, relying on the law of large numbers. The most natural way to describe the spread of disease is stochastic. The previous models are based on the hypothesis of a population of large size. When it is not the case, the interactions between the individuals are not uniform but possess an intrinsic random character. We are going to expose now a probabilistic version of the previous model. For each given site, Poisson processes count the number of new infections, removal and migrations between sites during time. So the propagation of the illness can be modeled by the following system of stochastic differential equations $$\hspace{-0.3cm}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\bigskip
S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) &= S^{\varepsilon}(0,x_i) - \mathrm{P}_{x_i}^{inf}\left( \int_0^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i)S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right) \\
& - \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{P}_{S,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left( \int_0^t \frac{\mu_S }{\varepsilon^2}S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right) + \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{P}_{S,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left( \int_0^t \frac{\mu_S}{\varepsilon^2} S^{\varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right)
\\[2mm]
I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) & = I^{\varepsilon}(0,x_i) +\mathrm{P}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\int_0^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i)S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right) - \mathrm{P}_{x_i}^{rec}\left( \int_0^t \alpha(x_i)I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right) \\
& - \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{P}_{I,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left( \int_0^t \frac{\mu_I}{\varepsilon^2} I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right) + \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{P}_{I,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left( \int_0^t\frac{\mu_I}{\varepsilon^2} I^{\varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right)
\\[2mm]
R^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) & = R^{\varepsilon}(0,x_i) + \mathrm{P}_{x_i}^{rec}\left( \int_0^t \alpha(x_i)I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)-\sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{P}_{R,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left( \int_0^t \frac{\mu_R}{\varepsilon^2} R^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right) \\
& + \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{P}_{R,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left( \int_0^t \frac{\mu_R}{\varepsilon^2} R^{\varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right), \quad (t,x_i) \in [0,T]\times D_{\varepsilon} ,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where all the $\mathrm{P}_j$’s are mutually independent standard Poisson processes. In this system, at a given site $ x_i$
1. infection of a susceptible happens at rate ${\displaystyle}\beta(x_i)\dfrac{S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+R^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$. Then\
$ {\displaystyle}\mathrm{P}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\int_0^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i)S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right) $ counts the number of transitions of type $ S^{\varepsilon} \longrightarrow I^{\varepsilon} $ at site $x_i$ between time $0$ and time $ t$ .
2. recovery of an infectious happens at rate $ \alpha(x_i) I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i) $, so $ {\displaystyle}\mathrm{P}_{x_i}^{rec}\left(\int_0^t \alpha(x_i) I^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)$ counts the number of transitions of type $ I^{\varepsilon} \longrightarrow R^{\varepsilon} $ at site $x_i$ between time $0$ and time $ t$.
3. The term $ {\displaystyle}\mathrm{P}_{S,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left( \int_0^t \frac{\mu_S }{\varepsilon^2}S^{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right) $ counts the number of migrations of susceptibles from site $x_i$ to $y_i$ (where $x_i$ and $y_i$ are neighbors), those events happen at rate $ \dfrac{\mu_S}{\varepsilon^2} S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ ; and similarly for the compartments $I^{\varepsilon} $ and $ R^{\varepsilon}.$
We introduce the martingales $ \mathrm{M}_j(t) = \mathrm{P}_j(t) - t $ and we look instead at the renormalized model by dividing the number of individuals in each compartment and at each site by $ \mathbf{N} $. Hence by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rn}
S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i) = \dfrac{S^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{\mathbf{N}},\; \; I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i) = \dfrac{I^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{\mathbf{N}}, \; \; \text{and} \; \; R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i) = \dfrac{R^{\varepsilon}(t,x_i)}{\mathbf{N}},
\end{aligned}$$ the equations in the various compartments read $$\label{eqdifs}
\hspace{-0.8cm}\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\bigskip
S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)
& = S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0,x_i) - \int_0^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr\\
&\hspace{-1.5cm}+ \int_0^t \mu_S\Delta_{\varepsilon} S_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr
-\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right)\\
&\hspace{-1.5cm}-\sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{S,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left( \mathbf{N}\int_0^t \dfrac{\mu_S }{\varepsilon^2} S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)
+ \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{S,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left( \mathbf{N}\int_0^t \dfrac{\mu_S }{\varepsilon^2}S_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right)
\\[3mm]
I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)
& = I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0,x_i) + \int_0^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr - \int_0^t \alpha(x_i) \, I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr\\
&\hspace{-1.5cm}+\mu_I\int_0^t \Delta_{\varepsilon} I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr +\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t\dfrac{\beta(x_i) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right) \\
&\hspace{-1.5cm}- \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{rec}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t \alpha (x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)
-\sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{I,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left(\mathbf{N} \int_0^t \dfrac{\mu_I }{\varepsilon^2}I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right) \\
&\hspace{-1.5cm}+ \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{I,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t \dfrac{\mu_I}{\varepsilon^2}I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right)
\\[3mm]
R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)
& = R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0,x_i) + \int_0^t \alpha(x_i) \, I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr +\int_0^t \mu_R \Delta_{\varepsilon} R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \\
&+ \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{rec}\left( \mathbf{N}\int_0^t \alpha(x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)
-\sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{R,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left( \mathbf{N}\int_0^t \dfrac{\mu_R}{\varepsilon^2} R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\\
&+ \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_{R,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t \dfrac{\mu_R}{\varepsilon^2}R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right).
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
Let $S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)$ and $I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)$ and $R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)$ denote respectively the vectors which describe the “proportions” of susceptibles, infectious and removed in the population at the various sites at time t :\
$ S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) = \left( \begin{array}{cl}
S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_1)\\
\vdots \\
S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_{\ell})
\end{array}
\right)$, $ I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) = \left( \begin{array}{cl}
I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_1)\\
\vdots \\
I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_{\ell})
\end{array}
\right) $ and $ R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) = \left( \begin{array}{cl}
R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_1)\\
\vdots \\
R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_{\ell})
\end{array}
\right),$
where $ \ell $ is the total number of locations. Let us set ${\displaystyle}Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)= \left( \begin{array}{cl}
S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)\\
I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)\\
R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)
\end{array}
\right); $ then the aggregated form of the stochastic model is
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{fag}
\hspace{-1cm} Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)
&=& Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)+ \int_0^t b_{\varepsilon}\Big(r,Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\Big)dr + \sum_{j=1}^{k_{\varepsilon}}\frac{h_j}{\mathbf{N}} M_j\Bigg( \mathbf{N}\int_0^t \beta_j\big(r, Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big)dr\Bigg),
\end{aligned}$$
where $ {\displaystyle}\forall\, r \,\geq \,0 , \; b_{\varepsilon}\Big(r,Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\Big)\!=\! \! \sum_{j=1}^{k_\ep}\!h_j \beta_j\Big(r,Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\Big) \; ; $ the coordinates of each vector $h_j$ are either $ -1$, $0$ or $1$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
\beta_j\Big(r,Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\Big)&\!\!\!\!\in\!\!\!\!&\left\{ \dfrac{\beta(.) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.)}, \; \dfrac{\mu_S}{\varepsilon^2}S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.) , \; \dfrac{\mu_I}{\varepsilon^2} I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.) , \; \dfrac{\mu_R}{\varepsilon^2} R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.) , \; \alpha(.) I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,.)\right\}, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$k_\ep$ is the total number of Poisson processes in the model. Note that $ {\displaystyle}b_{\varepsilon}\big( r, Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big)= \widetilde{\Delta}_{\ep}Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+ G\big(Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big), $ where\
$ \widetilde{\Delta}_\ep Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)= \left(\begin{array}{lc}
\mu_S\Delta_{\varepsilon}S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r) \\
\mu_I\Delta_{\varepsilon}I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\\
\mu_R\Delta_{\varepsilon}R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)
\end{array} \right) $ and $ G\big(Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big)= \left(\begin{array}{lc}
- \dfrac{\beta(.) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)} \\
\\
\bigskip
\dfrac{\beta(.) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)} - \alpha(.) I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\\
\bigskip
\alpha(.) I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)
\end{array} \right). $\
**Existence and uniqueness**
\
\
At the begining of the epidemic, the proportions of the population in various compartments take their values in the discrete set $\big\{\; \dfrac{n}{\mathbf{N}}, \; n=0,1,\cdots \big\}$, and since the Poisson processes are mutually independent, this implies that the components of $Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)$ remain non-negative for all $ t\ge 0$. Indeed, let us consider for example the component $ S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}$. Since all jumps of each $S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ are of size $\pm \dfrac{1}{\mathbf{N}}$, before becoming negative, $S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ is zero. But as long as $S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)=0$, the rate of its negative jumps is zero, hence $S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)$ cannot become negative.\
${\displaystyle}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}}\Big( S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\Big)={\varepsilon}^{-d} $, since this quantity does not depend upon $t$. It then follows that $ 0\le Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) \le {\varepsilon}^{-d}$, for all $t\ge 0 $. Then by letting $ {\displaystyle}\beta_{T}^{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}= \sup\limits_{\substack{ 1\le j \le \ell \\ 0\le t \le T}} \beta_j\big(t,Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)\big)$, we have that $ {\displaystyle}\beta_{T}^{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} \le \overline{C}$, where $ \overline{C}= \max\left\{ \; \bar{\beta}, \bar{\alpha} , \dfrac{\mu_S}{\varepsilon^2} , \dfrac{\mu_I}{\varepsilon^2} , \dfrac{\mu_R}{\varepsilon^2}, {\varepsilon}^{-d} \; \right\}. $ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fap}
Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)
&=& Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) + \sum_{j=1}^{k_{{\varepsilon}}}\frac{h_j}{\mathbf{N}} P_j\Bigg( \mathbf{N}\int_0^t \beta_j\big(r,Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big)dr\Bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Let $ \tau_1^j<\tau_2^j< \cdots $ be the jump times of the Poisson process $ P_j(t)$, $ 1 \le j\le k $ . As long as $ \mathbf{N} \beta_j\big( Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)\big)\times~t~<~\tau_1^j $, for all $1\le j\le k$, the process $Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)$ remains constant. Let us set $$T_1 = \inf\Big\{ t>0 : \mathbf{N}\beta_j\Big( Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)\Big)\times t = \tau_1^j , \; \text{for some } \; 1\le j\le k \Big\}.$$ The independence of the $P_j$’s ensures that there is almost surely a unique $j_{_0}$ such that\
$ \mathbf{N}\beta_{j_{_0}}\big( Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)\big)\times T_1=\tau_1^{j_{_0}}$. In this case $ {\displaystyle}Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(T_1)= Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) + \dfrac{h_{j_{_0}}}{\mathbf{N}}$, and the process remains constant until the next jump of one of the $ P_j$’s. We wait for the next time for which one of the integrands $$\int_0^t \mathbf{N} \beta_j\Big( Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\Big)dr = \mathbf{N}\beta_j\Big( Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)\Big)\times T_1+ \mathbf{N}\beta_j\Big( Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)+ \dfrac{h_{j_{_0}}}{\mathbf{N}}\Big)\big(t-T_1\big)$$ will be equal to the jump time of one of the $ P_j.$ We continue this procedure . Since there are a finite number of $ P_j $ and the rates $\beta_j$ are bounded, any time $t\in[0,T]$ is achieved after a finite number of operations as above. This construction shows existence and uniqueness of the solution of (\[fap\]).
Law of large numbers ($\mathbf{N} \to \infty $, $\varepsilon$ being fixed)
==========================================================================
Recall that, from \[a1\], $ {\displaystyle}\int_D \big(\mathbf{s}(0,x)+\mathbf{i}(0,x)+\mathbf{r}(0,x)\big)dx=1$. Recall that in the stochastic model, we have a total of $\mathbf{N}{\varepsilon}^{-d}$ individuals. At time $t=0$, each individual, independently of the others, is susceptible and located at site $x_i$ with probability ${\displaystyle}\int_{V_i}\!\!\mathbf{s}(0,x)dx$, infectious and located at site $x_i$ with probability $ {\displaystyle}\int_{V_i}\!\! \mathbf{i}(0,x)dx$, removed and located at site $x_i$ with probability ${\displaystyle}\int_{V_i} \!\!\mathbf{r}(0,x)dx$, $1\le i\le {\varepsilon}^{-d}$. It follows from the choice of the initial condition of the stochastic system, the law of large numbers and the definition (\[rn\]) that for any $1\le i\le {\varepsilon}^{-d}$, as $N\to \infty$, $ {\displaystyle}S_{\mathbf{N},{\varepsilon}}(0,x_i)\longrightarrow{\varepsilon}^{-d}\int_{V_i}\!\!\mathbf{s}(0,x)dx$, $ {\displaystyle}I_{\mathbf{N},{\varepsilon}}(0,x_i)\longrightarrow{\varepsilon}^{-d}\int_{V_i}\!\mathbf{i}(0,x)dx$ and $ {\displaystyle}R_{\mathbf{N},{\varepsilon}}(0,x_i)\longrightarrow{\varepsilon}^{-d}\int_{V_i}\!\!\mathbf{r}(0,x)dx$, a.s. .
In this section we fix the mesh size $ \varepsilon$ of the grid and we let $\mathbf{N}$ go to infinity. We will show that the stochastic model converges to the corresponding deterministic model on the grid. First let us recall the law of large numbers for Poisson processes.
\[llnp\] Let $ {\displaystyle}\left\{ \; P(t), \; t\ge 0 \; \right\}$ be a rate $\lambda $ Poisson process. Then $$\dfrac{P(t)}{t} \longrightarrow \lambda \; \text{a.s} \quad \text{as} \; t\to \infty .$$
A proof of this well-known lemma can be found e.g. in Britton and Pardoux (2019).
$\blacksquare$
In the sequel, we shall assume that $Z_{\mathbf{N},\ep}(t)$ is defined on the probability space ${\displaystyle}\Big(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathcal{F}_t^{\mathbf{N},\ep}, {\mathbb{P}}\Big)$, where $ {\displaystyle}\mathcal{F}_t^{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} = \sigma\{ Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) , \; 0\leq r \leq t \, ; \; x_i \in D_{\varepsilon} \}$. If we consider the $k_\ep$-dimensional process ${\displaystyle}\Big(M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^j\Big)_{1\le j \le k_\ep} $ whose j-th component is defined as ${\displaystyle}M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^j(t,x_i) = \dfrac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\mathrm{M}_j\Big( \mathbf{N}\int_0^t \beta_j\big(Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\big)dr\Big),$ for a site $x_i\in D_{\varepsilon}$, then we have the following Proposition.
\[normum\] For all $ 1\le j\le k_\ep$ for all $T>0$, as $ \mathbf{N}\rightarrow +\infty $ , $$\underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}{\Big\rvert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^j(t,x_i)\Big\rvert}\overset{a.s.}{\longrightarrow}0 .$$
For all $T>0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}{\Big\rvert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^j(t,x_i)\Big\rvert}
& = & \underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}\Bigg\rvert \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}M_j\left(\int_0^t \mathbf{N}\beta_j\big(Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\big)dr \right) \Bigg\rvert \nonumber\\
& \leq & \underset{0\leq t\leq T\overline{C}}{\sup}\Big\rvert \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}M_j(\mathbf{N}t) \Big\rvert \qquad \Big(\, \text{because} \; 0 \le \beta_j \le \overline{C} \, \Big) \nonumber \\
& = & \underset{0\leq t\leq T\overline{C}}{\sup}\Big\rvert \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}P_j(\mathbf{N}t)- t \Big\rvert. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ From \[llnp\], $$\frac{P_j(\mathbf{N}\,t)}{\mathbf{N}}\longrightarrow t \; \; \text{a.s.}\, ,\; \text{as}\; \mathbf{N}\rightarrow \infty .$$ We have pointwise convergence of a sequence of increasing functions towards a continous function, then from the second Dini Theorem this convergence is uniform on any compact time interval. This shows that $$\underset{0\leq t\leq T\bar{C}}{\sup}\Big\rvert \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}P_j(\mathbf{N}\,t)- t \Big\rvert \longrightarrow 0 \; \; \text{a.s.}\, , \; \; \text{as}\; \mathbf{N}\,\rightarrow \infty$$ and the Proposition is established.
$\blacksquare$
In what follows, $\Vert u \Vert $ denotes the norm of an $\ell$–dimensional vector u defined as follow ${\displaystyle}\Vert u \Vert := \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \vert u_j \vert $.\
Now we can prove the main result of this section. This law of large numbers is in fact a particular case of the general result in Britton $\&$ Pardoux (2019). But since the proof is rather short, we prefered to include it for the convenience of the reader.
\[llns\] $\bf{(Law \ of \ Large \ Numbers)}$\
Let $ Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} $ denote the solution of the SDE (\[eqdifs\]) and $ Z_{\varepsilon}$ the solution of the ODE $\dfrac{dZ_{\varepsilon}(t)}{dt}=~ b_{\varepsilon}(t,Z_{\varepsilon}(t))$.\
Let us fix an arbitrary $T > 0$ and assume that $\Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)-Z_{\varepsilon}(0)\Big\Vert \longrightarrow 0 $, as $ \mathbf{N}\rightarrow + \infty.$\
Then $ {\displaystyle}\underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}\Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)-Z_{\varepsilon}(t) \Big\Vert \longrightarrow 0 \; \text{a.s.} \; , \; \; as \; \; \mathbf{N}\rightarrow + \infty $ .
Let us define ${\displaystyle}M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) = \sum_{j=1}^{k_\ep} h_j M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^j(t), \; t\in [0,T] .$ We first note that
${\displaystyle}\hspace{4cm} \underset{0\leq t \leq T}{\sup}\Big\Vert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) \Big\Vert
\leq \sum_{j=1}^{k_\ep}\Vert h_j \Vert \underset{0\leq t \leq T} {\sup}\Big\rvert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^j(t) \Big\rvert.$
Hence from \[normum\], we deduce that $\underset{0\leq t \leq T} {\sup}\Big\Vert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) \Big\Vert \overset{a.s}{\longrightarrow} 0,$ as $\mathbf{N}\rightarrow +\infty .$\
Next for any $ r \in [0,T] $ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigg\Vert b_{\varepsilon}\big(r, Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big) - b_{\varepsilon}\big(r, Z_{\varepsilon}(r)\big)\bigg\Vert \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-4cm} = 2 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\beta(x_i)\bigg\rvert \dfrac{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}- \dfrac{S_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}\bigg\rvert \nonumber \\
& & \hspace{-4cm} + 2 \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\alpha(x_i) \Big\rvert I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- I_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\rvert +\mu_S\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \Big\rvert \Delta_{\varepsilon} \Big(S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)-S_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big)\Big\vert \nonumber \\
& &\hspace{-4cm}+\mu_I\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \Big\rvert \Delta_{\varepsilon} \Big(I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)-I_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big)\Big\vert +\mu_R\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \Big\rvert \Delta_{\varepsilon} \Big(R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- R_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big)\Big\rvert. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Then, the fact that $ \beta$ and $ \alpha $ are bounded leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.5cm}\bigg\Vert b_{\varepsilon}\big(r, Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big) - b_{\varepsilon}\big(r, Z_{\varepsilon}(r)\big)\bigg\Vert \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-4cm}\leq 2\bar{\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\Bigg\{2\Big\rvert S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- S_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\rvert +2\Big\rvert I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- I_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\rvert+ \Big\rvert R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- R_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\rvert \Bigg\} \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-4cm} + 2\bar{\alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\Big\rvert I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- I_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\rvert +4\mu_S\,\varepsilon^{-2}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \Big\rvert S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)-S_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\vert \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-4cm}+4\mu_I\,\varepsilon^{-2}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \Big\rvert I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- I_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\rvert +4\mu_R\,\varepsilon^{-2}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \Big\rvert R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)- R_{\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big\rvert \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-4cm} \le C(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta},\bar{\mu},\varepsilon)\,\Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r) - Z_{\varepsilon}(r)\Big\Vert, \; \; \text{where}\; \bar{\mu}=\max\{\mu_S,\mu_I,\mu_R\}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Hence we have for all $t\in [0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)- Z_{\varepsilon}(t)\Big\Vert
& \leq \Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)- Z_{\varepsilon}(0)\Big\Vert + \int_0^t \Big\Vert b_{\varepsilon}\big(r,Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\big)- b_{\varepsilon}\big(r,Z_{\varepsilon}(r)\big)\Big\Vert dr + \Big\Vert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) \Big\Vert\\
& \leq \Bigg( \Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)- Z_{\varepsilon}(0) \Big\Vert + \Big\Vert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) \Big\Vert \Bigg) + C(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta},\bar{\mu},\varepsilon) \int_0^t \Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)- Z_{\varepsilon}(r)\Big\Vert dr,
\end{aligned}$$ and it follows from Gronwall’s Lemma that $$\underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}\Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)- Z_{\varepsilon}(t)\Big\Vert \leq \left( \Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) - Z_{\varepsilon}(0) \Big\Vert + \underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}\Big\Vert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) \Big\Vert\right)\exp\Big( C(\bar{\alpha},\bar{\beta},\bar{\mu},\varepsilon) T\Big) .$$ This concludes the proof of the theorem , since ${\displaystyle}\Big\Vert Z_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) - Z_{\varepsilon}(0) \Big\Vert + \underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}\Big\Vert M_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) \Big\Vert \longrightarrow 0, \; \text{as} \; \mathbf{N} \rightarrow +\infty. $
$\blacksquare$
We have just shown that the solution of the stochastic model $(\ref{eqdifs})$ converges a.s. locally uniformly in $t$ to the solution of the deterministic model (\[eqdet\]), as $ \mathbf{N} \to \infty $, $ \varepsilon $ being fixed. If we then let $ \varepsilon \to 0 $, we know from \[ct\] that the discrete deterministic system converges in $ L^{\infty}(D) $ towards the system of PDEs on D $$\hspace{-4.5cm}\left \{
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{\partial\,\mathbf{s}}{\partial t}(t,x)= & \;-\dfrac{\beta(x)\, \mathbf{s}(t,x)\mathbf{i}(t,x) }{\mathbf{s}(t,x)+\mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mathbf{r}(t,x)} + \mu_S \,\Delta \mathbf{s}(t,x) \\
\dfrac{\partial\,\mathbf{i}}{\partial t}(t,x)=&\;\dfrac{\beta(x)\, \mathbf{s}(t,x)\mathbf{i}(t,x) }{\mathbf{s}(t,x)+\mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mathbf{r}(t,x)} - \alpha(x)\, \mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mu_I\, \Delta \mathbf{i}(t,x)\\
\dfrac{\partial\,\mathbf{r}}{\partial t}(t,x)=&\;\alpha(x)\, \mathbf{i}(t,x)+\mu_S\, \Delta \mathbf{r}(t,x), \quad (t,x) \in (0,T)\times D.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
Law of Large Numbers in the Supremum norm
=========================================
In this section we let both the population size go to infinity and the mesh size $\varepsilon$ of the grid go to zero. Under the weak condition $\dfrac{\mathbf{N}}{\log(1/\varepsilon)}\longrightarrow \infty$, we obtain that the stochastic spatial model converges in probability to the corresponding deterministic one.\
Let us define ${\displaystyle}\; \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x),\; \; $ ${\displaystyle}\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x), \; $ and\
${\displaystyle}\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x) = \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x_i)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x)$, $ (t,x)\in [0,T]\times D. $ $ \Big(\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}, \mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}, \mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} \Big)$ is solution of the SDEs $$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\bigskip
\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x)
& = \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0,x) + \mu_S \int_0^t\!\! \Delta_{\varepsilon}\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)dr - \int_0^t \! \dfrac{\beta_\ep(x) \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)}dr\\
&\hspace{1cm} + \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t,x)\\
\bigskip
\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x) & = \mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0,x) + \mu_I \int_0^t\!\! \Delta_{\varepsilon}\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)dr + \int_0^t\! \dfrac{\beta_\ep(x) \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)}dr \\
&\hspace{1cm}- \int_0^t\!\alpha_{\ep}(x)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)dr + \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I(t,x) \\
\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t,x) & = \mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0,x) + \mu_R \int_0^t\!\! \Delta_{\varepsilon}\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)dr + \int_0^t \! \alpha_{\ep}(x)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x)dr + \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R(t,x)\\
(t,x) &\in [0,T]\times D ,
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{where}\quad \qquad \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t,x)& =-\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x)\\
& - \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{M}_{S,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left(\dfrac{\mu_S \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^t S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x) \\
& + \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{M}_{S,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left( \dfrac{\mu_S \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^tS_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x) ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I(t,x)& =\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t\dfrac{\beta(x_i) S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr\right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x)\\
& - \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}}\mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{rec}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t\alpha(x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x)\\
& - \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{M}_{I,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left(\dfrac{\mu_I \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^t I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x) \\
& + \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{M}_{I,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left( \dfrac{\mu_I\mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^tS_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x) , \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-10cm}\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R(t,x)& = &- \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}}\mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{rec}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^t\alpha(x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x)\nonumber\\
& - &\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{M}_{R,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left(\dfrac{\mu_R \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^t R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x) \nonumber \\
& +& \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-d}} \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\mathrm{M}_{R,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left(\dfrac{\mu_R\mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^t R_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right)\mathbf{1}_{V_i}(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Here we set $ {\displaystyle}X_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon} = \left( \begin{array}{cl}
\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} \\
\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}\\
\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}
\end{array}\right) $ and $ {\displaystyle}\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon} = \left( \begin{array}{cl}
\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S \\
\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I \\
\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R
\end{array}\right).$ Recall that $ \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}= \left( \begin{array}{cl}
\mathcal{S}_{\varepsilon} \\
\mathcal{I}_{\varepsilon}\\
\mathcal{R}_{\varepsilon}
\end{array}\right) $ and $ X= \left( \begin{array}{cl}
\mathbf{s}\\
\mathbf{i}\\
\mathbf{r}
\end{array}\right) $ .\
The main goal of this section is to prove the following result.
\[llnsup\] \
Let us assume that $(\ep,\mathbf{N})\to (0,\infty)$, in such way that
1. $\dfrac{\mathbf{N}}{\log(1/\varepsilon)}\longrightarrow \infty$ as $\mathbf{N} \to \infty $ and $ \varepsilon\to 0 $;
2. $\Big\Vert X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)- X(0) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 $ in probability.
Then for all $ T > 0 $, $ {\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}{\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)- X(t) {\Big\Vert}_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 $ in probability .
\
We prove the Theorem in the case $d=2$, but the result holds true in dimensions d= 1, 3 as well, as we will explain below.\
Since ${\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}{\Big\Vert}\mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}(t)- X(t) {\Big\Vert}_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 $ by \[ct\], clearly our Theorem will follow from
\[pe\] For all $T>0$, $ {\displaystyle}{\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}{\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)- \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}(t) {\Big\Vert}_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 \; \text{in probability} $, as $\mathbf{N}\to \infty $ and $\varepsilon\to 0 $, in such a way that $ \dfrac{\mathbf{N}}{\log(1/\varepsilon) } \longrightarrow \infty. $
For all $t\in [0,T]$, We have
${\displaystyle}\hspace{3cm} X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)= X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) + \int_{0}^t \widetilde{\Delta}_{\ep}X_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r)dr + \int_{0}^tG\Big(X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\Big)dr + \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t), $
${\displaystyle}\hspace{3cm} {\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(t)= \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon}(0) + \int_{0}^t\widetilde{\Delta}_{\ep}{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(r)dr + \int_{0}^tG\Big({\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(r)\Big)dr, $
$$\begin{aligned}
X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)-{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(t)
&=& \widetilde{\mathsf{T}}_{\ep}(t)\big[X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0)-{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(0) \big] +\int_0^t \widetilde{\mathsf{T}}_{\ep}(t-r)\Big[ G\big(X_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r)\big)-G\big({\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(r)\big)\Big] dr + Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t), \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
where again $ {\displaystyle}\widetilde{\mathsf{T}}_{\ep}(t)X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}= \left(
\begin{array}{cl}
{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}\\
{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,I}}(t)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} \\
{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,R}}(t)\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}
\end{array} \right) $ and similarly for $ \widetilde{\mathsf{T}}_{\ep}(t) \mathcal{X}_{\varepsilon},\cdots $; $ {\displaystyle}Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t)= \left(
\begin{array}{cl}
Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t) \\
Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I(t)\\
Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R(t)
\end{array} \right)
$ and\
$ {\displaystyle}Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)= \int_0^t {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(t-r)d\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r), \; \; Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I(t)= \int_0^t {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,I}}(t-r)d\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I(r)$, ${\displaystyle}Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R(t)= \int_0^t {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,R}}(t-r)d\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R(r) . $ As in the proof of \[llns\], one can show that there is a constant $C(\bar{\beta},\bar{\alpha})$ such that for all $ r \in [0,T] $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mg}
{\Big\Vert}G\Big(X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\Big)-G\Big({\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(r)\Big) {\Big\Vert}_{\infty}
&\le & C(\bar{\alpha}, \bar{\beta}) {\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r) - {\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(r) {\Big\Vert}_{\infty},
\end{aligned}$$ since G is globally Lipschitz. Using (\[mg\]) and the fact that $ \widetilde{\mathsf{T}}_{\ep} $ is a contraction semigroup in $ \big(L^{\infty}(D)\big)^3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) -{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(t){\Big\Vert}_{\infty}
&\le & {\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) - {\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(0){\Big\Vert}_{\infty} + C(\bar{\alpha}, \bar{\beta}) \int_0^t {\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r) -{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(r){\Big\Vert}_{\infty} dr + {\Big\Vert}Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t){\Big\Vert}_{\infty}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ It then follows from Gronwall’s Lemma that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gs}
\hspace{-1.5cm}{\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}{\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t) -{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(t){\Big\Vert}_{\infty}
&\le & \Bigg( {\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) -{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(0){\Big\Vert}_{\infty} + {\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}{\Big\Vert}Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t){\Big\Vert}_{\infty} \Bigg) e^{C(\bar{\alpha}, \bar{\beta})T} .
\end{aligned}$$ Since $ {\Big\Vert}X_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(0) -{\mathcal{X}_{\ep}}(0){\Big\Vert}_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 \; \; \text{in probability}, $ the Proposition follows from (\[gs\]) and \[ny\] below.
$\blacksquare$
\[ny\] For all $T>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}{\Big\Vert}Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(t){\Big\Vert}_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 \; \text{in probability} , \; \text{as $\mathbf{N}\to \infty $ and $\varepsilon\to 0 $, provided $ \dfrac{\mathbf{N}}{\log(1/\varepsilon) } \longrightarrow \infty. $}
\end{aligned}$$
Before proving this Proposition, we first establish some technical Lemmas.
\[dm\] Let $ {\displaystyle}f= \varepsilon^{-2}\mathbf{1}_{V_i}$. Then, for any $J\in \{S, I, R\}$ $$\big\langle \; \big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 + \big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 +\big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 + \big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 + \big({\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 , \; 1 \; \big\rangle \le h_{\varepsilon}(t)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h}
\int_0^t h_{\varepsilon}(r)dr\le C\,\varepsilon^{-2} + t .
\end{aligned}$$
For $ {\displaystyle}f= \varepsilon^{-2}\mathbf{1}_{V_i}$ and $J\in \{S, I, R\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big\langle \; \Big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\Big)^2 + \Big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\Big)^2 \; , \; 1 \; \big\rangle
\!\!\!\!&=& \!\!\!\! \big\langle \; \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f \; , \; \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f \; \big\rangle + \big\langle \; \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f , \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f \; \big\rangle \nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\! - \big\langle \; \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-} \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f , {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f \; \big\rangle - \big\langle \; \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f , {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f \; \big\rangle \nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!&=& \!\!\!\!- \big\langle \; \Delta_{\varepsilon}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f , {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)(t)f \; \big\rangle. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Using the facts that $ \Delta_{\varepsilon}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f={\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)\Delta_{\varepsilon}f$, ${\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)$ is self-adjoint and (\[rept\]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\big\langle \; \Big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\Big)^2 + \Big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\Big)^2 \; , \; 1 \; \big\rangle
&=& - \big\langle \; {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)\Delta_{\varepsilon}f , {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f \; \big\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&- \big\langle \; \Delta_{\varepsilon}f , {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(2t)f \; \big\rangle \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{m} \big\langle \; f,\mathbf{f}_{m}^{\varepsilon}\; \big\rangle^2 e^{-2\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}t}\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}\nonumber \\
&\le & 4\sum_{m}e^{-2 \lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}t}\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
Similarly ${\displaystyle}\big\langle \; \big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 + \big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 , 1 \; \big\rangle \le 4\sum_{m}e^{-2 \lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}t}\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}$. Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big\langle \; \big({\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\big)^2 , 1 \; \big\rangle
&=& \big\langle \; {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(2t)f , f \; \big\rangle \nonumber \\
&=& 1+ \sum_{m\ne (0,0)}e^{-2\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}t} \big\langle \; f,\mathbf{f}_{m}^{\varepsilon}\; \big\rangle^2 \nonumber \\
&\le& 1+ 4 \sum_{m\ne (0,0)}e^{-2\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}t}.\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
So, the result holds with ${\displaystyle}h_{\varepsilon}(t) = 1+ 8\sum_{m\ne (0,0)}e^{-2 \lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}t}\big(\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}+1\big).$
$$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^th_{\varepsilon}(r)dr
&\le & t + 8 \sum_{m\ne(0,0)} \int_0^{+\infty} e^{-2\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}r}\big(1+\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}\big)dr \nonumber \\
&=& t + 4 \sum_{m\ne(0,0)} \bigg( 1 + \dfrac{1}{\lambda_{m,J}^{\varepsilon}}\bigg)\nonumber \\
&\le & t + 4 \sum\limits_{\substack{1\le m_1 \le \varepsilon^{-1}\\ 1\le m_2 \le \varepsilon^{-1}\\ }} \Bigg(1 +\dfrac{1}{ c \, (m_1^2+m_2^2)}\Bigg)\nonumber \\
& \le & t+ 4 \varepsilon^{-2} + \sum\limits_{\substack{ 1\le m_1 \le \varepsilon^{-1}\\ 1\le m_2 \le \varepsilon^{-1}}} \dfrac{2}{c} \nonumber \\
&=& t + \varepsilon^{-2} \Big(4 + \dfrac{2}{ c} \Big). \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$\blacksquare$
For any càdlàg process $ Z $, let $ \delta Z(t)= Z(t)- Z(t^-) $ denote its jump at time $t$.\
We shall need below the
\[em\] Let $M_{t}$ be a bounded martingale of finite variation defined on $[t_0 , t_1]$ with $M_{t_0}=0$ and satisfying
1. $M$ is right-continuous with left limits,
2. $ \vert\delta M_{t} \vert \le c $ for $t_0 \le t \le t_1$, where $c$ is a positive constant,
3. $ {\displaystyle}\sum_{t_0 \le s \le t } \big(\delta M_{s}\big)^2-\int_{t_0}^t h(s)ds$ is a supermartingale, where $ h $ is a positive deterministic function.
Then $ {\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\Big( \exp\big(M_{t_1}\big)\Big)\le \exp\Big(\dfrac{e^c}{2}\int_{t_0}^{t_1}h(s)ds\Big). $
Let $ f(x)=e^x$. We have $ 0 \le f^{''}(x+y)=f(x)f(y)\le e^c f(x) $ for all $y\le c $.\
For $ t_0\le t\le t_1 $
$$\begin{aligned}
f(M_t)
&=1 + \int_{t_0}^{t}f^{\prime}(M_{s^-})dM_s+\sum_{t_0\le s\le t}\Big(f(M_s)- f(M_{s^-})-f^{\prime}(M_{s^-})\delta M_s \Big)\\
& \le 1 + \int_{t_0}^{t}f^{\prime}(M_{s^-})dM_s+\dfrac{e^c}{2}\sum_{t_0\le s\le t}f(M_{s^-})(\delta M_s)^2 \\
&= 1 + \int_{t_0}^{t}f^{\prime}(M_{s^-})dM_s+\dfrac{e^c}{2}\Big(\sum_{t_0\le s\le t}f(M_{s^-})(\delta M_s)^2 - \int_{t_0}^{t}f(M_{s})h(s)ds \Big) + \dfrac{e^c}{2}\int_{t_0}^{t}f(M_{s})h(s)ds
\end{aligned}$$
where we used Taylor’s formula and (ii) for the inequality.\
From (iii) and the fact that $ {\displaystyle}\int_{t_0}^{t}f^{\prime}(M_{s^-})dM_s $ has mean zero, we deduce
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big(f(M_t)\Big)
& \le 1 + \dfrac{e^c}{2}\int_{t_0}^{t}{\mathbb{E}}\Big( f(M_{s})\Big)h(s)ds.
\end{aligned}$$
The result now follows from Gronwall’s inequality.
$\blacksquare$
\[mart1\]
For any site $ x_i\in D_{\varepsilon} $, the following are $ \mathcal{F}_t^{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} $ mean zero martingales: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg(\delta S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)^2- \dfrac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\int_{0}^{t}\dfrac{\beta(x_i)S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr
&& \\
&& \hspace{-11cm}-\dfrac{4\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_{0}^{t}S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr -\dfrac{\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2}\int_{0}^{t} \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{2} S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i +\varepsilon e_j) + \sum_{j=1}^{2} S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i -\varepsilon e_j) \bigg)dr \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{1cm}\sum_{0\le r\le t}\bigg(\delta I_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)^2- \dfrac{1}{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}}}\int_{0}^{t}\dfrac{\beta(x_i)S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr - \dfrac{1}{\mathbf{N}} \int_{0}^{t}\alpha(x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr
&& \\
&& \hspace{-14cm}-\dfrac{4\mu_I}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_{0}^{t}I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr -\dfrac{\mu_I}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2}\int_{0}^{t} \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{2} I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i +\varepsilon e_j) + \sum_{j=1}^{2} I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i-\varepsilon e_j) \bigg)dr \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg(\delta R_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)^2- \dfrac{1}{\mathbf{N}} \int_{0}^{t}\alpha(x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr -\dfrac{4\mu_R}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_{0}^{t}R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr
&& \\
&&\hspace{-9cm} -\dfrac{\mu_R}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2}\int_{0}^{t} \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{2} R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i +\varepsilon e_j) + \sum_{j=1}^{2} R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i-\varepsilon e_j) \bigg)dr \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sd}
\sum_{0\le r\le t}\bigg(\delta S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r ,x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j) \bigg)+\dfrac{\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_{0}^{t}\Big( S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j)\Big)dr
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg(\delta I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r ,x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j) \bigg)+\dfrac{\mu_I}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_{0}^{t}\Big( I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr+I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j)\Big)dr
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg(\delta R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r ,x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j) \bigg)+\dfrac{\mu_R}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_{0}^{t}\Big( R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr+R_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j)\Big)dr
\end{aligned}$$
$j=1 , 2 $.
The proof of this Lemma is based on the computation of the jumps. For (\[s\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t}\bigg(\delta S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)^2
&=& \frac{1}{\mathbf{N}^2}\mathrm{P}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^{t} \dfrac{\beta(x_i)S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right) \nonumber \\
&+& \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}^2}\mathrm{P}_{S,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left(\frac{\mu_S \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^{t}S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\nonumber \\
&+& \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}^2}\mathrm{P}_{S,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left(\frac{\mu_S \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^{t}S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right).\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ By writing each Poisson process as $ M(t)+t $ , we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\big(\delta S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \big)^2- \dfrac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\int_{0}^{t}\dfrac{\beta(x_i)S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-12cm}-\dfrac{4\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2}\int_{0}^{t}S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr-\dfrac{\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2}\int_{0}^{t} \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{2} S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i +\varepsilon e_j) + \sum_{j=1}^{2} S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i -\varepsilon e_j) \bigg)dr \nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-12cm}=\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}^2}\mathrm{M}_{x_i}^{inf}\left(\mathbf{N}\int_0^{t}\dfrac{\beta(x_i)S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)I_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+I_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+R_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \right)+ \sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}^2}\mathrm{M}_{S,x_i,y_i}^{mig}\left(\frac{\mu_S \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^{t }S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)dr \right)\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-12cm} +\sum_{y_i\sim x_i}\frac{1}{\mathbf{N}^2}\mathrm{M}_{S,y_i,x_i}^{mig}\left(\frac{\mu_S \mathbf{N}}{\varepsilon^2} \int_0^{t}S_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,y_i)dr \right), \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ which is a martingale. The other statements are proved similarly.
$\blacksquare$
The following result is a consequence of the previous Lemma.
\[mmj\] Let $ \varphi\in H^{\varepsilon}$. The following are mean zero martingales $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ms}
\sum_{0\le r\le t}\bigg(\delta \langle \; \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r) \, , \, \varphi \, \rangle \bigg)^2 -\dfrac{\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^{t}\langle \; \dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)}\, , \, \varphi^2 \; \rangle \, dr\\
&& \hspace{-12cm}-\dfrac{\mu_S\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^{t}\langle\; \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\, ,\, \big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}\varphi \big)^2 \; \rangle \, dr \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mi}
\hspace{1cm}\sum_{0\le r\le t}\bigg(\delta \langle \; \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I(r) \, , \, \varphi \, \rangle \bigg)^2 -\dfrac{\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^{t}\langle \; \dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)}\, , \, \varphi^2 \; \rangle dr \\
&&\hspace{-14cm}- \dfrac{ \varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}}\int_0^{t} \langle\; \alpha_{\ep}(.)\, \mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r) , \varphi^2 \; \rangle dr
-\dfrac{\mu_I \,\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^{t}\langle\; \mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\, ,\, \big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}\varphi \big)^2 \; \rangle \, dr \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mr}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg(\delta \langle \; \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R(r) \, , \, \varphi \, \rangle \bigg)^2 - \dfrac{ \varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}}\int_0^{t} \langle\; \alpha_{\ep}(.)\, \mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N}, \varepsilon}(r) , \varphi^2 \; \rangle dr \\
&& \hspace{-9cm}-\dfrac{\mu_R \,\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^t\langle\; \mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\, ,\, \big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}\varphi \big)^2 \; \rangle dr. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
We give the proof for (\[ms\]), those of (\[mi\]) and (\[mr\]) are similar. For all $ r\le t$, we have $ {\displaystyle}\delta \langle \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r),\varphi \rangle
=\varepsilon^2 \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-2}} \delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\varphi(x_i).$ Since for $ y_i \neq x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j $, $ {\displaystyle}\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, y_i) \bigg) = 0 $, so $$\begin{aligned}
\label{saut}
\Big(\delta \langle \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r),\varphi \rangle \Big)^2
&=& \varepsilon^4\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-2}} \bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\bigg)^2\varphi^2(x_i) \\
&+& 2 \varepsilon^4\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-2}} \bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i+\varepsilon e_1 ) \bigg)\varphi(x_i)\varphi(x_i+\varepsilon e_1) \nonumber \\
&+& 2 \varepsilon^4\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-2}} \bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\big(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i-\varepsilon e_1 ) \bigg)\varphi(x_i)\varphi(x_i-\varepsilon e_1)\nonumber \\
&+& 2 \varepsilon^4\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-2}} \bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i+\varepsilon e_2 ) \bigg)\varphi(x_i)\varphi(x_i+\varepsilon e_2) \nonumber \\
&+& 2 \varepsilon^4\sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-2}} \bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i-\varepsilon e_2 ) \bigg)\varphi(x_i)\varphi(x_i-\varepsilon e_2)\nonumber.
\end{aligned}$$ Using successively (\[s\]) and (\[sd\]) from the previous lemma, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{cs}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i) \bigg)^2 \varphi^2(x_i)
&\!\!=\!\!&\dfrac{1}{\mathbf{N}}\int_0^t\dfrac{\beta(x_i)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}\varphi^2(x_i)dr \\
&&\hspace{-8cm}+ \dfrac{4\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_0^t\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\varphi^2(x_i)dr+\dfrac{\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2}\int_0^t \bigg[\sum_{j=1}^{2} \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i +\varepsilon e_j) + \sum_{j=1}^{2} \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i-\varepsilon e_j) \bigg] \varphi^2(x_i)dr + \text{Martingale}\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sc}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i) \bigg)\bigg(\delta \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j)\bigg)\varphi(x_i)\varphi(x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j )
&& \\
&&\hspace{-9cm}=-\dfrac{\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}\varepsilon^2} \int_0^t\Big( \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j)\Big)\varphi(x_i)\varphi(x_i \pm \varepsilon e_j )dr + \text{Martingale}\nonumber.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[saut\]), (\[cs\]) and (\[sc\]), we deduce that
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t}\Big(\delta \langle \; \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r),\varphi \; \rangle \Big)^2
&=& \dfrac{\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^t\langle \; \dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)}\, , \, \varphi^2 \; \rangle \, dr \nonumber\\
&+& \dfrac{\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^t\langle \; 4\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+ \sum_{j=1}^{2} \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, . +\varepsilon e_j) + \sum_{j=1}^{2} \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r, . -\varepsilon e_j) \, , \, \varphi^2 \; \rangle \, dr\nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-1.3cm}-\dfrac{2\mu_S}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^t\langle \; \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\, , \, \sum_{j=1}^{2} \varphi(.)\varphi( . + \varepsilon e_j ) + \sum_{j=1}^{2} \varphi(.)\varphi( . - \varepsilon e_j )\; \rangle \, dr + \text{Martingale}, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
which can also be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t}\big(\delta \langle \; \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r) \, , \, \varphi \, \rangle \big)^2 &=&\dfrac{\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^t\langle \;\dfrac{\beta_{\ep}(.)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)} \, , \, \varphi^2 \; \rangle \, dr \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-3cm} -\dfrac{\mu_S\,\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \int_0^t\langle\; \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\, ,\, \big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}\varphi \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}\varphi \big)^2 \; \rangle \, dr + \text{Martingale}. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$\blacksquare$
The following Lemma generalizes \[mmj\] in the case of a non constant $\varphi \in C\big(\mathbb{R}_+ ; H^{\varepsilon}\big)$.
\[m2\] The assertion of \[mmj\] is valid if $\varphi \in C\big(\mathbb{R}_+ ; H^{\varepsilon}\big)$.
The general result follows by approximation. $\varphi$ being continuous with respect to $t$, there exists a sequence $ (\varphi_j)_{_{1\le j\le n}}$ of step functions which converges to $\varphi$ locally uniformly in $[0,\infty). $ It then suffices to consider the case where $\varphi $ is a step function which we assume from now on. There exists a sequence $0=t_0< t_1<t_2 < \cdots < t_n = t $ such that ${\displaystyle}\varphi(t,x_i)= \sum_{j=1}^{n} \varphi_j(x_i)\mathbf{1}_{(t_{j-1}, t_j]}(t)$, where $ \varphi_j\in H^{\varepsilon}$, for all $j = 1,\cdots, n$. Applying \[mmj\] on each interval $(t_{j-1},t_j]$ and summing for all $j\in\{1,\cdots,n\}$ yields to the result.
$\blacksquare$
Now we are in a position to give the\
**Proof of \[ny\]**
Let us fix $ \bar{t} \in (0,T]$ , $ {\displaystyle}i \in \big\{ \; 1, \cdots , \varepsilon^{-2} \; \big\}$ and we use the notation ${\displaystyle}f= \varepsilon^{-2}\mathbf{1}_{V_i}$. We define\
$ {\displaystyle}\overline{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t) := \big\langle \int_0^t {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-~r)d\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r )\, , f \; \big\rangle , $ $ 0 \le t \le \bar{t}$. Note that the process $ {\displaystyle}\left\{ \; \overline{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t) , \; t \in [ 0,\bar{t} \;] \; \right\} $ is a mean zero martingale and we have\
$ {\displaystyle}\overline{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(\overline{t}) = Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(\overline{t}\big) $. We have $ {\displaystyle}\sum_{0\le r\le t }\Big( \delta \; \overline{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r) \, \Big)^2 = \sum_{0\le r\le t }\bigg( \big\langle \; \delta\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r), {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \; \big\rangle \bigg )^2. $ From \[m2\], we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\le r\le t }\Big( \delta \; \overline{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r) \, \Big)^2 -\int_0^tg_{\varepsilon}(r)dr\end{aligned}$$ is a mean zero martingale, where $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\varepsilon}(r)
\!\!\!\!&=&\!\!\! \dfrac{\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}}\langle \; \dfrac{\beta(.)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)}\, , \, \big({\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f\big)^2 \; \rangle \nonumber \\
&&\hspace{-1.3cm} +\dfrac{\mu_S\, \varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \langle\; \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r)\, ,\, \big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2 \; \rangle. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\varepsilon}(r)
\!\!\!\!&\le& \!\!\!\! \dfrac{\bar{\beta}\varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}}\langle \; 1\, , \, \big({\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f\big)^2 \; \rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1.2cm} +\dfrac{C\mu_S\, \varepsilon^2}{\mathbf{N}} \langle\; 1 \, ,\, \big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{1,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2+\big( \nabla_{\varepsilon}^{2,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-r)f \big)^2 \; \rangle. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $ \theta \in [0,1] $, we define $ m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)= \theta \, \mathbf{N} \, \overline{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)$. $ m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S $ is a mean zero martingale. Furthermore $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \delta m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S \vert &\le& \theta \, \mathbf{N}\Big\Vert {\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,S}}(\bar{t}-t)\delta\mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\ep}(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}\int_Df(x)dx \nonumber\\
&\le& 1 . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It follows from \[dm\] and \[em\] that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\Big( \exp(m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(\bar{t}))\Big)
& \le & \exp \Big[\dfrac{e}{2}\theta^2 C(\bar{\beta},\mu_S)\mathbf{N} \varepsilon^2(\bar{t}+C\varepsilon^{-2}) \Big] .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It then follows that for any site $x_i \in D_{\varepsilon}$, $\eta > 0 $ $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\Big( Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(\bar{t}, x_i\big)> \eta \Big)
& =& {\mathbb{P}}\Big(\theta \, \mathbf{N} \, Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(\bar{t},x_i\big)>\theta \, \mathbf{N} \, \eta \Big) \nonumber \\
& \le & {\mathbb{E}}\Big[ \exp\Big(\theta \, \mathbf{N} \, Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(\bar{t},x_i\big)\Big) \Big]\exp\big({- \theta \, \mathbf{N} \, \eta }\big) \nonumber \\
& \le & \exp \bigg[\theta \mathbf{N}\Big(C(T) \theta - \eta\Big)\bigg] \quad \text{with} \; C(T)= \dfrac{e}{2}C(\bar{\beta}, \mu_S)(T+C) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The optimal $\theta $ is $ \theta = \dfrac{\eta }{2C(T)}$, hence ${\displaystyle}{\mathbb{P}}\Big( Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(\bar{t},x_i\big)> \eta \Big) \le \exp\big(-a\, \eta^2\mathbf{N}\big),\; \text{with} \; a = \dfrac{1}{4C(T)}. $ We can make a similar computation for $ {\mathbb{P}}\Big( -Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(\bar{t},x_i\big)> \eta \Big) $ to show that ${\displaystyle}{\mathbb{P}}\Big( -Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(\overline{t},x_i\big) > \eta \Big) \le \exp(-a \,\eta^2\mathbf{N}). $
Hence for all $ t\in [0,T] $ and $ i \in \left\{ 1 , \cdots , \varepsilon^{-2} \right\} $, we have $${\mathbb{P}}\Big( \big\vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(t,x_i\big)\big\vert > \eta \Big) \le 2\exp(-a \eta^2\mathbf{N}).$$ Since $ {\displaystyle}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty} = {\underset}{i}{\text{sup}}\Big\vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(t,x_i\big)\Big\vert $, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yt}
{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg(\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}> \eta \Bigg)
& \le & \sum_{i=1}^{\varepsilon^{-2}}{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( \Big\vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big(t,x_i\big)\Big\vert > \eta \Bigg) \nonumber \\
& \le & 2\varepsilon^{-2} \exp(-a \eta^2\mathbf{N} ).\label{mb}\end{aligned}$$ We now show that an inequality similar to (\[mb\]) holds with $ \Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty}$ replaced by $ {\underset}{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)\Big\Vert_{\infty} $ .\
To this end , we divide $[0,T]$ into $ \varepsilon^{-2} $ intervals $ [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]$, $0\le n\le \varepsilon^{-2}-1$.
For $ t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2] $, we have\
${\displaystyle}Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t ) = Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(nT\varepsilon^2) + \int_{nT\varepsilon^2}^t \Delta_{\varepsilon} Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r)dr + \tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t)$, where $ {\displaystyle}\tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t) = \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)- \mathcal{M}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(nT\varepsilon^2). $\
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ysup}
\hspace{-1.5cm}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t) \Big\Vert_{\infty}
& \le & \Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(nT\varepsilon^2)\Big\Vert_{\infty} + 8 \; \varepsilon^{-2} \int_{nT\varepsilon^2}^t \Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r) \Big\Vert_{\infty} dr + \Big\Vert \tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty},\end{aligned}$$ so Gronwall’s inequality implies that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sg}
{\underset}{t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]}{\text{sup}}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t) \Big\Vert_{\infty}
& \leq & \Bigg( \Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(nT\varepsilon^2)\Big\Vert_{\infty} + {\underset}{t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]}{\sup}\Big\Vert \tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \Bigg)\exp(8T) .\end{aligned}$$
We now fix $ i \in \left\{ 1 , \cdots , \varepsilon^{-2} \right\} , \theta \in [0,1] $ and set $ m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t)= \theta \, \mathbf{N}\,\tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S \big(t\big). $ It follows from \[mart1\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{ nT\varepsilon^2 \le r\ \le t } \Big(\delta m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(r)\Big)^2 - \dfrac{\mu_S}{\varepsilon^2}\theta^2\mathbf{N}\int_{nT\varepsilon^2}^t\Big(\sum_{y\sim x_i}\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,y) + 4 \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big)dr
& \\
& \hspace{-10cm}-\theta^2 \mathbf{N} \int_{nT\varepsilon^2}^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}dr \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is a mean zero martingale and $ \Big\vert \delta m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t) \Big\vert \le 1 $ . Furthermore, for $ nT\varepsilon^2 < t \le (n+1)T\varepsilon^2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1cm}\dfrac{\mu_S}{\varepsilon^2}\theta^2\mathbf{N} \int_{nT\varepsilon^2}^t\Big(\sum_{y\sim x_i}\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,y) + 4 \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\Big) dr + \mathbf{N}\theta^2 \int_{nT\varepsilon^2}^t \dfrac{\beta(x_i)\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)}{\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)+\mathcal{I}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r)+\mathcal{R}_{\mathbf{\mathbf{N}},\varepsilon}(r,x_i)} dr\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3cm}\le C(\bar{\beta},\mu_S)T \mathbf{N} \theta^2. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Hence by \[em\], it follows that ${\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\Big[ \exp\Big(m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big((n+1)T\varepsilon^2 \big) \Big)\Big] \le \exp\Big[ C(\bar{\beta}, \mu_S) \mathbf{N} \theta^2 T\Big].$
It then follows from Doob’s inequality that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( {\underset}{t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]}{\text{sup}} \tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S \big(t,x_i\big) \ge \eta \Bigg)
&\le & {\mathbb{E}}\Big[ \exp\Big(m_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S\big((n+1)T\varepsilon^2 \big) \Big)\Big] \exp(-\theta \mathbf{N}\eta) \nonumber \\
&\le & \exp\Big[ \theta \mathbf{N}\Big(C(T)\,\theta - \eta \Big) \Big].\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Choosing $ \theta = \dfrac{\eta}{2C(T)}$, we deduce that
$${\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( {\underset}{t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]}{\text{sup}} \tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S \big(t,x_i\big) \ge \eta \Bigg) \le
\exp(-a \eta^2\mathbf{N}),\; \; \text{where}\; \; a = \dfrac{1}{4C(T)}.$$ The same hold for $ - \tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S \big(t,x_i\big) $. Consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{msup}
{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( {\underset}{t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]}{\sup}\Big\Vert \tilde{m}_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S \big(t,x_i\big) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \ge \eta \Bigg)
& \le & 2 \; \varepsilon^{-2} \exp(-a \eta^2\mathbf{N}).\end{aligned}$$ Combining the inequalities (\[yt\]), (\[sg\]) and (\[msup\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( e^{-8T} {\underset}{t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]}{\text{sup}}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S(t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \ge \eta \Bigg)
& \le & 4 \; \varepsilon^{-2} \exp(-a \dfrac{\eta^2}{4} \mathbf{N}) , \end{aligned}$$ from which we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{martsup}
{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( e^{-8T}{\underset}{t \in [0,T]}{\text{sup}}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \ge \eta \Bigg)
& \le & \sum_{n=0}^{\varepsilon^{-2}-1} {\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( e^{-8T}{\underset}{t \in [nT\varepsilon^2 , (n+1)T\varepsilon^2]}{\text{sup}}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \ge \eta \Bigg) \nonumber \\
& \le & 4 \; \varepsilon^{-4} \exp(-a \dfrac{\eta^2}{4} \mathbf{N}). \end{aligned}$$ Since $ \dfrac{\mathbf{N}}{\log (1/\varepsilon)} \longrightarrow +\infty $ implies that $ \varepsilon^{-4} \exp(-a \eta^2 \mathbf{N}) \longrightarrow 0 $, we have proved that $ {\displaystyle}{\underset}{t \in [0,T]}{\sup}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 $ in probability. The same arguments show that $ {\displaystyle}{\underset}{t \in [0,T]}{\sup}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^I (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty}+ {\underset}{t \in [0,T]}{\sup}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^R(t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 $ in probability as $\mathbf{N}\rightarrow \infty$ and $ \varepsilon \to 0 $, under our standing assumption. Finally, we have shown that $ {\displaystyle}{\underset}{t \in [0,T]}{\sup}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon} (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \longrightarrow 0 $ in probability, which completes the proof of the Proposition.
$\blacksquare$
**Remark 1**
The law of large numbers in sup-norm remains true in dimensions $d=1,3$. To see that, it suffices to remark that $ {\displaystyle}\Delta_{\varepsilon}= \sum_{j=1}^{d}\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,-}\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,+} $ has always $\varepsilon^{-d}$ bounded eigenvectors. In this case the \[dm\] become
$$\Big\langle \; \sum_{j=1}^{d}\Big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,+}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\Big)^2 + \sum_{j=1}^{d}\Big(\nabla_{\varepsilon}^{j,-}{\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\Big)^2 + \Big({\mathsf{T}_{\!\ep,J}}(t)f\Big)^2 , 1 \; \Big\rangle \le h_{\varepsilon}(t)$$ where ${\displaystyle}\int_0^t h_{\varepsilon}(r)dr\le C\,\varepsilon^{-d} + t. $ Hence (\[martsup\]) becomes ${\displaystyle}{\mathbb{P}}\Bigg( e^{-8T}{\underset}{t \in [0,T]}{\text{sup}}\Big\Vert Y_{\mathbf{N},\varepsilon}^S (t) \Big\Vert_{\infty} \ge \eta \Bigg)
\le 4 \; \varepsilon^{-d-2} \exp(-a \dfrac{\eta^2}{4} \mathbf{N}). $\
Moreover, the result holds for periodic boundary conditions. Indeed, in this case, the eigenvectors of the Laplace operator are the product of the one-dimensional eigenvectors
$$\varphi_{n}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
& 1 , \; \mbox{for} \; \; n= 0 ,\\
& \sqrt{2}\cos(n\pi x), \; \text{for} \; \; n>0 \; \text{and even},
\end{array}
\right.$$ $\hspace{4.7cm}{\displaystyle}\psi_{n}(x)=\sqrt{2}sin(n\pi x), \; \text{for} \; \; n>0 \; \text{and even}. $\
**Remark 2**
We conclude that, by two laws of large numbers, the consistency of the various models has been established.\
In a furture work, we will study the fluctuations of the stochastic model around its deterministic law of large numbers limit.\
**Acknowledgments**. The authors are deeply indebted to the referee for a careful reading and several suggestions that greatly improved the paper.\
[2]{} F. B. Agusto (2017a), Mathematical model of Ebola transmission dynamics with relapse and reinfection, Math. Biosci., **287**, 48-59. F. B. Agusto, S. Bewick and W. F. Fagan (2017b), Mathematical model for Zika virus dynamics with sexual transmission route, Ecological Complexity, **29** , 61-81. L. J. S. Allen, F. Brauer, P. Van den Driessche, $\&$ J. Wu (2008). *Mathematical epidemiology* (Vol. 1945). Berlin: Springer. L. J. S. Allen, B. M. Bolker , Y. Lou $\&$ A. L. Nevai (2008). Asymptotic profiles of the steady states for an SIS epidemic reaction-diffusion model. *Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems*, **21**, No. 1, 1-20. L. J. S. Allen, B. M. Bolker , Y. Lou $\&$ A. L. Nevai (2007). Asymptotic profiles of the steady states for an SIS epidemic patch model. *SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics*, **67**, No. 5, 1283-1309. H. Andersson and T. Britton (2000). *Stochastic epidemic models and their statistical analysis*. Springer Lecture Notes in Statistics. New York: Springer Verlag L. Arnold and M. Theodosopulu (1980). Deterministic limit of the stochastic model of chemical reactions with diffusion. *Adv. Appl. Prob.*, **12**, No. 2, 367–379. D. Blount (1992), Law of large numbers in the supremum norm for a chemical reaction with diffusion, *The Annals of Applied Probability*, **2**, No. 1, 131-141 T. Britton and E. Pardoux (2019). Stochastic epidemic in a homogeneous community, arxiv:1808.05350, to appear. M. J. Debussche, A., $\&$ M. J. N. Nankep (2017). A Law of Large Numbers in the Supremum Norm for a Multiscale Stochastic Spatial Gene Network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.06010. Z. Du and R. Peng (2016), A priori $L^{\infty}$ estimates for solutions of a class of reaction-diffusion systems, *J. Math. Biol.*, **72** , 1429-1439 T. Kato (1966). *Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators*. Springer-Verlag W.O. Kermack and A.G. McKendrick (1927), Proc. Roy. Soc. A 115 , 700. Reprinted in *Bull. Math. Biol.* **53** (1991) 33. P. Kotelenez (1986). Gaussian approximation to the nonlinear reaction-diffusion equation. Report **146**, Universität Bremen Forschungsschwerpunkt Dynamische Systemes. H. L. Smith (1995). *Monotone dynamical systems: an introduction to the theory of competitive and cooperative systems* (No. 41). American Mathematical Soc.. K. Yamazaki (2018a), Threshold dynamics of reaction-diffusion partial differential equations model of Ebola virus disease, Int. J. Biomath., **11**, 1850108. K. Yamazaki (2018b), Global well-posedness of infectious disease models without life-timme immunity: the cases of cholera and avian influenza, Math. Med. Biol., **35** , 428-445 K. Yamazaki and X. Wang (2016). Global well-posedness and asymptotic behavior of solutions to a reaction-convection-diffusion cholera epidemic model. *Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B*, **21**, 1297-1316. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2016.21.1297
G. F. Webb (1981). A reaction-diffusion model for a deterministic epidemic, *Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications* **84**, 150-161
[^1]: Univ Félix Houphouët Boigny, [email protected]
[^2]: Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, Marseille, France, [email protected]
[^3]: Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, Marseille, France, [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Multi-view data clustering attracts more attention than their single view counterparts due to the fact that leveraging multiple independent and complementary information from multi-view feature spaces outperforms the single one. Multi-view Spectral Clustering aims at yielding the data partition agreement over their local manifold structures by seeking eigenvalue-eigenvector decompositions. Among all the methods, Low-Rank Representation (LRR) is effective, by exploring the multi-view consensus structures beyond the low-rankness to boost the clustering performance. However, as we observed, such classical paradigm still suffers from the following stand-out limitations for multi-view spectral clustering of (1) overlooking the flexible local manifold structure, caused by (2) aggressively enforcing the low-rank data correlation agreement among all views, such strategy therefore cannot achieve the satisfied between-views agreement; worse still, (3) LRR is not intuitively flexible to capture the latent data clustering structures. In this paper, we present the structured LRR by factorizing into the latent low-dimensional data-cluster representations, which characterize the data clustering structure for each view. Upon such representation, (b) the laplacian regularizer is imposed to be capable of preserving the flexible local manifold structure for each view. (c) We present an iterative multi-view agreement strategy by minimizing the divergence objective among all factorized latent data-cluster representations during each iteration of optimization process, where such latent representation from each view serves to regulate those from other views, such intuitive process iteratively coordinates all views to be agreeable. (d) We remark that such data-cluster representation can flexibly encode the data clustering structure from any view with adaptive input cluster number. To this end, (e) a novel non-convex objective function is proposed via the efficient alternating minimization strategy. The complexity analysis are also presented. The extensive experiments conducted against the real-world multi-view datasets demonstrate the superiority over state-of-the-arts.'
author:
- |
Yang Wang$^{\dag}$ and Lin Wu$^{\ddag}$\
$^{\dag}$The University of New South Wales, Kensington, Sydney, Australia\
$^{\ddag}$ The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia\
[email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ijcai17.bib'
title: 'Multi-View Spectral Clustering via Structured Low-Rank Matrix Factorization'
---
Introduction
============
Spectral clustering [@nips01; @nips04; @SKMEA; @Fei11TNN] aims at exploring the local nonlinear manifold (spectral graph)[^1] structure [@FeiTNNLS15; @FeiTNNLS16], attracting great attention within recent years. With the development of information technology, multi-view spectral clustering, due to the fact of outperforming the single view counterparts by leveraging the complementary information from multi-view spaces. As implied by multi-view research [@TaoPAMIA; @Taosurvey; @ijcai16], an individual view is not capable of being faithful for effective multi-view learning. Therefore, exploring multi-view information is necessary, and has been demonstrated by a wide spectrum of applications [*e.g., *]{}similarity search [@Shao-TIP15; @YLXSIGIR15; @LYMM13; @land4; @LYJMMM13; @YLXMM14; @YLXMM15; @YXLTIP17; @YXQCIKM13], human action recognition [@shao-cvpr14; @Shao-IJCV16; @LYGX17; @YXLKAIS16; @YXLPAKDD14; @LYPR17; @YLIVC17; @YLCJ12] [*etc.. *]{}
Essentially, given the complementary information from multi-views, the critical issue of multi-view clustering is to achieve the multi-view clustering agreement/consensus [@Taosurvey; @TaoTIP14; @iccv15nie] to yield a substantial superior clustering performance over the single view paradigm. Numerous multi-view based methods are proposed for spectral clustering. [@CVPR12; @M-V-C; @YLINS13] performs multi-view information incorporation into the clustering process by optimizing certain objective loss function. *Early fusion* strategy can also be developed by concatenating the multi-view features into a uniform one [@cvpr10], upon which the similarity matrix is calculated for further multi-view spectral clustering. As mentioned by [@YangMVC-TIP15; @land3], such strategy will be more likely to destroy the inherent property of original feature representations within each view, hence resulting into a worse performance; worse still, sometimes, as indicated by the experimental reports from our previous research [@YangMVC-TIP15], it may even be inferior to the clustering performance with a single view. In contrast, *Late fusion* strategy [@ecmlpkdd09] conducts spectral clustering performance for each view, and then combining multiple them afterwards, which, however, cannot achieve the multi-view agreement, without collaborating with each other.
Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) based methods [@CSC; @ICML09] for multi-view spectral clustering project the data from multi-view feature spaces onto one common lower dimensional subspace, where the spectral clustering is subsequently conducted. One limitation of such method lies in the fact that such common lower-dimensional subspace cannot flexibly characterize the local manifold structures from heterogeneous views, resulting into an inferior performance. Kumar [*et al. *]{}[@NIPS11] proposed a state-of-the-art co-regularized spectral clustering for multi-view data. Similarly, a co-training [@COLT98; @ICML10] model is proposed for this problem [@icml11].
One assumption for above work [@NIPS11; @icml11] is the scenario with noise corruption free for each view. However, it is not easily met. To this end, Low-Rank Representation (LRR) [@RMVSC; @LRRICML2010; @YangMVC-TIP15; @ICCV2011; @LiuPAMI13] is proposed. As summarized in [@ijcai16], where the basic idea is to decompose data representation into a view-dependent noise corruption term and a common low rank based representation shared by all views, leading to common data affinity matrix for clustering; The effectiveness of low-rank model also leads to numerous research on multi-view subspace learning [@AAAI16; @ICDM144] applied to the pattern recognition field.
LRR tries a common multi-view low-rank representation, but overlooks the distinct manifold structures. To remedy the limitations, inspired by the latest development of graph regularized LRR [@Jun-TPAMI16; @Jun-TIP15], we recently proposed another iterative views agreement strategy [@ijcai16] with graph regularized Low-rank Representation for multi-view spectral clustering, named **LRRGL** for short, to characterize the non-linear manifold structure from each view, **LRRGL** couples LRR with multi-graph regularization, where each one can characterize the view-dependent non-linear local data manifold structure [@Lin-Neuro16]. A novel iterative view agreement process is proposed of optimizing the proposed, where, during each iteration, the low-rank representation yielded from each view serves as the constraint to regulate the representation learning from other views, to achieve the consensus, implemented by applying Linearized Alternating Direction Method with Adaptive Penalty [@LinNIPS2011].
Despite the effectiveness of **LRRGL**, we still identify the following non-trivial observations that are not addressed by **LRRGL** to obtain the further improvement
- It is less flexible for $Z_i$ yielded by low-rank constraint to capture the flexible latent data similarity that can encode the more rich similarity information than $Z_i$ over $X_i$; that can be better solved by matrix factorization.
- **LRRGL** mainly focused on yielding the low-rank primal data similarity matrix $Z_i$ derived from $X_i$. However, such primal $Z_i$ is less intuitive to understand and less effective to reveal the ideal data clustering structure for the $i^{th}$ view, as well as multi-views. Hence, it will prevent that achieving the better multi-view spectral clustering performance. The structured consensus loss term imposed over $Z_i (i \in V)$ may not effectively achieve the consensus regarding the multi-view spectral clustering.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The visualization results of the multi-view (please refer to section \[sec:exp\] for specific multi-view features) affinity matrix between ours and **LRRGL** over NUS data; The more whiter for diagonal blocks, the more ideally the cluster is to characterize the data objects within the larger similarity, meanwhile, the more blacker for non-diagonal blocks, the more reasonable the non-similarity data objects are unlikely to cluster together. For such result, we can see the diagonal blocks from $3^{rd}$ to the $8^{th}$ of our method are more whiter than those of **LRRGL**, leading to the result that the surrounding black non-diagonal blocks of our method are more salient than those of **LRRGL**, which demonstrate the advantages of our method via a latent factorized data-cluster representation over **LRRGL**[]{data-label="fig:motivation"}](ijcai_nus "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"} ![The visualization results of the multi-view (please refer to section \[sec:exp\] for specific multi-view features) affinity matrix between ours and **LRRGL** over NUS data; The more whiter for diagonal blocks, the more ideally the cluster is to characterize the data objects within the larger similarity, meanwhile, the more blacker for non-diagonal blocks, the more reasonable the non-similarity data objects are unlikely to cluster together. For such result, we can see the diagonal blocks from $3^{rd}$ to the $8^{th}$ of our method are more whiter than those of **LRRGL**, leading to the result that the surrounding black non-diagonal blocks of our method are more salient than those of **LRRGL**, which demonstrate the advantages of our method via a latent factorized data-cluster representation over **LRRGL**[]{data-label="fig:motivation"}](structured_cluster_nus "fig:"){width="4cm" height="4cm"}
(a) (b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Contributions
-----------------
This paper is the extension of our recent work [@ijcai16], upon that, we deliver the following novel contributions to achieve the further improvement over multi-view spectral clustering
- Instead of focusing on primal low-rank data similarity matrix $Z_i$ such that $i = 1,\ldots,V$, we perform a symmetric matrix factorization over $Z_i$ into the data-cluster indicator matrix, so that such latent factorization provides the better chance to preserve the ideal cluster structure besides flexible manifold structure for each view.
- We impose the laplacian regularizer over factorized data-clustered representation to further characterize the nonlinear local manifold structure for each view. We remark that the factorized data-cluster matrix can effectively encode the clustering structure, we provide an example to illustrate this in Fig.\[fig:motivation\]. *To reach the multi-view clustering agreement, we set the same clustering number for all views to the data-clustering representation for all views.*
- We impose the consensus loss term to minimize the divergence among all the latent data-cluster matrix instead of $Z_i$ to achieve the multi-view spectral clustering agreement.
- To implement all the above insights, we propose a novel objective function, and an efficient alternating optimization strategy together with the complexity analysis to solve the objective function; moreover, we deliver the intuitions of iterative multi-view agreement over the factorized latent data-cluster representation during each iteration of our optimization strategy, that will eventually lead to the multi-view clustering agreement.
- Extensive experiments over real-world multi-view data sets demonstrate the advantages of our technique over the state-of-the-arts including our recently proposed **LRRGL** [@ijcai16].
Recently another elegant graph based PCA method [@Fei17neurocomputing] is proposed spectral clustering with out-of-sample case. Unlike this effective technique, we study the multi-view case to address the effective consensus for spectral clustering. We summarize the main notations in Table \[table:notations\].
Notations Explanation
------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
$X_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_i \times n}$ Feature Representation Matrix for the $i^{th}$ view.
$E_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_i \times n}$ Feature noise matrix for the $i^{th}$ view.
$Z_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ Self-expressive similarity matrix for the $i^{th}$ view.
$U_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ Data-cluster matrix for the $i^{th}$ view.
$W_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ Data similarity matrix over $X_i$ for the $i^{th}$ view.
rank($A$) The rank of the matrix $A$.
$A[k]$ Updated matrix $A$ at the $k^{th}$ iteration.
$AB$ Matrix Multiplication between $A$ and $B$.
$n$ The number of data objects.
$d_i$ The dimension of the feature space for the $i^{th}$ view.
$||\cdot||^T$ The matrix transpose.
$||\cdot||_F$ Frobenius norm.
$||\cdot||_*$ Nuclear norm.
$||\cdot||_1$ $\ell_1$ norm of matrix seen as a long vector.
$(\cdot)^{-1}$ The matrix inverse computation.
$I_d$ Identity matrix with the size of $d \times d$.
$||\cdot||_2$ $\ell_2$ norm of a vector.
Tr($\cdot$) Trace operator over the square matrix.
$\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ inner product.
$V$ The set of all views.
$C_k$ The $k^{th}$ data cluster.
$|C_k|$ The cardinality of $C_k$.
$|V|$ Cardinality of the set V.
$A(l,\cdot)$ The $l^{th}$ row of the matrix $A$.
$A(\cdot,m)$ The $m^{th}$ column of the matrix $A$.
$A(l,m)$ The $(l,m)^{th}$ entry of the matrix $A$.
: The Notations Summarization
\[table:notations\]
Structured Low-Rank Matrix Factorization to Spectral Clustering
===============================================================
We get started from each single view [*e.g., *]{}the $i^{th}$ view as $$\label{eq:tech1}
\min_{Z_i, E_i} \frac{\theta}{2}||X_i - X_iZ_i - E_i||_F^2 + ||Z_i||_* + \beta||E_i||_1,$$ where $\theta$ and $\beta$ are the trade-off parameters, as aforementioned, we always adopt $D_i$ to be $X_i$, so that $X_i$ can be decomposed as clean component $X_iZ_i$ and another corrupted component $E_i$ for the $i^{th}$ view. One can easily verify that rank$(X_iZ_i)$ $\leq$ rank$(Z_i)$, hence minimizing rank$(Z_i)$ is equivalent to bounding the low-rank structure of clean component $X_iZ_i$.
Now we are ready to deeply investigate $||Z_i||_*$ for the $i^{th}$ view. Following [@nuclearfactorize], we reformulate the nuclear norm $||Z_i||_*$ as $$\label{eq:tech2}
||Z_i||_* = \min_{U_i,V_i,Z_i=U_iV_i^T}\frac{1}{2}(||U_i||_F^2+||V_i||_F^2),$$ where $U_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ and $V_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$; $d$ is always less than $d_i$ since high-dimensional data objects always characterize the low-rank structure.
Notes regarding $U_i$ and $V_i$ for multi-view spectral clustering
------------------------------------------------------------------
Before further discussing the low-rank matrix factorization, one may consider the following notes that the factorized $U_i$ and $V_i$ may need to satisfy in the context of both the **within-view** data structure preserving and **multi-view** spectral clustering agreement:
1. The low-rank data structure should be characterized by the factorized $U_i$ or $V_i$ for the $i^{th}$ view, especially to characterize the underlying data clustering structure.
2. The factorized latent factors should well encode the manifold structure for the $i^{th}$ view, which, as previously mentioned, is critical to the spectral clustering performance.
3. Either the row based matrix $U_i$ or column based matrix $V_i$ is considered to meet the above two notes? if so, which one? One may claim both to be considered, which, however, may inevitably raise more parameters to be tuned.
4. Not only the factorized latent low-dimensional factors [*e.g., *]{}$U_i$ or $V_i$, should meet the above notes within each view [*e.g., *]{}the $i^{th}$ view, but also need the same scale to unify all views to reach possible agreement.
To address all the above notes, in what follows, we will present our technique of data-cluster based structured low-rank matrix factorization.
Data-cluster (landmark) based Structured Low-Rank Matrix factorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We aim at factorizing $Z_i$ as an approximate symmetric low-rank data-cluster matrix to minimize the reconstruction error $$\label{eq:ui}
\min_{Z_i}||X_i - X_iZ_i||_F^2,$$ where we assume the rank of $Z_i$ is $k_i$, such that $k_i$ is related to the data cluster number for the $i^{th}$ view. As indicated by [@LiuPAMI13], minimizing the Eq. is equivalent to finding the optimal rank $k_i$ approximation relying on skinny singular value decomposition of $X_i = V\Sigma U^T$ to yield the following optimal solution $$\label{eq:ui2}
Z_i^* = U_iU_i^T,$$ where $U_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times k_i}$, such that $k_i$ denotes the top $k_i$ principle basis of $X_i$. Here we follow the assumption in [@Chris_ding12] to see $k_i$ as the cluster number of data objects within the $i^{th}$ view, and the data-cluster symmetric matrix factorization has been widely adopted by the numerous existing research including semi-supervised learning [@land1; @land2], metric fusion [@land3] and clustering [@SKMEA]. We aim at solving the following equivalent low-rank minimization over $Z_i$ via the clustered symmetric matrix factorization below $$\label{eq:reform0}
||Z_i||_* = \min_{U_i,Z_i = U_iU_i^T}||U_i||_F^2,$$ where we often minimize the following for derivative convenience with respect to $U_i$ $$\label{eq:reform}
||Z_i||_* = \min_{U_i,Z_i = U_iU_i^T}\frac{1}{2}||U_i||_F^2$$ **Remark.** Following Eqs. and , we initialize the $U_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times k_i}$ via a k means clustering over $X_i$ and normalize $U_i(j,k) = \frac{1}{|C_k|}$ provided $X_i(\cdot,j)$ [*i.e., *]{}the $j^{th}$ data object is assigned to $C_k$. By such normalization, all the columns of $U_i$ are orthonormal; moreover, they are within the same magnitude so as to perform the agreement minimization. Furthermore, such factorization can well address the aforementioned challenges, it is worthwhile to summarize them below
- The data cluster structure can be well encoded by such low-rank data-cluster representation within each view. The setting $U_i = V_i$ can avoid the more parameters and importance weight discussion provided $U_i \neq V_i$.
- More importantly, inspired by the reasonable assumption hold by all the multi-view clustering research [@NIPS11; @icml11; @M-V-C; @YangMVC-TIP15]. As indicated by [@YangMVC-TIP15], the ideal multi-view clustering performance is that the common underlying data clustering structure is shared by all the views; we naturally set all the $U_i$ with the same size by adopting the same value for $k_i = d(i = 1,\ldots,V)$ [*i.e., *]{}the clustering number, upon the same data objects number $n$ for all views, so that the feasible loss functions can be developed to seek the multi-view clustering agreement with the same clustering number for all views.
For spectral clustering from each view, we preserve the nonlinear local manifold structure of $X_i$ via such low-rank data-cluster representation $U_i$ for the $i^{th}$ view, which can be formulated as $$\label{eq:spectral}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j,k}^{n}||u_j^i - u_k^i||_2^2W_i(j,k) \\
& = \sum_{j = 1}^{N}(u_j^i)^Tu_j^iH_i(j,j) - \sum_{j,k}^{N}(u_k^i)^Tu_j^iW_i(j,k) \\
& = \textmd{Tr}(U_i^TH_iU_i) - \textmd{Tr}(U_i^TW_iU_i) = \textmd{Tr}(U_i^TL_iU_i),
\end{aligned}$$ where $u_k^i \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ is the $k^{th}$ row vector of $U_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ representing the linear correlation between $x_k$ and $x_j(j \neq k)$ in the $i^{th}$ view; $W_i(j,k)$ encodes the similarity between $x_j$ and $x_k$ for the $i^{th}$ view; $H_i$ is a diagonal matrix with its $k^{th}$ diagonal entry to be the summation of the $k^{th}$ row of $W_i$, and $L_i = H_i - W_i$ is the graph laplacian matrix for the $i^{th}$ view.
Following [@ijcai16], we choose Gaussian kernel to define $W_{jk}^i$ $$\label{eq:gaussian}
W_i(j,k) = e^{-\frac{||x_j^i - x_k^i ||^2_2}{2\sigma^2}}.$$
We aim to minimize the difference of low-rank based data-cluster representations for all views via a mutual consensus loss function term to coordinate all views to reach clustering agreement, while structuring such representation with laplacian regularizer to encode the local manifold structure for each view.
Unlike the traditional LRR to achieve the common data similarity by all views, we propose to learn a variety of factorized low-rank data-cluster representations for different views to preserve the flexible local manifold structure while achieving the data cluster structure for each view, upon which, the consensus loss term is imposed to achieve the multi-view consensus, leading to our iterative views agreement in the next section.
The Objective Function with structured low-rank Matrix factorized representation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose the objective function with structured low-rank representation $U_i$ for each view [*e.g., *]{}the $i^{th}$ view with factorized low-rank via Eq. data-clustered representation via Eq.. Then we have the following $$\label{eq:object}
\begin{aligned}
& \min_{U_i, E_i (i \in V)} \sum_{i \in V} ( \underbrace{\frac{1}{2}||U_i||_F^2}_\text{minimize $||Z_i||_*$ via Eq.\eqref{eq:reform}} + \underbrace{\lambda_{1} ||E_i||_1}_\text{noise and corruption robustness}\\
& + \underbrace{\lambda_{2}\textmd{Tr}(U_i^TL_iU_i)}_\text{Graph Structured Regularization} + \underbrace{\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{j \in V, j \neq i}||U_i - U_j||^2_F)}_\text{Views-agreement}\\
&~~~\textmd{s.t.}~~~~ i = 1, \ldots, V, ~~X_i = X_iU_iU_i^T + E_i, U_i \geq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where
- $U_i \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ denotes the factorized low-rank data-cluster representation of $X_i$ for the $i^{th}$ view. $\textmd{Tr}(U_i^TL_iU_i)$ makes $U_i$ to be structured with local manifold structure for the $i^{th}$ view. $||E_i||_1$ is responsible for possible noise with $X_i$. $\lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2}, \beta$ are all trade-off parameters.
- One reasonable assumption hold by a lot of multi-view clustering research [@sdm13; @NIPS11; @M-V-C; @icml11] is that all the views should share the similar underlying clustering structure. $\sum_{i,j \in V}||U_i - U_j||_F^2$ aims to achieve the views-agreement regarding the factorized low-rank representations $U_i$ from all $|V|$ views; unlike the traditional LRR method to enforce an identical representation, we construct different $U_i$ for each view, then further minimize their divergence to generate a view-agreement.
- $U_i \geq 0$ is a non-negative constraint, through $X_i = X_iZ_i + E_i = X_iU_iU_i^T + E_i$ for the $i^{th}$ view.
Eq. is non-convex, we hence alternately optimize each variable while fixing the others; that is, updating all the $U_i$ and $E_i(i \in \{1,\ldots,V\})$ in an alternative way until the convergence is reached. As solving all the $\{U_i, E_i\} (i \in V)$ pairs shares the similar optimization strategy, only the $i^{th}$ view is presented. To this end, we introduce two auxiliary variables $D_i$ and $G_i$, then solving the Eq. with respect to $U_i$, $E_i$, $D_i$ and $G_i$ that can be written as follows $$\label{eq:variation}
\begin{aligned}
& \min_{U_i, E_i, D_i, G_i} \frac{1}{2}||U_i||_F^2 + \lambda_{1}||E_i||_1 \\
& + \lambda_{2}\textmd{Tr}(U_iL_iU_i^T) + \frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{j \in V, j \neq i}||U_i - U_j||^2_F \\
& ~~\textmd{s.t.}~ X_i = D_iU_i^T + E_i, D_i = X_iU_i, G_i = U_i, G_i \geq 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $D_i \in \mathbb{R}^{d_i \times d}$, we will show the intuition for the auxiliary variable relationship $D_i = X_iU_i$ by introducing the augmented lagrangian function based on Eq. below $$\label{eq:argumented}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{L}(U_i, E_i, D_i, G_i, K_1^{i}, K_2^{i}, K_3^{i}) \\
& = \frac{1}{2}||U_i||_F^2 + \lambda_{1}||E_i||_1 + \lambda_{2}\textmd{Tr}(U_i^TL_iU_i)\\
& + \frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{j \in V, j \neq i}||U_i - U_j||^2_F + \langle K_1^{i}, X_i - D_iU_i^T - E_i \rangle \\
& + \langle K_2^{i}, U_i - G_i \rangle + \langle K_3^{i}, D_i - X_iU_i \rangle \\
& + \frac{\mu}{2}(||X_i - D_iU_i^T - E_i||_F^2 + ||U_i - G_i||_F^2 + ||D_i - X_iU_i||_F^2),
\end{aligned}$$ where $K_1^{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_i \times n}$, $K_2^{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ and $K_3^{i} \in \mathbb{R}^{d_i \times d}$ are Lagrange multipliers, $\mu > 0$ is a penalty parameter.
From Eq., we can easily show the intuition on $D_i = X_iU_i$, that is,
- minimizing $||X_i - D_iU_i^T - E_i||_F^2$ w.r.t. $D_i$ is similar as dictionary learning, while pop out the $U_i^T$ as corresponding representations learning, both of them reconstruct the $X_i$ for the $i^{th}$ view. Besides the above intuition, it is quite simple to optimize only single $U_i^T$ by merging the other into $D_i$.
Optimization Strategy
=====================
We minimize Eq. by updating each variable while fixing the others.
Solve $U_i$
-----------
Minimizing $U_i$ is to resolve Eq. $$\label{eq:Ui}
\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{L}_1 = \frac{1}{2}||U_i||_F^2 + \lambda_{2}\textmd{Tr}(U_i^TL_iU_i)\\
& + \frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{j \in V, j \neq i}||U_i - U_j||^2_F + \langle K_1^{i}, X_i - D_iU_i^T - E_i \rangle \\
& + \langle K_2^{i}, U_i - G_i \rangle + \langle K_3^{i}, D_i - X_iU_i \rangle \\
& + \frac{\mu}{2}(||X_i - D_iU_i^T - E_i||_F^2 + ||U_i - G_i||_F^2 + ||D_i - X_iU_i||_F^2),
\end{aligned}$$
We set the derivative of Eq. w.r.t. $U_i$ to be the zero matrix, which yields the Eq. below $$\label{eq:closeUi}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_1}{\partial U_i} = U_i + 2\lambda_2L_iU_i + \beta\sum_{j \in V, j \neq i}(U_i - U_j) \\
& ~~~~~~- (K_1^i)^TD_i + K_2^i - X_i^TK_3^i \\
& ~~~~~~+ \mu U_iD_i^TD_i + \mu E_i^TD_i + \mu (U_i - G_i) \\
& ~~~~~~- \mu X_i^TX_iU_i = \mathbf{0},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ shares the same size as $U_i$. Rearranging the other terms further yields the following $$\label{eq:closedUUi}
U_i = \underbrace{(2\lambda_2L_i + (1 + \beta(|V|-1) + \mu)I_n - \mu X_i^TX_i)^{-1}}_\text{with computational complexity $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$} S,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& S = \sum_{j \in V, j \neq i}U_j + ((K_1^i)^T - \mu U_iD_i^T - \mu E_i^T) D_i \\
& ~~~~~~+ X_i^TK_3^i + \mu X_i^TX_iU_i
\end{aligned}$$ The bottleneck of computing Eq. lies in the inverse matrix computation over the matrix of the size $\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ causing the computational complexity $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$, which is computationally prohibitive provided that $n$ is large. Therefore, we turn to update each row of $U_i$; without loss of generality, we present the derivative with respect to $U_i(l,\cdot)$ as $$\label{eq:U_ik}
\begin{aligned}
& U_i(l,\cdot) + U_i(l,\cdot)\left(\sum_{k = 1}^{n} (2\lambda_2L_i(k,l) - \mu (X_i^TX_i)(k,l))\right) \\
& + (K_1^i)^T(l,\cdot)D_i + \mu U_i(l,\cdot)D_i^TD_i + K_2^i(l,\cdot) - X_i^T(l,\cdot)K_3^i \\
& +\beta\sum_{j \in V, j \neq i}(U_i(l,\cdot) - U_j(l,\cdot)) \\
& + \mu\left(U_i(l,\cdot) + E_i^T(l,\cdot)D_i - G_i(l,\cdot)\right) = \mathbf{0},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{0} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ denotes the vector of the size $d$ with all entries to be 0, $U_i(l,\cdot) \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ represents the $l^{th}$ row of $U_i$; we rearrange the terms to yield the following $$\label{eq:uil}\small
\begin{aligned}
& U_i(l,\cdot) \\
& = \left(T_i^l + \beta\underbrace{\sum_{j \neq i, j \in V}U_j(l,\cdot)}_\text{Influences from other views} \right) \\
&\underbrace{\left((1 + \mu + \sum_{k = 1}^{n}(2\lambda_2L_i(k,l) - \mu (X_i^TX_i)(k,l)))I_d + D_i^TD_i\right)^{-1}}_\text{with computational complexity $\mathcal{O}(d^3)$}
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& T_i^l = X_i^T(l,\cdot)K_3^i + \mu \left(G_i(l,\cdot) - E_i^T(l,\cdot)D_i\right)\\ \nonumber
& ~~~- K_2^i(l,\cdot) - (K_1^i)^T(l,\cdot)D_i \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$
$I_d \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ is the identity matrix.
### **Complexity discussion for the row updating strategy for $U_i$**
Unlike the closed form regarding $U_i$, it is apparent that the major computational complexity lies in the inverse matrix computation over the size of $\mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, which leads to $\mathcal{O}(d^3)$ according to Eq., which is much smaller than $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$. Besides, as $d$ is set as the cluster number across all views; moreover, aforementioned, it should be less than the inherent rank of $X_i$, and hence a small value. Upon the above facts, it is tremendously efficient via $\mathcal{O}(d^3)$ to sequentially update each row of $U_i$.
### **Intuitions for views agreement**
The iterative views clustering agreement can be immediately captured via the terms underlined in Eq.. Specifically, during each iteration, the $U_i(l,\cdot)$ is updated via the influence from others view, while served as the constraint to generate $U_j(l,\cdot) (j \neq i)$, the divergence among all $U_i(l,\cdot)$ is decreased gradually towards an agreement for all views, such process repeats until the convergence is reached.
Unlike the existing LRR method by directly imposing the common representation, our iterative multi-view agreement can better preserve the flexible manifold structure for each view meanwhile achieve the multi-view agreement, which will be critical to final multi-view spectral clustering.\
**Remark.** After the whole $U_i$ is updated for the $i^{th}$ view, we simply perform a K-means clustering over it to assign each data object to one cluster exclusively. Then normalized each column of $U_i$ to form an orthonormal matrix.
Solve $D_i$
-----------
The optimization process regarding $D_i$ is equivalent to the following $$\label{eq:dii}
\begin{aligned}
& \min_{D_i}<K_i^i, X_i - D_iU_i^T - E_i> + <K_3^i, D_i - X_iU_i> \\
& + \frac{\mu}{2}\left(||X_i - D_iU_i - E_i||_F^2 + ||D_i - X_iU_i||_F^2\right)
\end{aligned}$$ We get the derivative with respect to $D_i$, then it yields the following closed form updating rule $$\label{eq:diupdate}
\begin{aligned}
& D_i = \\
& \left(K_1^iU_i - K_3^i + \mu(2X_i - E_i)U_i\right)\frac{\left(I_d + U_i^TU_i\right)^{-1}}{\mu},
\end{aligned}$$ where the major computational complexity lies in the inverse computation over matrix $(I_d + U_i^TU_i) \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$, resulting into $\mathcal{O}(d^3)$, as aforementioned, that is the same as updating each row of $U_i$, and hence quite efficient.
Solve $E_i$
-----------
it is equivalent to solving the following: $$\label{eq:Ei}
\min_{E_i} \lambda_1 ||E_i||_1 + \frac{\mu}{2}||E_i - (X_i - D_iU_i^T + \frac{1}{\mu}K_1^{i})||_F^2,$$ where the following closed form solution can be yielded for $E_i$ according to [@CaiSIAMJ08] $$\label{eq:EiS}
E_i = S_{\frac{\lambda_1}{\mu}}(X_i - D_iU_i^T + \frac{1}{\mu}K_1^{i})$$
Solve $G_i$
-----------
It is equivalent for the following: $$\label{eq:Gi}
<K_2^i,U_i - G_i> + \frac{\mu}{2}||G_i - U_i||_F^2$$ where the following closed form solution of $G_i$ can be derived as $$\label{eq:GiS}
G_i = U_i + \frac{K_2^i}{\mu}$$
**Initialize**: $U_i[0], L_i (i = 1, \dots,V)$ computation, set all entries of $K_1^{i}[0],G_i[0], K_2^{i}[0]$ to be 0, initialize $E_i[0]$ with sparse noise as 20% entries corrupted with uniformly distributed noise over \[-5,5\], $\mu[0]=10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_1=10^{-3}$, $\epsilon_2=10^{-1}$\
$k = 0$\
**Return** $U_i[k + 1]$, $D_i[k + 1]$, $E_i[k + 1]$, $G_i[k + 1]$ ($i=1,\ldots,V$)
Updating $K_1^{i}$, $K_2^{i}$, $K_3^{i}$ and $\mu$
--------------------------------------------------
We update Lagrange multipliers $K_1^{i}$, $K_2^{i}$ and $K_3^{i}$ via
$$\label{eq:K1s}
K_1^{i} = K_1^{i} + \mu(X_i - D_iU_i - E_i)$$
$$\label{eq:K2s}
K_2^{i} = K_2^{i} + \mu(U_i - G_i)$$
$$\label{eq:K3s}
K_3^{i} = K_3^{i} + \mu(D_i - X_iU_i)$$
Following [@ijcai16], $\mu$ is tuned using the adaptive updating strategy [@LinNIPS2011] to yield a faster convergence. The optimization strategy alternatively updates each variable while fixing others until the convergence, which is summarized by Algorithm \[alg:algorithm1\].
Notes regarding Algorithm \[alg:algorithm1\]
---------------------------------------------
It is worthwhile to highlight some critical notes regarding the Algorithm \[alg:algorithm1\] below
- We initialize the $U_i[0] \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ for all views, such that each entry of $U_i[0]$ represents similarity between each data object and one of the $d$ anchors (cluster representatives), which can be seen as the centers from the clusters generated from the k-means or spectral clustering.
- For our initialization, we adopt the spectral clustering outcome with the clustering number to be $d$, where the similarity matrix is calculated via the original $X_i$ feature representation within each view, then the $U_i[0](i,j)$ entry [*i.e., *]{}the similarity between the $i^{th}$ data object and the $j^{th}$ anchor is yielded via Eq.. The laplacian matrix $L_i (i = 1,\ldots,V)$ are computed once offline also within the original $X_i$ feature representation.
- More importantly, we set the identical value of $d$(the cluster number) to the column size of $U_i[0](i = 1,\cdot\cdot,V) \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ for all the views. We remark that the above initial setting for $U_i[0]$ with the same $d$ is reasonable, as stated before all the views should share the similar underlying data clustering structure. This fact also implies that the initialized $U_i[0]$ is reasonably not divergent a lot among all views.
Convergence discussion
----------------------
Often, the above alternating minimization strategy can be seen as the coordinate descent method. According to [@nonlinearconv], the sequences $(U_i,D_i,E_i,G_i)$ above will eventually converge to a stationary point. However, we are not sure whether the converged stationary point is a global optimum, as it is not jointly convex to all the variables above.
Clustering
----------
Following [@ijcai16], once the converged $U_i(i = 1,\ldots,V)$ are ready, all column vectors of $U_i(i = 1,\ldots,V)$ while set small entries under given threshold $\tau$ to be 0. Afterwards, the similarity matrix for the $i^{th}$ view between the $j^{th}$ and $k^{th}$ data objects as $$\label{eq:all-view-simi}
W_i (j,k) =(U_iU_i^T)(j,k)$$ Following [@ijcai16], The final data similarity matrix can be defined as $$\label{eq:simi-all}
W = \frac{\sum_{i}^{V}W_i}{|V|}$$ The clustering is carried out against $W$ via Eq. to yield final outcome of $d$ data groups.
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
We adopt the data sets mentioned in [@ijcai16] below:
- [^2]: consists of features for hand-written digits (0-9), with 6 features and contains 2000 samples with 200 in each category. Analogous to [@LinNIPS2011; @ijcai16], we choose two views as 76 Fourier coefficients (FC) of the character shapes and the 216 profile correlations.
- (AwA)[^3]: consists of 50 kinds of animals described by 6 features (views): Color histogram ( CQ, 2688-dim), local self-similarity (LSS, 2000-dim), pyramid HOG (PHOG, 252-dim), SIFT (2000-dim), Color SIFT (RGSIFT, 2000-dim), and SURF (2000-dim). Following [@ijcai16], 80 images for each category and get 4000 images in total.
- [@NUS-Wide]: 30000 images from 31 categories. 5 views are adopted using 5 features as provided by the website [^4]: 65-dimensional color histogram (CH), 226-dimensional color moments (CM), 145-dimensional color correlation (CORR), 74-dimensional edge estimation (EDH), and 129-dimensional wavelet texture (WT).
- [^5]: we select 20 categories with 11530 images, two views are constructed with Color features (1500-dim) and HOG features (250 dim). Among them, 5600 images are selected by removing the images with multiple categories.
We summarize the above throughout Table \[table:dataset\].
Features UCI digits AwA NUS VOC
--------------- ------------ -------------- ----------- --------------
1 FC (76) CQ (2688) CH(65) Color (1500)
2 PC (216) LSS (2000) CM(226) HOG (250)
3 - PHOG (252) CORR(145) -
4 - SIFT(2000) EDH(74) -
5 - RGSIFT(2000) WT(129) -
6 - SURF(2000) - -
\# of data 2000 4000 26315 5600
\# of classes 10 50 31 20
: Data sets.
\[table:dataset\]
Baselines
---------
The following state-of-the-art baselines used in [@ijcai16] are compared:
- **MFMSC**: concatenating multi-features to be the multi-view representation for similarity matrix, the spectral clustering is then conducted [@cvpr10].
- Multi-feature representation similarity aggregation for spectral clustering (**MAASC**) [@CVPR12].
- Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) model (**CCAMSC**) [@ICML09]: Projecting multi-view data into a common subspace, then perform spectral clustering.
- Co-regularized multi-view spectral clustering (**CoMVSC**) [@NIPS11]: It regularizes the eigenvectors of view-dependent graph laplacians and achieve consensus clusters across views.
- **Co-training** [@icml11]: Alternately modify one view’s Laplacian eigenspace by learning from the other views ’s eigenspace, the spectral clustering is then conducted.
- Robust Low-Rank Representation method (**RLRR**) [@RMVSC], after obtaining the data similarity matrix, upon which, the spectral clustering is performed to be the final multi-view spectral clustering result.
- Low-rank Representation with Graph laplacian (**LRRGL**) [@ijcai16] regularizer over the non-factorized low-rank representations, with each of which corresponds to one view to preserve the individual manifold structure, while iteratively boost all these low-rank representations to reach agreement. The final multi-view spectral clustering is performed upon the similarity representations
Experimental Settings and Parameters Study
------------------------------------------
We implement these competitors under the experimental setting as mentioned in [@ijcai16]. Following [@ijcai16], $\sigma$ in Eq. is learned via [@nips04], and $s=20$ to construct $s$-nearest neighbors for Eq.. We adopt two standard metrics: clustering accuracy () and normalized mutual information () as the metric defined as Eq. $$\label{eq:acc}
\textsf{ACC} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n \delta(\textmd{map}(r_i),l_i)}{n},$$ where $r_i$ denotes the cluster label of $x_i$, and $l_i$ denotes the true class label, $n$ is the total number of images, $\delta(x,y)$ is the function that equals one if $x=y$ and equals zero otherwise, and $\textmd{map}(r_i)$ is the permutation mapping function that maps each cluster label $r_i$ to the equivalent label from the database. Meanwhile the is formulated below $$\label{eq:NMI}
\textsf{NMI} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^c \sum_{j=1}^c n_{i,j} \log \frac{n_{i,j}}{n_i \hat{n}_j}}{\sqrt{(\sum_{i=1}^c n_i \log \frac{n_i}{n}) (\sum_{j=1}^c \hat{n}_j \log \frac{\hat{n}_j}{n})}},$$ where $n_i$ is the sample number in cluster $C_i$ ($1\leqslant i \leqslant c$), $\hat{n}_j$ is the sample number from class $L_j$ ($1 \leqslant j \leqslant c$), and $n_{i,j}$ denotes the sample number in the intersection between $C_i$ and $L_j$.\
**Remark.** Following [@ijcai16], *we repeated the running 10 times, and their averaged mean value for multi-view spectral clustering for all methods is reported. For each method including ours, we input the clustering number as the number of ground-truth classes from all data sets.*\
****: Following [@CV155; @ijcai16], 20% feature elements are corrupted with uniform distribution over the range \[5,-5\], which is consistent to the practical setting while matching with **LRRGL**,**RLRR** and our method.
Following [@ijcai16], We set $\lambda_1=2$ in Eq. for sparse noise term. We test and over different value of $\lambda_2$ and $\beta$ in Eq. in the next subsection.
Validation over factorized low-rank latent data-cluster representation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we will would like to validate our method regarding the multi-graph regularization and iterative views agreement over factorized latent data-cluster representation.
Following [@ijcai16], we test $\lambda_2$ and $\beta$ within the interval \[0.001,10\], with one parameter while fixing the value of the other parameter, the results are shown in Fig. \[fig:parameter\], where we have
- Increasing $\beta$ will improve the performance, and vice versa; that is, increasing $\lambda_2$ will improve the performance.
- The clustering metric increases when both $\lambda_2$ and $\beta$ increase.
Based on the above, we choose a balance pair values: $\lambda_2=0.7$ and $\beta=0.2$ for our method.
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
(a) (b) (c)
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
Results
-------
(%) UCI digits AwA NUS VOC
-------------------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
**MFMSC** [@cvpr10] 43.81 17.13 22.81 12.98
**MAASC** [@CVPR12] 51.74 19.44 25.13 13.64
**CCAMSC**[@ICML09] 73.24 24.04 27.56 12.05
**CoMVSC**[@NIPS11] 80.27 29.93 33.63 14.03
**Co-training**[@icml11] 79.22 29.06 34.25 14.92
**RLRR**[@RMVSC] 83.67 31.49 35.27 17.13
**LRRGL**[@ijcai16] 86.39 37.22 41.02 18.07
**Ours** **89.64** **41.76** **43.14** **18.85**
: results.
\[table:acc\]
(%) UCI digits AwA NUS VOC
-------------------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
**MFMSC** [@cvpr10] 41.57 11.48 12.21 9.16
**MAASC** [@CVPR12] 47.85 12.93 11.86 9.84
**CCAMSC**[@ICML09] 56.51 15.62 14.56 8.42
**CoMVSC**[@NIPS11] 63.82 17.30 7.07 9.97
**Co-training**[@icml11] 62.07 18.05 8.10 10.88
**RLRR**[@RMVSC] 81.20 25.57 18.29 11.65
**LRRGL**[@ijcai16] 85.45 31.74 20.61 12.03
**Ours** **87.81** **34.03** **23.43** **12.97**
: results.
\[table:nmi\]
According to Table \[table:acc\] and Table \[table:nmi\], the following identification can be drawn, note that we mainly deliver the analysis between our method and **LRRGL**, as the analysis over other competitors have been detailed in [@ijcai16].
- First, our method outperforms **LRRGL**, implying the effectiveness of the factorized latent data-cluster representation, as it can better encode the data-cluster representation for each view as well as all views. We provide more insights about that in Fig. \[fig:affinity\].
- Second, both our method and **LRRGL** outperforms the model of learning a common low-dimensional subspace among multi-view data, as indicated by [@ijcai16] it is incapable of encoding local graph structures within a single subspace.
- Our method and **LRRGL** are more effective under noise corruptions than other methods. More analysis can be referred to our conference version [@ijcai16].
- Our method achieves the best performance over PASCAL VOC 2012 under the selected two views via the tuned the parameters.
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
{width="5cm" height="5cm"} {width="5cm" height="5cm"} {width="5cm" height="5cm"}
(a) (b) (c)
{width="5cm" height="5cm"} {width="5cm" height="5cm"} {width="5cm" height="5cm"}
(d) (e) (f)
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------
We present Fig. \[fig:affinity\] to show more intuitions on why our method with the multi-view affinity matrix yielded from factorized data-cluster representation outperforms the primal similarity matrix for **LRRGL**. For example,
- For UCI dataset, [*i.e., *]{}the multi-view affinity matrix illustrated in Fig. \[fig:affinity\](a) and \[fig:affinity\](d), we can see the both $4^{th}$ and $5^{th}$ diagonal blocks of our method in Fig. \[fig:affinity\](d) are more whiter than those of **LRRGL** illustrated in Fig. \[fig:affinity\](a); meanwhile the surrounding non-diagonal black blocks [*e.g., *]{}$(4,5)^{th}$ and $(5,4)^{th}$ are more black than those of textbf[LRRGL]{}.
- For AwA dataset, the diagonal blocks of our method from the $2^{nd}$ to the $6^{th}$ are whiter than those of **LRRGL**, leading to a slight deeper black color over the surrounding non-diagonal blocks than **LRRGL**.
- The similar conclusions also hold for NUS dataset, we can see the diagonal blocks from $3^{rd}$ to the $8^{th}$ of our method are more whiter than those of **LRRGL**, leading to the result that the surrounding black non-diagonal blocks of our method are more salient than those of **LRRGL**.
From the above observations, we can safely infer the advantages of the affinity matrix representation yielded by our factorized latent data-cluster representation over the primal affinity matrix of **LRRGL** for Multi-view spectral clustering.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we propose to learn a clustered low-rank representation via structured matrix factorization for multi-view spectral clustering. Unlike the existing methods, we propose an iterative strategy of intuitively achieving the multi-view spectral clustering agreement by minimizing the between-view divergences in terms of the factorized latent data-clustered representation for each view. Upon that, we impose the graph Laplacian regularizer over such low-dimensional data-cluster representation, so as to adapt to the multi-view spectral clustering, as demonstrated by the extensive experiments.
The future work includes the following directions: The graph regularized low-rank embedding out-of-sample case has been researched [@Fei11TNN], and will be applied for multi-view out-of-sample scenario. Unlike the pre-defined graph similarity value, inspired by [@FeiAAAI17], we will simultaneously learn and achieve the consensus graph clustering result and graph structure [*i.e., *]{}graph similarity. Besides, the latest non-parametric graph construction model [@FeiAAAI16] will also be incorporated for multi-view spectral clustering. The practice of our method can be improved by reducing the tuned parameters further. Upon that, we will also investigate the problem of learning the weight [@FeiAAAI17; @IJCAI16Nie; @AAAI13Cai] for each view.
[^1]: In the rest of this paper, we will alternatively use nonlinear manifold structure or spectral graph structure
[^2]: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Multiple+Features
[^3]: http://attributes.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de
[^4]: lms.comp.nus.edu.sg/research/NUS-WIDE.html
[^5]: http://host.robots.ox.ac.uk/pascal/VOC/voc2012/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note we derive a sharp concentration inequality for the supremum of a smooth random field over a finite dimensional set. It is shown that this supremum can be bounded with high probability by the value of the field at some deterministic point plus an intrinsic dimension of the optimisation problem. As an application we prove the exponential inequality for a function of the maximal eigenvalue of a random matrix is proved.'
author:
- |
Denis Belomestny and Vladimir Spokoiny\
Duisburg-Essen University and WIAS Berlin, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology\
title: 'Concentration inequalities for smooth random fields [^1] '
---
Introduction
============
Concentration inequalities is a quite active field of research, which is driven by numerous applications, see @L and @Lu for an overview. Concentration inequalities have been used in many fields of both pure and applied mathematics, including stochastic optimization, random matrix theory, geometric functional analysis, randomized algorithms, statistics, machine learning and compressed sensing. A typical situation where the concentration inequalities are useful is the case where one is interested in probabilistic bounds for a random variable which is the solution of a (stochastic) optimization problem. This type of problems appear in statistics and stochastic optimisation. Many statistical estimators (e.g. the maximum-likelihood estimator) are solutions to random optimization problems. There is a substantial statistical literature dealing with concentration in statistics, see @M for an overview. On the stochastic optimisation side let us mention the bin packing problem and the travelling salesman problem where the concentration approach leads to rather sharp probabilistic bounds for the quantities of interest. For example, in the bin packing problem we are given $ n $ items of sizes in the interval $ [0,1] $ and are required to pack them into the fewest number of unit-capacity bins as possible. In the stochastic version, the item sizes are independent random variables in the interval $ [0, 1]. $
In this note we prove rather general and sharp concentration inequality for smooth random fields. As a simple corollary of the main result we get a sharp exponential inequality for a convex function of the maximal eigenvalue of a random matrix.
Main setup
==========
Let $ G(x;\thetav), $ $ \thetav\in \Theta \subseteq \R^{\dimp} $ be a family of real valued functions on $ \R^n $ and let $ X $ be a random vector in $ \R^n. $ The purpose of this paper is to derive exponential probability bounds for the random variable: $$\sup_{\thetav \in \Theta} G(X,\thetav).$$ First we make the following assumptions.
$ \bb{(G\!C)} $
: \^2 M()-D\^\*, |-|=, >\_0. \[glob\_conc\]
<!-- -->
$ \bb{(V\!I)} $
: *There is a symmetric positive definite matrix $ V_0 $ such that*
{ \_ G(X,) }\^[2]{}
and
V\^2\_0\^[-2]{} I, \^[2]{} \^[2]{} \^[2]{} \[AssId\]
with $ \nabla^2 M(\thetavs)=-D^2_0, $ a small parameter $ \varepsilon\in (0,1/2)$ and $ \fis\in \R. $
Introduce a centred random field:
() G(X;)-G(X;) \[thetavsd\]
and a local elliptic neighbourhood of $ \thetavs $ via
() { : (- ) }. \[Theta0R\]
Finally we make two integrability assumptions.
$ \bb{(E\!D)} $
: *There exists a constant $ \rhor_0 $ such that it holds for all $ \thetav \in
\Thetas(\rr) $* and all $ \rr \le \rups $,
\[expzetacloc1\] \_[\^]{} { } & & \^[2]{} \^[2]{} / 2, || .
<!-- -->
$ \bb{(E\rr)} $
: *It holds for any $ \lambda>0, $*
\[expzetag\] \_[\^]{} { } \^[2]{} \^[2]{} / 2.
#### Discussion
Under $ (G\!C) $ the second order Taylor expansion of the function $ M(\thetav) $ at $ \thetavs $ gives
M()=M()+(-)\^\^2 M()(-)+R() \[taylor1\]
with $$\frac{R(\thetav)}{\|\thetav-\thetavs\|^2}=O(\|\thetav-\thetavs\|), \quad \|\thetav-\thetavs\|\to 0.$$ Then under $ (V\!I) $
\[LmgfquadEL\] | + 1 | \_0, \_0()
for some $ \delta_0>0. $ The condition basically means that $ M $ is globally concave and together with the Taylor expansion
M()=M()+(-)\^\^2 M(+(-))(-), (0,1) \[taylor2\]
gives
M()-M() - \^[2]{}-\^\* \^[2]{} \[xxentrtt\]
if $ \| \thetav - \thetavs \|=\rr. $
Main result
===========
Define for $ \BB \eqdef \DPc^{-1} \VPc^{2} \DPc^{-1} $
() , \^[2]{} 2 (\^[2]{}), \_[0]{} \_ = \_( ). \[BBrdd\]
Under assumptions $ (G\!C), $ $ (V\!I), $ $(E\!D)$ and $(E\rr)$
¶(\_G(X,)>G(X,)+\_0/2 +c\_0(+x))e\^[-x]{}, \[main\_ineq\]
for any $ x>0 $ satisfying $ \varepsilon \sqrt{(x+3p)}<1 $ and some constant $ c $ depending on $ \nunu, $ $ \gmi^*, $ $ \delta_0 $ and $ \rhor_0 $ only.
#### Applications (maximal eigenvalue)
Let $ A=(a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^p $ be a Hermitian random matrix with a positive definite symmetric mean matrix $ \E A $ and let
G(A,)\^ A-f(\^2), \[GEx\]
with $ \Theta=\{\thetav\in \R^p: |\thetav|<R\}$ for some large enough $ R>0 $ and a nonnegative monotone increasing smooth function $ f. $ Let $ f^* $ be the Legendre transform of $ f, $ then
\_G(A,)= f\^\*(\_(A)). \[app\_opt\]
Since $ M(\thetav)\eqdef\E G(A,\thetav) =\thetav^{\top} \E A\thetav-f(\|\thetav\|^2),$
\_M()=f\^\*(\_(A)) \[app\_opt\_e\]
and the maximum is attained in the point $ \thetav^*=\sqrt{r^*}\bb{e}_p, $ where $ \bb{e}_p $ is the eigenvector of the matrix $ \E A $ corresponding to its largest eigenvalue and $ r^*>0 $ solves the equation $ f'(r^*)=\lambda_{\max}(\E A). $ Moreover
\^2 M()=A-f’(\^2)I-f”(\^2)\^ \[app\_hess\]
and as a result
\^2 M()=A-\_(A)I-f”(r\^\*)r\^\*\_p\^\_p-D\^2\_0 \[app\_hess\]
for some positive definite matrix $ D_0, $ provided $ f''(r^*)>0. $ Hence the assumption (GC) is fulfilled if $ f $ is globally convex. Assume
\_[=r\^\*]{}\_[\^]{} { } \^[2]{} \^[2]{} / 2, \[app\_em\]
where $ \VPc= \Var(A\thetavs)$. Our main result implies
¶(f\^\*(\_(A))&-&f\^\*(\_(A))\
&&+()\^ (A-A) +c\_0(+x))e\^[-x]{} \[eq:app1\]
with $ \dimA=\tr\bigl(D_0^{-2} \VPc^{2}\bigr) $ and $ \vA^2= \tr\bigl(D_0^{-4} \VPc^{4}\bigr).$ Furthermore it follows from
¶(()\^ (A-A) > )e\^[\_0\^2/2]{}e\^[-x]{}. \[eq:app2\]
Combining with , we get
¶(f\^\*(\_(A))&-&f\^\*(\_(A))\
&&+ +c\_0(+x))(1+e\^[\_0\^2/2]{})e\^[-x]{}. \[eq:appmain\]
Let us compare the above inequality with the known results on the maximal eigenvalue of a random Hermitian matrix. For example, in @MJCFT an exponential inequality for the spectral norm of a bounded Hermitian random matrix $ A $ is derived via the method of exchangeable pairs. In particular, it is shown that if $ A=X_1+\ldots+X_n, $ where $ X_1,\ldots,X_n $ are independent identically distributed Hermitian $ p\times p $ matrices satisfying
X\_k\^2B\^2, k=1,…,n, \[cond\]
then
¶(\_(A-A)>t)p(-t\^2/2\^2) \[spnorm\_ineq\]
with $ \sigma^2=\frac{n}{2}\left\|B^2+\Var(X_1)\right\|. $ The inequality is in fact equivalent to the following one
¶(\_(A-A)>)(-x) \[spnorm\_ineq1\]
In our setting with $ f(x)=nx^2 $ we get $ r^*= \lambda_{\max}(\E A)/(2n)=\lambda_{\max}(\E X_1)/2,$ $$\begin{aligned}
V^2_0&=&\lambda_{\max}(\E A)\Var(A\bb{e}_p)/(2n)
\\
&=& n\cdot\lambda_{\max}(\E X_1)\Var(X_1\bb{e}_p)/2
\\
D^2_0&=&n\cdot\lambda_{\max}(\E A)(I+2\bb{e}_p\bb{e}_p^\top-\E X_1/\lambda_{\max}(\E X_1)) \end{aligned}$$ and
D\^[-2]{}\_0V\_0\^2&=& (I+2\_p\_p\^-X\_1/\_(X\_1))\^[-1]{}(X\_1\_p)/2. \[\]
Hence $ \dimA=c_1\cdot p $ and $ \vA=c_2\cdot p $ for some constants $ c_1 $ and $ c_2 $ not depending on $ n $ and $ p. $ Furthermore,
=\_(X\_1)\_p\^\^[1/2]{}(X\_1\_p). \[VPc\]
and the inequality transforms to
¶(\^2\_(A)-\^2\_(A)&& c(+x+p))(1+e\^[\_0\^2/2]{})e\^[-x]{} \[eq:appmain2\]
with some constant $ c>0 $ not depending on $ p $ and $ n. $
Note that in the domain $ \lambda_{\max}(A+\E A)>1, $ $ p/n<1 $ the inequality is more accurate than . Moreover, while the condition basically means that $ A $ is bounded with probability $ 1, $ our assumption only requires a sub-gaussian behaviour of $ A-\E A. $
Proof of the main result
========================
Denote $ Z(\thetav,\thetavs)\eqdef G(X,\thetav)-G(X,\thetavs). $ We get from Proposition \[TapproxLL\], Lemma \[LLbreveloc\] and Lemma \[Lxivgap\]
\_[()]{}Z(,)&&\_(,)+()\
& & \^[2]{}/2+()\
& = & \^[2]{}/2+{ \^[2]{}- \^[2]{}}/2+()\
&& \^[2]{}/2+ \^[2]{}+()\
&=& +()
Now Proposition \[LLbrevelocm\] implies
¶(\_[(\_0)]{}Z(,)&>&+6\_0\_0\_0( 1 + )\^[2]{})4e\^[-]{},
where $ \zz(\xx,\BB) $ is given by . Next, we shall prove that there is $ \rr_0>0 $ and a deterministic upper function $ \pnnd(\thetav)\geq 0 $ such that
¶( \_[()]{} { Z(,) + () } 0 ) \^[-]{} \[hitprobxxgl\]
for $ \rr>\rr_0 $ and $ \xx > 0 $. The inequality then implies
¶( \_[(\_0)]{}Z(,)0) \^[-]{} . \[PnotinTsruc\]
A possible way of checking the condition is based on a lower quadratic bound for the negative expectation $ M(\thetav) $ in the sense of condition .
\[CThittingglrc\] Suppose $ (GC) $ and $ (E\rr). $ Let, for $ \rr \ge \rups $,
\[cgmi1rrc\] 6 & & \^\* , \[cgmi2rrc\]
with $ \xx + 3p \ge 2.5. $ Then
¶( \_[()]{}Z(,)0) \^[-]{} . \[PnotinTsruc\]
The result follows from Theorem \[Thitting\] with $ \mubc = \frac{\gmi^*}{3 \nunu} $, $ \pen(\mubc) \equiv 0 $, $ \UP(\thetav) = Z(\thetav,\thetavs) - \E Z(\thetav,\thetavs) $ and $ \Ldrift(\thetav,\thetavs) = M(\thetav)-M(\thetavs)
\ge \frac{\gmi^*}{2} \| \VPc (\thetav - \thetavs) \|^{2} $.
It follows now from Lemma \[CThittingglrc\] that the inequality
\_Z(,)&&\_[(\_0)]{}Z(,)
holds with probability at least $ 1-\ex^{-\xx}. $ As a result we get the desired inequality.
Auxiliary results
-----------------
Let $ \rddelta, \rdomega $ be nonnegative constants. Introduce for a vector $ \rd = (\rddelta,\rdomega) $ the following notation:
(,) & & (- )\^ () - (- ) \^[2]{}/2\
&=& \^ (- ) - (- ) \^[2]{}/2 , \[bLquadloc\]
where $ \nabla \zeta(\thetavs) = \nabla_{\thetav} G(X,\thetavs) $ by $ \nabla M(\thetavs) = 0 $ and
\^[2]{} &=& \^[2]{} (1 - ) - \^[2]{}, \^[-1]{} G(X,) . \[xivalpsn\]
Here we implicitly assume that with the proposed choice of the constants $ \rddelta $ and $ \rdomega $, the matrix $ \DPb^{2} $ is non-negative: $ \DPb^{2} \ge 0 $. The representation indicates that the process $ \Zab(\thetav,\thetavs) $ has the quadratic local structure. Now, given $ \rr $, fix some $ \rddelta \ge \rddelta_0 \varepsilon\rr $ and $ \rdomega \ge 3\nunu \rhor_0\varepsilon\rr $ with the value $ \rddelta_0 $ from and $ \rhor_0$ from condition $ (E\!D) $. Finally set $ \rdm = - \rdb $, so that $
\DPm^{2}
=
\DPc^{2} (1 + \rddelta) + \rdomega \VPc^{2}.
$
\[TapproxLL\] Assume $ (E\!D) $ and $ (V\!I) $. Let for some $ \rr $, the values $ \rdomega \ge 3 \nunu \, \rhor_0 \varepsilon\rr $ and $ \rddelta \ge \rddelta_0 \varepsilon\rr $ be such that $ \DPc^{2} (1 - \rddelta) - \rdomega \VPc^{2} \ge 0 $. Then
(,) - () Z(,) (,) + (), (), \[LttbLtt\]
with $ \Zab(\thetav,\thetavs), \Zam(\thetav,\thetavs) $ defined by . The error terms $ \errb(\rr) $ and $ \errm(\rr) $ satisfy
¶( \^[-1]{} {(),()} ( 1 + )\^[2]{} ) ( - ). \[errbzrr\]
Consider for fixed $ \rr $ and $ \rdb = (\rddelta,\rdomega) $ the quantity
\[Delta1loc\] () & & \_[()]{} { Z(,) - Z(,) - (- )\^ Z(,) - (- ) \^[2]{} } .
As $ \rddelta \ge \rddelta_0\varepsilon\rr $, it holds $ - M(\thetav) \ge (1 - \rddelta) \DPc^{2} $ and $ Z(\thetav,\thetavs) - \Zab(\thetav,\thetavs) \le \errb(\rr) $. Moreover, in view of $ \nabla M(\thetavs) = 0 $, the definition of $ \errb(\rr) $ can be rewritten as
\[Delta1loc\] () & = & \_[()]{} { ()-()- (- )\^ () - (- ) \^[2]{} } .
Now the claim of the theorem can be easily reduced to an exponential bound for the quantity $ \errb(\rr) $. We apply Theorem \[Tsmoothpenlc\] to the process
(,) = { ()-() - (- )\^ () }, (), \[UPloce\]
and $ \VVc = \VPc $. Condition $ (\CS\! D) $ follows from $ (E\!D) $ with the same $ \nunu $ and $ \gmb $ in view of $ \nabla \UP(\thetav,\thetavs)
= \bigl\{ \nabla \zeta(\thetav) - \nabla \zeta(\thetavs) \bigr\} / \rhor\varepsilon\rr $. So, the conditions of Theorem \[Tsmoothpenlc\] are fulfilled yielding in view of $ \rdomega \ge 3 \nunu \, \rhor_0 \varepsilon\rr $.
\[LLbreveloc\] It holds
\_ (,)\_[\^p]{} (,) &=& \^[2]{}/2 \[supLat\]
\[Lxivgap\] Define $ \xiv \eqdef \DPc^{-1} \nabla \zeta(\thetavs). $ Suppose $ (V\!I) $ and let $ \tau_{\rd} \eqdef \varepsilon r_0(\rddelta_0 + 3\nunu \rhor_0\fis^{2}) < 1 $. Then
\^[2]{} - \^[2]{} \^[2]{}, \^[2]{} - \^[2]{} \^[2]{}. \[xivbccmpa\]
\[LLbrevelocm\] Let $ (E\!D) $ hold with $ \nunu = 1. $ Then $ \E \| \xiv \|^{2} \le \dimA $, and for each $ \xx>0 $
¶( \^[2]{} \_0(,) ) & & 2 \^[-]{}, \[PxivbzzBB\]
where $ \zz(\xx,\BB) $ is defined by
\[PzzxxpB\] (,) & &
+2 \^[1/2]{}, & /18 ,\
+6 & /18 < .\
\[zzxxppdBl\]
It holds
\^[2]{} &=& \^\
&=& \^[-1]{} \^[-1]{} = \[Exiv2tr\]
and $ \gammav^{\T} \Var \bigl\{ \nabla \zeta(\thetavs) \bigr\} \gammav
\le \gammav^{\T} \VPc^{2} \gammav $ and thus, $ \E \| \xiv \|^{2} \le \dimA $. The deviation bound is proved in Corollary \[CTxivqLDAB\].
Appendix
========
The proofs of the results below can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B of @S.
Deviation probability for quadratic forms {#Chgqform}
-----------------------------------------
\[Sprobabquad\] Assume that
( \^ ) \^[2]{}/2, \^, . \[expgamgm\]
This section presents a general exponential bound for the probability $ \P\bigl( \| \BB \xiv \| > \yy \bigr) $ with a given matrix $ \BB $ and a vector $ \xiv $ obeying the condition . We assume that $ \BB $ is symmetric. Define important characteristics of $ \BB $
= (\^[2]{}) , \^[2]{} = 2 (\^[4]{}), \^[2]{} \_ \_(\^[2]{}) . \[dimAvAlb\]
For simplicity of formulation we suppose that $ \lambdaB = 1 $, otherwise one has to replace $ \dimA $ and $ \vA^{2} $ with $ \dimA/\lambdaB $ and $ \vA^{2}/\lambdaB $. Let $ \gm $ be given in . Define $ \wwc $ by the equation
= \^[-1/2]{} . \[wc212A\]
Define also $ \muc = \wwc^{2}/(1+\wwc^{2}) \wedge 2/3 $. Note that $ \wwc^{2} \ge 2 $ implies $ \muc = 2/3 $. Further define
\^[2]{} = (1 + \^[2]{}) , 2 & = & \^[2]{} + { \_ - \^[2]{} } . \[xxcyycA\]
\[TxivqLDA\] Let a random vector $ \xiv $ in $ \R^{\dimp} $ fulfill . Then for each $ \xx < \xxc $
¶( \^[2]{}- \^[2]{}> (2 \^[1/2]{}) (6 ), ) & & 2 ( - ) . \[expxiboA\]
Moreover, for $ \yy \ge \yyc $, with $ \gmc = \gm - \sqrt{\muc \dimA} = \gm \wwc/(1+\wwc) $, it holds
¶( > ) & & 8.4 ( - - (- )/2 ) . \[expxibogA\]
Let us now describe the value $ \zz(\xx,\BB) $ ensuring a small value for the large deviation probability $ \P\bigl( \| \BB \xiv \|^{2} > \zz(\xx,\BB) \bigr) $. For ease of formulation, we suppose that $ \gm^{2} \ge 2 \dimA $ yielding $ \muc^{-1} \le 3/2 $. The other case can be easily adjusted.
\[CTxivqLDAB\] Let $ \xiv $ fulfill with $ \gm^{2} \ge 2 \dimA $. Then it holds for $ \xx \le \xxc $ with $ \xxc $ from :
\[PzzxxpB\] ¶( \^[2]{}- \^[2]{} (,) ) & & 2 \^[-]{} + 8.4 \^[-]{},\
(,) & &
2 \^[1/2]{}, & /18 ,\
6 & /18 < .
\[zzxxppdB\]
For $ \xx > \xxc $
¶( \^[2]{} (,) ) & & 8.4 \^[-]{}, (,) | + 2 (- )/|\^[2]{} . \[zzcxxppdB\]
Some results for empirical processes
------------------------------------
This chapter presents some general results of the theory of empirical processes. We assume some exponential moment conditions on the increments of the process which allows to apply the well developed chaining arguments in Orlicz spaces; We, however, follow the more recent approach inspired by the notions of generic chaining and majorizing measures due to M. Talagrand; see e.g. @T. The results are close to that of @B. We state the results in a slightly different form and present an independent and self-contained proof. The first result states a bound for local fluctuations of the process $ \UP(\ups) $ given on a metric space $ \Ups $. Then this result will be used for bounding the maximum of the negatively drifted process $ \UP(\ups) - \UP(\upss) - \rho \dist^{2}(\ups,\upss) $ over a vicinity $ \Upss(\rr) $ of the central point $ \upss $. The behavior of $ \UP(\ups) $ outside of the local central set $ \Upss(\rr) $ is described using the *upper function* method. Namely, we construct a multiscale deterministic function $ \up(\mubc,\ups) $ ensuring that with probability at least $ 1 - \ex^{-\xx} $ it holds $ \mubc \UP(\ups) + \up(\mubc,\ups) \le \zz(\xx) $ for all $ \ups \not\in \Upss(\rr) $ and $ \mubc \in \Mubc $, where $ \zz(\xx) $ grows linearly in $ \xx $.
Let $ \dist(\ups,\upsc) $ be a semi-distance on $ \Ups $. We suppose the following condition to hold:
$ \bb{(\CS{d})} $
: *There exist $ \gmb > 0 $, $ \rups > 0 $, $ \nunu \ge 1 $, such that for any $ \lambda \le \gmb $ and $ \ups,\upsc \in \Ups $ with $ \dist(\ups,\upsc) \le \rups $*
\[ExpboundUP\] { } \^[2]{} \^[2]{}/2 .
Formulation of the result involves a sigma-finite measure $ \mes $ on the space $ \Ups $ which is often called the *majorizing measure* and used in the *generic chaining* device; A typical example of choosing $ \mes $ is the Lebesgue measure on $ \R^{\dimp} $. Let $ \Upsd $ be a subset of $ \Ups $, a sequence $ \rr_{k} $ be fixed with $ \rr_{0} = \diam(\Upsd) $ and $ \rr_{k} = \rr_{0} 2^{-k} $. Let also $ \B_{k}(\ups) \eqdef \{ \upsc \in \Upsd: \dist(\ups,\upsc) \le \rr_{k} \} $ be the $ \dist $-ball centered at $ \ups $ of radius $ \rr_{k} $ and $ \mes_{k}(\ups) $ denote its $ \mes $-measure:
\_[k]{}() \_[\_[k]{}()]{} (d) = \_ ( (,) \_[k]{} ) (d). \[meskups\]
Denote also
M\_[k]{} \_ k 1. \[MkUps\]
Finally set $ c_{1} = 1/3 $, $ c_{k} = 2^{-k+2}/3 $ for $ k \ge 2 $, and define the value $ \entrl(\Upsd) $ by
() \_[k=1]{}\^ c\_[k]{} (2 M\_[k]{}) = (2M\_[1]{}) + \_[k=2]{}\^ 2\^[-k]{} (2 M\_[k]{}) . \[entrldef\]
\[TUPUpsd\] Let $ \UP $ be a separable process following to $ (\CS{d}) $. If $ \Upsd $ is a $ \dist $-ball in $ \Ups $ with the center $ \upsd $ and the radius $ \rups $, i.e. $ \dist(\ups,\upsd) \le \rups $ for all $ \ups \in \Upsd $, then for $ \lambda \le \gmd \eqdef \nunu \gmb $
\[Upsdboundd\] { \_ | () - () | } \^[2]{}/2 + ().
Due to the result of Theorem \[TUPUpsd\], the bound for the maximum of $ \UP(\ups,\upss) $ over $ \ups \in \B_{\rr}(\upss) $ grows quadratically in $ \rr $. So, its applications to situations with $ \rr^{2} \gg \entrl(\Upsd) $ are limited. The next result shows that introducing a negative quadratic drift helps to state a uniform in $ \rr $ local probability bound. Namely, the bound for the process $ \UP(\ups,\upss) - \rho \dist^{2}(\ups,\upss)/2 $ with some positive $ \rho $ over a ball $ \B_{\rr}(\upss) $ around the point $ \upss $ only depends on the drift coefficient $ \rho $ but not on $ \rr $.
\[TsuprUP\] Let $ \rrb $ be such that $ (\CS{d}) $ holds on $ \B_{\rrb}(\upss) $. Let also $ \entrl(\Upsd) \le \entrlb $ for $ \Upsd = \B_{\rr}(\upss) $ with $ \rr \le \rrb $. If $ \rho > 0 $ and $ \zz $ are fixed to ensure $ \sqrt{2 \rho \zz} \le \gmd = \nunu \gmb $ and $ \rho (\zz - 1) \ge 2 $, then it holds
&& ¶( \_[\_()]{} { (,) - \^[2]{}(,) } > )\
& & - (- 1) + (4 ) + . \[Psuprzz\]
Moreover, if $ \sqrt{2 \rho \zz} > \gmd $, then
&& ¶( \_[\_()]{} { (,) - \^[2]{}(,) } > )\
& & - + \^[2]{}/2 + (4 ) + . \[PsuprzzLD\]
This result can be used for describing the concentration bound for the maximum of $ (3\nunu)^{-1} \UP(\ups,\upss) - \rho \dist^{2}(\ups,\upss)/2 $. Namely, it suffices to find $ \zz $ ensuring the prescribed deviation probability. We state the result for a special case with $ \rho = 1 $ and $ \gmd \ge 3 $ which simplifies the notation.
\[CTsuprUP\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[TsuprUP\], for any $ \xx \ge 0 $ with $ \xx + \entrlb \ge 4 $
¶( \_[\_()]{} { (,) - \^[2]{}(,) } > (,) ) ( - ) , \[PUPxx\]
where with $ \gmd = \nunu \gmb \ge 2 $
(,)
( 1 + )\^[2]{} & 1 + ,\
1 + { 2 \^[-1]{} (+ ) + }\^[2]{} & .
\[PUPxxl\]
Let us now discuss the special case when $ \Ups $ is an open subset in $ \R^{\dimp} $, the stochastic process $ \UP(\ups) $ is absolutely continuous and its gradient $ \nabla \UP(\ups) \eqdef d \UP(\ups) / d \ups $ has bounded exponential moments.
$ \bb{(\CS\! D)} $
: *There exist $ \gmb > 0 $, $ \nunu \ge 1 $, and for each $ \ups \in \Ups $, a symmetric non-negative matrix $ \VV(\ups) $ such that for any $ \lambda \le \gmb $ and any unit vector $ \gammav \in \R^{\dimp} $, it holds*
{ } \^[2]{} \^[2]{}/2 .
Consider the local sets of the elliptic form $ \Upss(\rr) \eqdef \{ \ups: \| \VVc(\ups - \upss) \| \le \rr \} $, where $ \VVc $ dominates $ \VV(\ups) $ on this set: $ \VV(\ups) \preceq \VVc $.
\[Tsmoothpenlc\] Let $ (\CS\! D) $ hold with some $ \gmb $ and a matrix $ \VV(\ups) $. Suppose that $ \VV(\ups) \preceq \VVc $ for all $ \ups \in \Upss(\rr) $. Then
¶( \_[()]{} { (,) - (- ) \^[2]{} } (,) ) & & (-) , \[expUUsmooth\]
where $ \zzQ(\xx,\dimp) $ coincides with $ \zzQ(\xx,\entrlb) $ from for $ \entrlb = \cdimb \dimp $.
The previous result can be explained as a local upper function for the process $ \UP(\cdot) $. Indeed, in a vicinity $ \B_{\rrb}(\upss) $ of the central point $ \upss $, it holds $ (3 \nunu)^{-1} \UP(\ups,\upss) \le \dist^{2}(\ups,\upss)/2 + \zz $ with a probability exponentially small in $ \zz $. Now we extend this local result to the whole set $ \Ups $ using multiscaling arguments. For simplifying the notations assume that $ \UP(\upss) \equiv 0 $. Then $ \UP(\ups,\upss) = \UP(\ups) $. We say that $ \up(\mubc,\ups) $ is a *multiscale upper function* for $ \mubc \UP(\cdot) $ on a subset $ \Upsd $ of $ \Ups $ if
¶( \_ \_ { () - (,) } () ) \^[-]{} , \[upfuncgl\]
for some fixed function $ \zz(\xx) $. An upper function can be used for describing the concentration sets of the point of maximum $ \tilde{\ups} = \argmax_{\ups \in \Upsd} \UP(\ups) $; see Theorem \[Thitting\] below.
The desired global bound requires an extension of the local exponential moment condition $ (\CS{d}) $. Below we suppose that the pseudo-metric $ \dist(\ups,\upsc) $ is given on the whole set $ \Ups $. For each $ \rr $ this metric defines the ball $ \Upss(\rr) $ by the constraint $ \dist(\ups,\upss) \le \rr $. Below the condition $ (\CS{d}) $ is assumed to be fulfilled for any $ \rr $, however the constant $ \gm $ may be dependent of the radius $ \rr $.
$ \bb{(\CS\rr)} $
: *For any $ \rr $, there exists $ \gm(\rr) > 0 $ such that holds for all $ \ups, \upsc \in \Upss(\rr) $ and all $ \lambda \le \gm(\rr) $*.
Condition $ (\CS\rr) $ implies a similar condition for the scaled process $ \mubc \UP(\ups) $ with $ \gm = \mubc^{-1} \gm(\rr) $ and $ \dist(\ups,\upsc) $ replaced by $ \mubc \dist(\ups,\upsc) $. Corollary \[CTsuprUP\] implies for any $ \xx $ with $ 1 + \sqrt{\xx + \entrlb} \le \gmd(\rr) \eqdef \nunu \gm(\rr)/\mubc $
¶( \_[\_()]{} { () - \^[2]{} \^[2]{} } > (,) ) ( - ) . \[PUPxxrr\]
Let now a finite or separable set $ \Mubc $ and a function $ \pen(\mubc) \ge 1 $ be fixed such that
\_ \^[- ()]{} 2. \[Mubcbsup\]
One possible choice of the set $ \Mubc $ and the function $ \pen(\mubc) $ is to take a geometric sequence $ \mubc_{k} = \mubc_{0} 2^{-k} $ with any fixed $ \mubc_{0} $ and define $ \pen(\mubc_{k}) = k = - \log_{2}(\mubc_{k}/\mubc_{0}) $ for $ k \ge 0 $.
Putting together the bounds for different $ \mubc \in \Mubc $ yields the following result.
\[TPUPxxrr\] \[Tglobalexpboundi\] \[TLDglobsmoothLD\] Suppose $ (\CS\rr) $ and . Then for any $ \xx \ge 2 $, there exists a random set $ A(\xx) $ of a total probability at least $ 1 - 2 \ex^{- \xx} $, such that it holds on $ A(\xx) $ for any $ \rr $
\_[\_()]{} \_[(,)]{} < 0, \[globsupqqQxxmu\]
where
(,) { : 1 + ()/ }. \[Mubcrr\]
Let $ \Ldrift(\ups) $ be a deterministic *boundary* function. We aim at bounding the probability that a process $ \UP(\ups) $ hits this boundary on the set $ \Ups $. This precisely means the probability that $ \sup_{\ups \in \Ups} \bigl\{ \UP(\ups) - \Ldrift(\ups) \bigr\} \ge 0 $. An important observation here is that multiplication by any positive factor $ \mubc $ does not change the relation. This allows to apply the multiscale result from Theorem \[TPUPxxrr\]. For any fixed $ \xx $ and any $ \ups \in \B_{\rr}(\upss) $, define
() \_[(,)]{} { () - \^[2]{} \^[2]{} - 2 () } . \[Lmgfbups\]
\[Thitting\] Suppose $ (\CS\rr) $, , and $ \xx + \entrlb \ge 2.5 $. Let, given $ \xx $, it hold
() 2 (+ ) , . \[Lmgfbupen\]
Then
¶( \_ { () - () } 0 ) 2 \^[-]{} . \[hitprobxx\]
[100]{} W. Bednorz. A theorem on majorizing measures. Ann. Probab., 34(5):1771-1781, 2006. M. Ledoux. The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon. American Mathematical Society, 2001. G. Lugosi. Concentration of Measure Inequalities. lecture Notes, 2005. L. Mackey, M. I. Jordan, R. Y. Chen, B. Farrell, and J. A. Tropp, Matrix Concentration Inequalities via the Method of Exchangeable Pairs, ArXiv e-prints (January 2012), available at 1201.6002. P. Massart. Some applications of concentration inequalities to statistics. *Annales de la Faculté des Sciences de Toulouse*, IX:245-303, 2000. V. Spokoiny. Parametric estimation. Finite sample theory http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3029v4, 2011. M. Talagrand. The generic chaining. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
[^1]: This research was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the CRC 823 “Statistics of nonlinear dynamical processes”, the CRC 649 “Economic Risk” and by Laboratory for Structural Methods of Data Analysis in Predictive Modeling, MIPT, RF government grant, ag. 11.G34.31.0073.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using only physical mechanisms, i.e., 3D MHD with no phenomenological viscosity, we have simulated the dynamics of a moderately thin accretion disk subject to torques whose radial scaling mimics those produced by lowest-order post-Newtonian gravitomagnetism. In this simulation, we have shown how, in the presence of MHD turbulence, a time-steady transition can be achieved between an inner disk region aligned with the equatorial plane of the central mass’s spin and an outer region orbiting in a different plane. The position of the equilibrium orientation transition is determined by a balance between gravitomagnetic torque and warp-induced inward mixing of misaligned angular momentum from the outer disk. If the mixing is interpreted in terms of diffusive transport, the implied diffusion coefficient is $\simeq (0.6$–$0.8)c_s^2/\Omega$ for sound speed $c_s$ and orbital frequency $\Omega$. This calibration permits estimation of the orientation transition’s equilibrium location given the central mass, its spin parameter, and the disk’s surface density and scaleheight profiles. However, the alignment front overshoots before settling into an equilibrium, signaling that a diffusive model does not fully represent the time-dependent properties of alignment fronts under these conditions. Because the precessional torque on the disk at the alignment front is always comparable to the rate at which misaligned angular momentum is brought inward to the front by warp-driven radial motions, no break forms between the inner and outer portions of the disk in our simulation. Our results also raise questions about the applicability to MHD warped disks of the traditional distinction between “bending wave" and “diffusive" regimes.'
author:
- 'Julian H. Krolik'
- 'John F. Hawley'
bibliography:
- 'Bib.bib'
title: ' A Steady-State Alignment Front in an Accretion Disk Subjected to Lense-Thirring Torques'
---
Introduction
============
It is now forty years since @BP75 pointed out that the precessional torques driven by the Lense-Thirring effect would, when applied to a fluid disk surrounding a spinning black hole, lead to alignment of its inner parts’ orbital axis with the black hole’s spin, while leaving untouched its original orientation, perhaps sharply misaligned, at large radius. Despite this long passage of time, there remains controversy over such basic issues as the detailed mechanism of alignment, where the transition between orientations occurs, and how its location depends on such disk properties as the disk’s sound speed or surface density distribution. @BP75 suggested that the orientation transition would be determined by a competition between the Lense-Thirring torques and the importation of fresh misaligned angular momentum by the accretion flow. @PP83 recognized that misaligned angular momentum can be more rapidly transported by the radial flows induced by disk-warping than by accretion, but the nature and speed of these radial flows was left uncertain because their regulation was ascribed to an imagined isotropic viscosity, which was assumed to be related to the local pressure through a universal dimensionless constant, $\alpha$. [@Pringle92] developed a simpler formalism to describe radial flow of misaligned angular momentum, in which it was supposed to spread diffusively, but the “diffusion coefficient" relating a radial gradient of angular momentum orientation to an associated angular momentum flux was estimated assuming that radial flows are controlled by that same imagined viscosity. @O99 introduced a more complicated version of this approach by creating a quasi-linear theory of this model, one in which the angular momentum orientation diffusion coefficient became a function of several parameters. @NP00 constructed a formalism for relating the rate of radial transport of misaligned angular momentum to the location of the orientation transition, but in the absence of a clear understanding about how the radial flows were regulated, this formalism could not yield a definite statement about its location. Recently, [@Nixon2012a], also working within the isotropic viscosity formulation, pointed out that large misalignment angles might lead to an actual rupture of the disk, rather than a smooth transition. Shortly after, detailed hydrodynamics simulations [@SKH13a] showed that the relation between angular momentum flux and disk warp has clear departures from the diffusion model.
This situation can now be clarified. There is a well-established physical mechanism for internal stresses in accretion disks—correlated magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence, driven by the magneto-rotational instability [@mri91; @bh98]. In addition, although treating MHD turbulence in disks requires very demanding numerical simulations, computer algorithms and computer power are now at a level such that even warped precessing disks can be treated directly. Disks tilted with respect to the rotation axis of a central black hole have been simulated in fully relativistic three dimensional MHD [@Fragile07; @McK2013; @Fragile14a], but the computational expense of full general relativity forced parameter choices (disk thickness, radial extent) that made accretion-related alignment processes difficult to see. The central difficulty is that if a numerical simulation is to follow the MHD turbulence, it must have a timestep very short compared to an orbital timescale, whereas the precession timescale where the orientation transition may occur is almost certainly many orbital periods long. Consequently, simulations able to probe the orientation transition at a realistic scale are prohibitively costly.
However, it is possible to avoid this roadblock by using semi-Newtonian methods, in which the only relativistic effect retained is the lowest-order post-Newtonian term describing Lense-Thirring torque. Progress is possible in this framework because Newtonian gravity is both scale-free and obeys a linear field equation. As a result, in this treatment there is no maximum value for the spin parameter. Simulators are then free to choose the precession frequency associated with the Lense-Thirring torques, constrained only by the provisos that it must have the proper radial dependence, and it must be slower than the orbital frequency.
By adopting this device, @SKH13b were able to simulate a disk in which an alignment front propagated steadily outward. By studying this model in detail, they were able to achieve several things. First, they demonstrated that the internal MHD stresses triggered by disk warp are fundamentally not viscous in character and have a magnitude much smaller than predicted by the “isotropic $\alpha$" model ([@Fragile14a] reached a similar conclusion). Second, although the magnetic forces associated with these stresses are generally weaker than the fluid pressure forces, the turbulence created by MHD effects significantly influences disk dynamics because it disrupts the propagation of bending waves. Third, they identified the specific mechanism by which alignment occurs: when the precession angle of the disk decreases outward (as it in general should for Lense-Thirring torques), the torque has a component that is in part opposed to the misaligned angular momentum at larger radius than where it is exerted. If the new angular momentum delivered to the disk is then transported outward by radial fluid motion, it progressively cancels the misalignment. Fourth, based on this understanding of the alignment mechanism, they developed a simple model for the speed of propagation of the alignment front that fit their data very well. However, because the radial surface density profile chosen for the simulated disk had a peak in the middle of the disk, there was too little misaligned angular momentum stored in its outer regions to be able to slow, much less stop, the outward propagation of the alignment front. Thus, @SKH13b were unable to study a time-steady orientation transition.
In this paper, we present a new simulation, very similar in most respects to that of @SKH13b, but with a surface density distribution altered so that the majority of the disk’s mass is located at large radius. This choice creates a situation in which the alignment front can travel outward, but then decelerate and stop. This is just what occurs, and in this paper we report in detail on the properties of such a time-steady orientation transition.
Simulation Details {#sec:sims}
==================
As in @SKH13b, we use our Fortran-95 version of the 3D finite-difference MHD code [*Zeus*]{} [@zeus1; @zeus2]. The [*Zeus*]{} code solves the standard equations of Newtonian magnetohydrodynamics using direct finite differencing. The magnetic field is updated using the method of characteristics constrained transport (MOCCT) algorithm to maintain zero divergence to machine accuracy [@HawleyStone95].
Our procedure is to begin with a conventional flat disk, evolve it long enough to allow the MRI-driven MHD turbulence to saturate, and only then turn on a torque-driving Lense-Thirring precession. To represent this torque, we add a force term of the form $\rho \vv \times \vh$ to represent the gravitomagnetic force per unit mass, where $\rho$ is the mass density, $\vv$ is the fluid velocity, and $$\vh = \frac{2\vs}{r^3} - \frac{6(\vs \cdot \vr)\vr}{r^5}.$$ Here $\vs$ represents the magnitude and direction of the spin vector of the central mass and $r$ is spherical radius. We choose the direction of the spin vector to be in the $x$-$z$ plane, tilted $12^\circ$ (0.21 radians) from the $z$-axis in the $\hat x$ direction. Its magnitude is such as to cause a test-particle at $r=10$, our fiducial radius, to precess at a frequency $1/15$ of the orbital frequency at that radius.
The simulation grid uses spherical coordinates with a spatial domain in $(r,\theta,\phi)$ that spans $ [4,40] $ in radius, $[0.1,0.9]\pi$ in $\theta$ and a full $ 2\pi $ in $\phi$. Since we are using Newtonian gravity rather than (say) a pseudo-Newtonian gravity with a special lengthscale corresponding to the gravitational radius $r_g = GM/c^2$, the units of length are arbitrary. For consistency with @SKH13b we use the same units, in particular measuring time in units of the orbital period at $r=10$, and setting $GM=1$. We use $(352,384,1024)$ grid cells in the radial, polar, and azimuthal directions respectively. The radial mesh is spaced logarithmically with a constant $\Delta r/r = 0.00654$. We employ a polynomial spacing in the polar dimension (Eqn. 6 of @NKH10, with $\xi = 0.65$ and $n = 13$). This polynomial spacing focuses cells near the equatorial plane, placing 64% of the $\theta$ zones within $\pm 10^\circ$ of the midplane. The $\phi$ zones are uniform in size. Outflow boundary conditions are employed on the radial inner and outer boundary, and along the $\theta$ boundary that forms a “cut-out” around the polar axis.
In our initial condition, the fluid orbits a point-mass in Newtonian gravity with a Keplerian angular velocity, $\Omega^2 = GM/r^3$. A similar initial disk was used in [@Jiming]. Its equation of state is isothermal, with sound-speed $c_s^2 =
0.001$, which corresponds to 0.1 of the orbital velocity at the fiducial radius of $r=10$. The scale height of the disk, $H=c_s/\Omega$, is then $(r/10)^{3/2}$. If the scale height is instead defined in terms of a vertical density moment, the disk aspect ratio $h/r \simeq 0.07$ at $r \simeq 6$ and rises to $\simeq 0.12$ at $r \simeq 20$. The disk’s opening angle is thus about half the initial tilt of the disk relative to the black hole spin. We set the density $\rho_c = 1$ at the equator at all radii, and the vertical distribution of density is $\rho = \rho_c \exp (-z^2/2H^2)$. The surface density $\Sigma$ increases with radius from the disk’s inner radius $r_{\rm in} = 6$ out to $r = 20$ and declines outward from there to its outer radius $r_{\rm out} = 28$ (see Fig. \[fig:surfdens\_early\] for $\Sigma(r)$ when the torque is turned on). At the inner and outer limits the disk is simply truncated. The initial condition is not in radial pressure equilibrium (especially at the disk boundaries).
The initial magnetic field in the disk is a large set of nested dipole loops extending from the inner to the outer portions of the disk. The field is defined by a vector potential $$A_{\phi} = A_0 \rho^{1/2} \sin (2\pi r/\lambda H) (r/r_{in} -1) (1-r/r_{out}) .$$ The scalefactor $\lambda$ is set equal to $2/c_s$. The vector potential is limited to positive values with a cutoff at $0.05\rho_c$, i.e., $$A_{\phi} = \max(A_{\phi} - 0.05 \rho_{c},0).$$ The field amplitude factor $A_0$ is chosen so that the volume-integrated ratio of gas to magnetic pressure, the plasma $\beta$, is 1000. Turbulence is seeded by imposing random pressure perturbations at the 1% level on the initial condition.
Throughout the simulation we monitor a number of quantities in order to gauge the numerical quality of the simulation. These metrics were developed and studied in [@HGK11; @HRGK13], as well as in [@Sorathia12]. One set of metrics measures the ratio of the characteristic MRI wavelength $\lambda_{MRI}$ to the grid resolution. Specifically, $$\label{eq:qtheta}
Q_\theta = {\lambda_{MRI} \over r \Delta \theta},$$ and $$\label{eq:qphi}
Q_\phi = {\lambda_{MRI}\over r \sin\theta \, \Delta\phi }.$$ The characteristic MRI wavelength is defined as $\lambda_{MRI} = 2\pi |v_A|/\Omega$, where the Alfvén speed $v_A$ is obtained from the appropriate component of the magnetic field ($B_\theta$ for $Q_\theta$, $B_\phi$ for $Q_\phi$). The $Q$ numbers are then the number of grid cells that span the characteristic wavelength of the MRI. @HGK11 and @HRGK13 estimate that $Q$ values $>15$–$20$ are indicative of adequate resolution. For the initial magnetic field given here, $\lambda_{MRI} \sim 0.1$, and the initial $Q_\theta$ values at the disk equator inside the fiducial radius range from $\sim 4$–8. There is no initial toroidal field, but orbital shear creates toroidal field from radial field on the orbital timescale. Thus, within a single orbit we can expect $B_\phi \sim B_r$, producing an azimuthal quality factor $Q_\phi = 2$–15 at $r=10$. Although this would seem like marginal resolution, the $Q$ values increase as $B$ grows beyond the initial field amplitude (see below).
A second set of metrics measures the average properties of fully developed MHD turbulence; these are, by definition, irrelevant in the initial condition of the simulation, so we do not evaluate them until the turbulence develops. These metrics are calibrated by the values measured in highly-resolved local simulations. [@HGK11; @HRGK13] develop two such diagnostics, $\alpha_{mag} = M_{r\phi}/P_{mag}$, the ratio of the Maxwell stress $M_{r\Phi}$ to the magnetic pressure, and $\langle B_r^2\rangle/\langle B_\phi^2 \rangle$, the ratio of the radial to toroidal magnetic energy. When suitably averaged over the computational domain in well-resolved simulations, these quantities approach limiting values of $0.45$ and $0.2$, respectively [@HRGK13].
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Initial disk evolution
----------------------
The aim of our new simulation is to follow the process by which an accretion disk subjected to Lense-Thirring torques reaches a steady-state in which its inner portions are aligned with the central black hole while its outer portions remain oblique. Because the character of this process depends upon the fluctuations created by MHD turbulence [@SKH13b], we begin by evolving the initial disk until it is turbulent throughout most of its radial extent. Only after that state is achieved do we switch on the torque.
Because the initial disk was not in radial pressure equilibrium, a period of adjustment occurs as the disk evolves. Although the unbalanced pressure gradients are small within the body of the disk due to the small ratio of sound speed to orbital speed, they are large at the disk boundaries. Initially, the inner edge of the disk pushes inward, but it then rebounds, driving a strong compression wave through the disk, while the outer radius of the disk expands outward, sending a rarefaction wave into the inner disk.
By $t\simeq 12$ fiducial orbits, which marks the end of the torque-free evolution, turbulence has been well established in most of the disk. Inside $r=20$ at this time, the mass-weighted mean value of $Q_\theta$ varies between 15 and 22, $Q_\phi$ is between 35 and 50, $\alpha_{mag}$ has an average value of 0.37, and $\langle B_r^2\rangle/\langle B_\phi^2\rangle$ is 0.16. The two $Q$ values are well above the resolution thresholds set by [@HGK11; @HRGK13], while the $\alpha_{\rm mag}$ and $\langle B_r^2\rangle/\langle B_\phi^2\rangle$ values are a little bit lower than the limiting values found in that paper.
Under the influence of the magnetic stresses associated with the turbulence, the disk spreads radially, both inward and outward. At the end of the torque-free evolution period, the disk has 65% of its original mass, and a surface density with the form shown in Figure \[fig:surfdens\_early\]. Unlike the radial surface density profile of the disk studied by @SKH13b, which reached a peak at $r \simeq 12$ and declined sharply from there outward, the surface density in this simulation rises all the way to $r \simeq 20$, reaching a peak roughly twice the surface density prevailing for $6 \lesssim r \lesssim 10$. Thus, more than enough “misaligned" angular momentum $\vec L_{\perp} \equiv \vec L - \vec L \cdot \hat s$, with $\hat s$ the direction of the nominal black hole spin, is present on the grid to hold back the outward progress of an alignment front for a long time.
![Surface density as a function of radius at $t=12.4$, the beginning of the torque.[]{data-label="fig:surfdens_early"}](fig1.ps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
Evolution with torque {#sec:torque_evol}
---------------------
At 12.4 fiducial orbits, we turned on the torque and then ran the simulation for another 12.4 fiducial orbits. Because the black hole spin implied by the torque is tilted $12^\circ$ from the polar axis of the coordinates, the disk acquires an effective misalignment angle $\beta = 12^\circ$ at this point in the simulation; at subsequent times, we define the radius-dependent misalignment angle $\beta(r) \equiv \arcsin \left[L_\perp(r) /L_{\rm tot}(r)\right]$, where $L_{\rm tot}(r)$ is the magnitude of the shell-integrated angular momentum at radius $r$, and $L_\perp(r)$ is the magnitude of its component in the plane perpendicular to the black hole spin.
If orbiting material moved as independent test-particles, the inner rings would precess much faster than the outer rings because the precession frequency declines outward $\propto r^{-3}$. To measure the actual precession, we define the precession angle $\phi_{\rm prec} \equiv \tan^{-1} (L_{y}^\prime/L_{x}^\prime)$, where $L_{x,y}^\prime$ are the shell-integrated $x$ and $y$ components of the angular momentum relative to a coordinate system found by rotating the grid coordinates around the $y$ axis in order to make the black hole spin define the $z$ axis. As Figure \[fig:precess\] shows, although the inner rings do precess faster, the radial gradient is noticeably shallower than $r^{-3}$: after 1 orbit, although a test-particle at $r=5$ would have precessed by $\simeq 1.1\pi$, the actual fluid ring at that radius has precessed by only $ \simeq 0.6\pi$, while the ring at $r=10$ has precessed by an amount similar to the test-particle prediction; after 3 orbits, precession is ill-defined at $r=5$ because that portion of the disk has already almost completely aligned, but the difference in precession angle between $r=10$ and $r=15$ is only $\simeq 0.1\pi$, in contrast to the test-particle expectation of $\simeq 0.3\pi$.
Several other features in this diagram are even more contrary to test-particle expectations. Most importantly, the precession angle hardly changes from $t \gtrsim 15$ onward for $r \lesssim 10$. Also beginning at $t \simeq 15$, or after only $\simeq 2.5$ orbits of torque, a zone at larger radius, $7 \lesssim r \lesssim 13$, [*reverses*]{} its sense of precession for several orbits. Once the sense of precession at large radius resumes its normal sense (at $t \simeq 20$), the precession phase gradient becomes very shallow throughout the disk.
![Color contours (see color bar) of the precession angle $\phi_{\rm prec}/\pi$ as a function of radius and time. Although the simulation extended to $r=40$, we show only the range $4 \leq r \leq 25$ because little happens at larger radius. The precession angle in the small region at $r \lesssim 7$ and $t \simeq 14$ is ill-defined because the disk is almost exactly aligned (see Fig. \[fig:align\]).[]{data-label="fig:precess"}](fig2.ps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
Meanwhile, the innermost disk aligns very swiftly, within a few fiducial orbits. The location of the alignment front moves rapidly outward, with the half-alignment point reaching $r \simeq 10$ only $\simeq 3.5$ fiducial orbits after the torques begin. However, there is a turn-around in the process and the front retreats over the next several orbits until it reaches its steady-state position at $r \simeq 7$–8. From $t \simeq 20$ until the end of the simulation at $t \simeq 25$, neither the position nor the structure of the front changes appreciably.
![Color contours (see color bar) of the misalignment angle $\beta/\pi$ as a function of radius and time. Although the simulation extended to $r=40$, we show only the range $4 \leq r \leq 25$ because little happens at larger radius.[]{data-label="fig:align"}](fig3.ps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
Even though the disk remains near its original alignment at $r \gtrsim 12$ after $t \simeq 20$, it continues to precess slowly at large radii, turning at a rate $\simeq 0.03\pi$ radians per fiducial orbit, roughly the test-particle precession rate at $r \simeq 16$. Although there is little torque inside the alignment radius ($r \simeq 7$), there is sufficient obliquity at larger radii that the disk continues to feel a torque. This torque is spread to larger radii by the same mechanisms seen in earlier studies [@SKH13a; @SKH13b]. When the radial precession gradient creates an inter-ring warp of nonlinear amplitude, it triggers a warp pulse that travels outward. Nonlinear in this context means that the parameter $\phat \equiv |d\hat \ell/d\ln r|/(h/r) > 1$, where $\hat \ell (r)$ is the unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum associated with the shell at radius $r$. When that criterion is satisfied, the warp creates an order-unity radial pressure contrast. The resulting transonic fluid motions mix angular momentum between rings, smoothing the warp. This same smoothing process keeps the pulses narrow. Two groups of such pulses can be clearly seen in Figure \[fig:psihat\]. During the first $\sim 3$ orbits, five pulses of strong ($\hat\psi \sim 4$–6) warp propagate outward. Although each one travels at very nearly constant speed, the pulse speed declines from first to last, falling from $\simeq 8$ to $\simeq 2$, i.e., from $\simeq 1.3c_s$ to $\simeq 0.3c_s$, from first pulse to last. Their direct impact on local precession angle can be seen immediately by comparing Figures \[fig:precess\] and \[fig:psihat\]. A second group, somewhat weaker ($\hat\psi \sim2$–3), are visible in the zone $8 \lesssim r \lesssim 15$ and $20 \lesssim t \lesssim 25$. Although less dramatic, their effect on precession phase can likewise be seen by examination of the region in radius–time space occupied by these pulses in Figure \[fig:precess\]. All of this group of pulses have rather similar speeds, $\sim 3$ length units per fiducial orbital period, $\simeq 0.5c_s$. As hinted by this speed, these pulses are related to linear bending waves, whose characteristic propagation speed is half the isothermal sound speed [@Lubow02]. However, a number of factors combine to make their behavior somewhat different. In addition to the rapid local damping caused by their nonlinearity, Figure \[fig:psihat\] also shows that their amplitude is quite irregular, a symptom of their propagation through a background medium made turbulent by the magneto-rotational instability [@SKH13b].
![Color contours (see color bar) of the normalized disk warp $\hat\psi$.[]{data-label="fig:psihat"}](fig4.ps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
Throughout the evolution, the disk continues to accrete due to internal stresses, but in the vicinity of the alignment front, the radial motions induced by the disk warp create a large enough Reynolds stress to enhance the local inflow rate. To measure this effect, we compute the mean radial, i.e., accretion, velocity from the mass flux as follows: $$\langle v^r \rangle = \frac{\int \rho v^r r^2 \sin\theta d\theta d\phi}{ \int \rho r^2 \sin\theta d\theta d\phi} .$$ This velocity is then averaged over time for the last orbit of the simulation. The result is shown in Figure \[fig:vrad\] as the ratio of the accretion velocity to local orbital velocity. This ratio is $\simeq -0.004$ well outside the transition front ($13 \lesssim r \lesssim
18$), but its magnitude increases inward from that radius, becoming $\sim 50\%$ greater by $r \simeq 7$, the location of the front. Another consequence of this effect is a shift in mass from the surface density peak, which is at $r \simeq 15$–20 when the torque begins, to the transition front region (compare Figs. \[fig:surfdens\_late\] and \[fig:surfdens\_early\]). Note that the diminution in radial speed at very large radius is an artifact common to any accretion simulation with a finite disk: matter on the outside must move still farther away as it absorbs angular momentum transported to larger radius by the accretion stresses.
![Ratio of radial velocity to orbital speed as a function of radius. Negative radial velocity indicates inward motion.[]{data-label="fig:vrad"}](fig5.ps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
Over the course of the evolution with torque, the quality parameters $Q_{\theta,\phi}$ maintain values consistent with adequate resolution. Within the region of the disk running from $r=6$–20, $Q_\theta$ ranges from 9–14, while $Q_\phi$ varies between 20 and 30.
![Surface density as a function of radius at $t=28$, shortly before the end of the simulation.[]{data-label="fig:surfdens_late"}](fig6.ps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
Analysis
========
Overshoot
---------
Because the torque is turned on abruptly, the disk is subject to some transient effects as it adjusts; one of these is an overshoot in the location of the alignment radius. This “overshoot"—the quick progress outward of the alignment front followed by a retreat to its long-term position—can be understood as a combination of several previously-identified processes.
The overshoot begins as the five strong warp pulses described in the previous section propagate outward. When the inner regions are advanced in precession phase relative to the outer regions, the gravitomagnetic torque delivered to the inner regions is directed so that it can partially cancel the misaligned angular momentum of the outer regions [@SKH13b]. Accomplishing this cancellation requires transport outward, and the pulses do this. Alignment by this mechanism can be particularly rapid when there is little warp at still larger radii because radial mixing flows bringing inward angular momentum aligned with the original orientation of the disk are weak.
However, a consequence of quick alignment is the creation of significant warp. After roughly a local orbital time (and at the relevant radii near $r \simeq 10$, the local orbital time is the same as our fiducial orbital period), the newly-created warp accelerates radial mixing flows [@SKH13a]. The delay time is roughly a local orbital period because this is the local dynamical time. These radial flows carry inward angular momentum that is both more misaligned and further behind in precession phase. As a result, the local alignment is reduced and the precession temporarily reverses. Thus, both the alignment front overshoot and the precession reversal can be understood as consequences of transients associated with the beginning of torque in a flat, but misaligned, disk. Although it is somewhat artificial to turn on the Lense-Thirring torque abruptly, this procedure does allow us to highlight the dynamic alignment process as it subsequently occurs. The disk ultimately achieves a steady state alignment configuration, despite the impulsive initial nature of the torque.
Location of the steady-state orientation transition
---------------------------------------------------
The ultimate location of the alignment front is also very consistent with the formalism proposed by @SKH13b to estimate both the propagation speed of an alignment front and the location where it stalls, reaching a steady-state. They proposed that the alignment front should move outward at a rate $$\frac{d r_f}{dt} = \frac{2 \langle \cos\gamma \rangle a_* (GM)^2}{\sin\beta(r_f) c^3 r_f^{3/2} \Sigma(r_f)}
\int_0^{r_f} \, dr^\prime \sin\beta(r^\prime)\Sigma(r^\prime)/{r^\prime}^{3/2} ,$$ where $\gamma$ is the mean angle between the angular momentum being mixed outward and the local misaligned angular momentum, and $\beta$ is the local misalignment angle. Testing this model against their simulation data, they found excellent agreement. The expression for the front speed can also be rewritten in an entirely equivalent form, in which the integration variable is transformed to the dimensionless $x = r^\prime/r_f$: $$\label{eqn:frontspeed}
\frac{d r_f}{dt} = \langle \cos\gamma\rangle r_f \Omega_{\rm prec}(r_f) \int_0^1 \, dx \, x^{-3/2}
\frac{\sin\beta(x)}{\sin\beta(r)} \frac{\Sigma(x)}{\Sigma(r)}.$$ In other words, the characteristic speed of the alignment front is $\sim r_f \Omega_{\rm prec}$.
[@SKH13b] suggested that the place where the front should stall is defined by the place at which the speed of the alignment front is matched by the speed with which misaligned angular momentum from the outer disk can be mixed inward. From their simulation data, it was impossible to estimate the speed of inward mixing. However, they proposed a simple parameterization for describing it, in which the speed of misaligned angular momentum flow was taken to be $r_f/t_{\rm in}$. In this language, the steady-state orientation transition would be found at $r_f= R_T$, defined by $$\label{eqn:implicitR_T}
\Omega_{\rm prec}(R_T) t_{\rm in} = \left( \langle\cos\gamma\rangle {\cal I}\right)^{-1},$$ where ${\cal I}$ is the dimensionless integral in equation \[eqn:frontspeed\].
Our simulation data give the location of $R_T$, so equation \[eqn:implicitR\_T\] can be inverted to find the characteristic inflow time for misaligned angular momentum: $$t_{\rm in} = \left( \langle\cos\gamma\rangle {\cal I} \Omega_{\rm prec} (R_T) \right)^{-1}.$$ Taking $R_T \simeq 7$, we find that during the period $18 \lesssim t \lesssim 25$, when the alignment front appears to be almost constant in position, $t_{\rm in} \simeq 11.5$ fiducial orbits, the exact value varying slightly from time to time. As a standard of comparison, we note that the orbital period at $r = 7$ is $\simeq 0.6$ fiducial orbits.
One possible interpretation of this mixing time is in terms of a diffusion model [@PP83; @Pringle92], although [@SKH13a] showed that this is not a perfect match with actual time-dependent response to disk warping. However, even if it does not describe time-dependent effects, a diffusion model might be an appropriate device with which to model the radial angular momentum mixing supporting a time-steady alignment front. If one does describe the mixing as a diffusion process, the associated diffusion coefficient should be $\sim c_s^2/\Omega$ because the characteristic speed of radial flows $v_r \sim c_s$ [@SKH13a], and orbital mechanics limits the distance such a flow can travel radially to $\sim v_r/\Omega \sim h$. Although disk warp does create radial pressure gradients of the sort envisioned by [@PP83], the associated radial velocities are [*not*]{} regulated by an “isotropic $\alpha$ viscosity" [@SKH13b; @Fragile14a], but by hydrodynamic expansion, gravity, and weak shocks [@SKH13a]. The characteristic speed of mixing is then $\simeq \Phi (h/r)^2 (r/\Delta r) r \Omega(r)$, where $\Delta r/r$ is the characteristic lengthscale for orientation change within the front, and $\Phi$ is a number of order unity that can be determined from simulations like ours. Defining $\Delta r \equiv |\Delta \hat \ell|/|d\hat \ell /d r|$ for $\Delta \hat \ell$ the difference in direction between the disk’s initial orientation and its aligned direction, we find $\Delta r \simeq 6$. Equating this speed to the unimpeded $dr_f/dt$ leads to an estimate for the stationary front location $$R_T \simeq R_* \left[ \langle\cos\gamma\rangle {\cal I} \frac{\Omega_{\rm prec}(R_*)}{\Omega(R_*)}
\frac{\Delta r/r}{\Phi (h/r)^2}\right]^{2/3}.$$ In order to find a scale for $R_T$, we have created units relative to a fiducial radial scale $R_*$. Note that in terms of the formalism created by [@NP00], this expression corresponds approximately to the geometric mean of $\tau_{\rm SF 1}$ and $\tau_{\rm SF 2}$.
If this model correctly describes the dynamics of alignment front equilibrium, the order unity quantity $\Phi$ is $$\Phi \simeq \langle \cos\gamma \rangle {\cal I} \left[ \Omega_{\rm prec}(R_T)/\Omega(R_T)\right] (\Delta r/r) (h/r)^{-1}.$$ Our data indicate that $\Phi \simeq 0.6$–0.8, depending on the time at which it is measured.
It is possible that $\Phi$ might be independent of other parameters; however, that remains to be demonstrated. It could be, for example, that $\Phi$ is dependent on $c_s/v_{\rm orb} \simeq H/r$. It should also be noted that because the width of the orientation transition was smaller than the disk simulated, the transition thickness $\Delta r$ and the internal warp rate $\phat$ were free to adjust to whatever the dynamics required. There may be cases in which the intrinsic disk obliquity is large enough, and the radius at which the disk is fed is small enough, that additional constraints are placed on $\Delta r$ and therefore $\phat$; these might then also alter $\Phi$. In extreme cases, shock heating might be strong enough to alter $c_s$, leading to nonlinearity in the effective diffusion rate.
What is the role of bending waves?
----------------------------------
As discussed in Sec. \[sec:torque\_evol\], we see clear evidence for nonlinear bending wave pulses moving through the aligning disk. However, these pulses propagate in a rather irregular way, their amplitudes fluctuating strongly as they move outward through the disk. In our previous paper [@SKH13b], we showed that in a purely hydrodynamic situation these pulses propagate much more regularly. We attributed the contrast to the fact that warped hydrodynamic disks are laminar, whereas warped MHD disks are turbulent; the turbulence disrupts, but does entirely destroy, these waves. One consequence (as seen both in the previous simulation and in this one) is that an MHD disk is not able to maintain a state of solid-body rotation, which it does achieve in a purely hydrodynamic state [@SKH13b].
Since the work of @PP83, it has been customary to categorize the dynamics of warped disks in terms of a division between a “bending wave" regime, in which the ratio of vertically-integrated accretion stress to vertically-integrated pressure $\alpha$ is $< H/r$, and a “diffusive" regime, in which $\alpha > H/r$. It might then seem a natural question to ask how the phenomena we observe may be classified in these terms. Before doing so, however, it is useful to recall the origin of this distinction. It was derived by assuming that linear bending waves damp at a rate $\alpha\Omega$, while the speeds of the radial motions induced by the warp-created radial pressure gradients are controlled by an “isotropic viscosity" acting to reduce vertical shear. “Isotropic" meant that if the vertical shear were the same as the orbital shear, the $r$-$z$ component of the stress would be the same as the accretion stress, the $r$-$\phi$ component.
However, neither of these assumptions fits well with the conditions in warped MHD disks. In the vicinity of an alignment front, the warp is almost always nonlinear in the sense that $\hat\psi > 1$ because even the transonic radial motions induced by nonlinear warps cannot spread the front enough to make it linear. This condition is generic because the location of the front is determined by the condition that the mixing timescale is comparable to the precession timescale. Indeed, the only regions in our simulation in which the warp is linear are at sufficiently large radius that they are essentially untouched by the torques. Consequently, the relevant damping rate is the one applicable to nonlinear waves. As shown in @SKH13a, damping of nonlinear warps takes place very rapidly, and the mechanism is exactly what is commonly associated with the “diffusive" regime: radial motions driven by the radial pressure gradients associated with the warp mix differently-aligned angular momentum across a radial orientation gradient. Thus, nonlinear bending waves combine aspects of these two, nominally contrasting, regimes.
In addition, as shown in [@SKH13b] and [@Fragile14a], there is no “isotropic viscosity". The $r$-$z$ component of the Maxwell stress does not behave like a viscosity: it is as likely to strengthen shear as to weaken it. Moreover, its magnitude, when measured in pressure units, is typically three orders of magnitude smaller than the stress associated with accretion. Consequently, the speeds of the radial motions are limited not by a “viscosity", but, when the warp is nonlinear, by the dynamics of free expansion in the presence of gravity and by weak shocks that occur when the radial motions encounter other parts of the warped disk. For this reason, the radial speeds in regions of nonlinear warp are in general transonic, with Mach numbers that increase with greater $\hat\psi$ [@SKH13a]. Thus, it is questionable whether the “bending wave" vs. “diffusive" distinction can be applied here; the only distinction having the potential to be qualitative is between linear and nonlinear bending waves.
Do warped disks break?
----------------------
When disks subjected to Lense-Thirring torques are simulated in pure hydrodynamics with an assumed isotropic viscosity and using the SPH algorithm, under certain circumstances breaks have appeared between the outer misaligned section and the inner aligned portion [@Nixon2012a; @Nixon2012b; @Nealon2015]. One proposed criterion for this to happen is that the external torque ${\cal T}$ exceed the inter-ring torque associated with accretion stresses $G$ [@Nixon2012b; @Nealon2015]. Alternatively, it may be that the criterion is for the precession timescale to be shorter than the radial sound-crossing timescale [@Nealon2015].
We use several diagnostics to test our late-time data for disk breaks in this simulation. The first is continuity in the azimuthally-averaged surface density. As can readily be seen in Figure \[fig:surfdens\_late\], $\Sigma(r)$ varies quite smoothly with radius. Indeed, the surface density near the alignment transition hardly changes over the $\simeq 15$ fiducial orbits in which the torques operate, while the surface density at somewhat larger radii increases. Another is the density distribution in the poloidal plane measured at the azimuth corresponding to the outer disk precession angle. This is shown in Figure \[fig:poloidal\]. The plane of the disk does vary, of course. At small radii, where it is aligned normal to the black hole spin, it is tilted by $12^\circ$ with respect to the grid; at large radii, precession around the black hole spin direction moves it out of the equatorial plane. Throughout the radial extent of the disk, the density distribution is lumpy, but the maximum contrast in density within the midplane is only about a factor of 2. Thus, this view also provides no evidence of breaks. A third diagnostic is the density distribution on a spherical shell at the radius where the warp is greatest (Fig. \[fig:shell\]). Because the mean angular momentum on this shell is tilted by a bit more than half the initial inclination relative to the coordinate equatorial plane, and it has precessed, the disk plane traces a sinusoidal pattern in polar angle relative to the $\theta\times\phi$ plane in this coordinate system. It shows density fluctuations at the factor of 3 level, but there is also no indication of a dramatic break here either, even though this is the radius where $\hat\psi$ is greatest (see Fig. \[fig:psihat\]).
![Linear color contours (see color bar) of the disk density in a poloidal slice at $\phi=0.3\pi$, the approximate precession angle of the disk at $t=24$.[]{data-label="fig:poloidal"}](fig7.ps "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}\
![Linear color contours (see color bar) of the disk density at $t=24$ on the radial shell at $r=7.5$, the radius of sharpest warp.[]{data-label="fig:shell"}](fig8.ps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
It is therefore instructive to test whether the proposed break criteria apply to a calculation in which all stresses are physical and numerical transport can be readily controlled. The first criterion can be concisely phrased if the actual accretion stress is measured in pressure units, i.e., in terms of $\alpha$, the time-averaged ratio of vertically-integrated stress to vertically-integrated pressure. It is then $$\frac{\cal T}{G} = \frac{(\Omega_{\rm prec}/\Omega)\sin\theta}{\alpha (h/r)^2}.$$ At the location of the orientation transition ($r \simeq 7$), the frequency ratio is $\simeq 0.1$, while our measured stress ratio $\alpha$ declines with radius from $\simeq 0.1$ at $r \simeq 5$ to $\simeq 0.05$ at $r \simeq 10$. Combined with our disk aspect ratio $h/r \simeq 0.1$ and the outer disk inclination $\sin\theta \simeq 0.2$, we find ${\cal T}/G \simeq 27$. Thus, even though the precessional torque is considerably greater than the inter-ring accretion torque, the disk does not break.
One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that the argument for the ${\cal T}/G$ criterion assumes that ordinary accretion stresses are responsible for restoring matter to regions in which the precessional stress might otherwise create gaps. However, warped disks induce strong Reynolds stresses, and these can easily be much stronger than the Maxwell stresses due to correlated MHD turbulence that ordinarily drive accretion. In fact, at a steady-state alignment transition front, these Reynolds stresses produce a torque that is—by definition—equal to the aligning torque at the front, and the aligning torque is comparable to the full Lense-Thirring precessional torque. Thus, if the correct criterion for producing a break is for the Lense-Thirring torques to exceed the smoothing torque due to internal stresses, there could never be a strong break at a disk’s most vulnerable point, the alignment transition.
The second criterion amounts to computing the product $$\Omega_{\rm prec} t_{\rm cross} = \frac{\Omega_{\rm prec}/\Omega}{h/r},$$ where $t_{\rm cross}$ is the time for sound waves to traverse a distance comparable to the radius where this product is measured. If the theory for the location of the transition radius outlined in the previous section is correct, this criterion may be rewritten as $$\Omega_{\rm prec} t_{\rm cross} = {\Phi \over \langle\cos\gamma\rangle {\cal I} (\Delta r/r)}.$$ Thus, this ratio is always $\sim {\cal I}^{-1}$. For our simulation’s parameters, it is $\simeq 1$ at the alignment transition. Just as for the previous criterion, our theory predicts that this criterion, too, should always be marginal, and therefore strong breaks would not be expected.
[@Nealon2015] suggest that this criterion applies in what they deem the “bending wave" regime, a regime in which the pressure-coupling of bending waves provides the strongest coupling between adjacent rings. Because these waves generically travel at $0.5c_s$, the sound wave crossing time is a reasonable estimate of their crossing time also. As we have already argued, linear bending waves do not appear to be particularly important contributors to tilted disk dynamics. However, nonlinear warps result in transonic flows, whose effects also travel at $\sim c_s$. In this sense, it is not surprising that we would predict that this criterion, like our reworked version of the first, should also always be marginal at the orientation transition radius.
Is apsidal precession relevant?
-------------------------------
It has been argued in a number of places [@II97; @Fragile14a; @Nealon2015] that apsidal precession can lead to radial alignment oscillations, perhaps affecting overall disk alignment. Nonetheless, in our lowest-order PN accounting of general relativistic effects, we have included the gravitomagnetic term, but not the term associated with apsidal precession, even though the two effects are formally the same order in the expansion. We did so for a number of reasons. One reason is that there is no way to make the apsidal precession consistent with the magnitude of our amplified gravitomagnetic term. However, we also believe it to have at most minor physical influence. Several arguments point in this direction. First, the amplitude of the velocity perturbations created by this effect is very small. They are proportional to the eccentricity $e$ of the orbits, and $e \sim c_s/v_{\rm orb}$. As a result, the Mach number of these motions is only of order the ratio of the gravitational radius $r_g$ to the radius, which is generally quite small for $r \sim R_T$. They are then far slower than the transonic radial motions themselves; in fact, they are very small even compared to the fluid motions associated with the turbulence, which are $\sim 0.1 c_s$. Second, the radial flows are altered by hydrodynamics on the orbital period, as streams encounter other portions of the disk, sometimes through shocks. By contrast, during one orbital period, the magnitude of the apsidal precession angle is only $6\pi r_g/r \ll 1$ for $e \ll 1$. Thus, during the time over which a specific elliptical orbit exists, it is rotated by only a very small amount, while that fluid’s motions are changed at the order-unity level by other mechanisms. Third, the apsidal precession can also be viewed as due to a small offset between the frequency of radial epicyclic motions and the orbital frequency. However, in an MHD orbiting fluid, the magnetorotational instability makes radial epicyclic motions unstable, and the fastest growing mode has a growth rate $\sim \Omega$. It is hard to see how the apsidal precession would be significant relative to all these other effects.
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
Our simulation has shown that an accretion disk whose intrinsic orbital plane is inclined obliquely to the equatorial plane of the central spinning black hole can achieve a steady-state in which the inner disk aligns with the black hole’s equatorial plane while the outer disk retains its original orientation.
Using the alignment front propagation formalism developed in a previous paper [@SKH13b], we have, for the first time, measured directly the timescale for misaligned angular momentum mixing due to the radial flows induced by disk warping. In this specific case, that time scale is $\simeq 12$ local orbital periods. In the context of a time-steady alignment front, it is possible to estimate this mixing timescale in terms of a diffusion model of the sort first explored by @PP83 and @Pringle92. Because nonlinear warps generically produce transonic radial motions, one would expect the diffusion coefficient in such a model to be $\Phi c_s^2/\Omega$, where $\Phi$ is a dimensionless number of order unity. Interpreting the mixing time we measure in terms of such a model, one would then expect $t_{\rm in}^{-1} = \Phi (h/r)^2 (\Delta r/r)^{-1} \Omega$ for fractional front width $\Delta r/r$. Calibrating this relation with our simulation data, we find that $\Phi \simeq 0.6$–0.8 for our measured fractional front width $\Delta r/r \simeq 6/7$. Finding a coefficient of order unity is consistent with the thought that a diffusion model of this character may be appropriate to estimating the equilibrium properties of disk warps, even though this model is inadequate to describe their time-dependent properties. Stronger evidence for this proposition must await simulations with different values of the sound speed to orbital speed ratio and perhaps also different disk inclination angles; it remains possible that $\Phi$ could depend on these, or other, parameters.
Nonetheless, if this estimate is good to factors of several, it permits estimation of steady-state orientation transition radii, given the black hole mass and spin and the accretion disk surface density and aspect ratio profiles. In fact, this approach has already been taken by @MK2013, who assumed $\Phi \simeq 1$; the results of our new simulation support their assumption.
We have also probed several quantitative aspects of the alignment front’s approach to equilibrium. For example, we observed an overshoot in the front’s location before settling into a steady-state. A pure diffusion picture of warp motion would not yield this sort of behavior, but its qualitative character (in particular, its relaxation time) is consistent with previous detailed studies of warped disk hydrodynamics [@SKH13a]. We have also begun to constrain suggestions that disks undergoing Lense-Thirring torques can suffer sharp breaks [@Nixon2012a; @Nixon2012b]. @Nealon2015 offered criteria for when these breaks should develop; despite satisfying one of their criteria strongly and another one marginally, we find no evidence for this happening. If their primary criterion were reframed to include the effects of the radial motions induced by a strong warp, we would find both are marginal, and for the same reason: at a steady-state alignment front, the torque due to the Reynolds stress of these motions is automatically matched to the torque applied by gravitomagnetism, thereby creating a relatively rapid change in disk plane orientation across the front, but not a sharp break.
A number of questions remain open for future work. Among the most interesting are the degree to which $\Phi$ may vary with parameters such as $c_s/v_{\rm orb}$ and the possible effect of boundary conditions that prevent the transition front from extending across as wide a radial range as internal dynamics would demand. If the location of disk-feeding is at a relatively small radius and the total change in angle across the alignment front is relatively large, the warp rate $\phat$ may be forced to become larger than it would be otherwise. In such a situation, there might be both a significant alteration in $\Phi$ and enough shock heating to create nonlinearity through thermodynamic effects.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank John Papaloizou for enlightening and encouraging conversations. This work was partially supported under National Science Foundation grants AST-1028111 (JHK) and AST-0908869 (JFH), and NASA grant NNX14AB43G (JHK and JFH). The National Science Foundation also supported this research in part through XSEDE resources on the Stampede cluster through allocation TG-MCA95C003.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the problem of selecting features associated with extreme values in high dimensional linear regression. Normally, in linear modeling problems, the presence of abnormal extreme values or outliers is considered an anomaly which should either be removed from the data or remedied using robust regression methods. In many situations, however, the extreme values in regression modeling are not outliers but rather the signals of interest; consider traces from spiking neurons, volatility in finance, or extreme events in climate science, for example. In this paper, we propose a new method for sparse high-dimensional linear regression for extreme values which is motivated by the Subbotin, or generalized normal distribution. This leads us to utilize an $\ell_p$ norm loss where $p$ is an even integer greater than two; we demonstrate that this loss increases the weight on extreme values. We prove consistency and variable selection consistency for the $\ell_p$ norm regression with a Lasso penalty, which we term the Extreme Lasso. Through simulation studies and real-world data data examples, we show that this method outperforms other methods currently used in the literature for selecting features of interest associated with extreme values in high-dimensional regression.'
address:
- 'Department of Statistics, Rice University\'
- |
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rice University,\
Department of Computer Science, Rice University,\
Department of Statistics, Rice University,\
Department of Pediatrics-Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine,\
Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute, Texas Children’s Hospital\
\
author:
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'bibb.bib'
title: Sparse Regression for Extreme Values
---
Introduction
============
When applying linear regression models, one often encountered issue is the presence of rare extreme values, defined here as abnormally large magnitude observations. This can occur in the form of outliers in the response variable as well as in the form of highly influential points in the predictor variables. Historically, statisticians have tried to develop methods to ignore or dampen the effects of outliers in data sets when doing a linear regression analysis. Metrics such as residual analysis, Cook’s distance, and DFFIT can be used to identify and possibly remove outliers from the data set [@rob]. New regression methods have also been developed to handle outliers in response variables as well. For example, robust regression [@rob2] has been used in many different applications, and much work has been to done to show theoretical asymptotic performance in the presence of outliers [@rob4; @rob5]. More recently, several have studied robust regression procedures for high-dimensional data [@loh2017statistical; @Eunhoyang]. However, in certain contexts, the important information in the response variable that we want to model or predict is in the rare, abnormally large magnitude observations. For these types of applications, rather than wanting to remove outliers or use robust regression methods, we instead want to focus on these extreme values when fitting models to the data. For example, in neuroscience, calcium imaging data collected contains measurements of fluorescence traces of neurons in the imaged brain [@cal]; the signal that is important in this situation is the occurrences of neuron firing, indicated by large positive spikes in the fluorescence trace. Extreme value regression models are often used as well in climatology to measure the rate and strength of extreme climate or weather events [@ev2], or in finance to predict periods of high volatility of asset prices [@ev1]. Their potential usage has also been studied in spectroscopy analysis and signal processing[@ev9].
Several different possible approaches to the problem of high-dimensional regression for extreme values have been used in various fields. Sparse regression methods based on classical extreme value theory utilize a generalized linear model framework. The extreme values above a predetermined threshold in a response variable are specified to follow a distribution, such as the Gumbel, whose parameters are a linear function of the predictor variables and which determine the frequency and magnitude of the extreme values [@evr; @evr2]. Another regression model commonly applied to model extreme values in the high-dimensional setting is sparse quantile regression, specifically applied to a very high or very low quantile [@koe]. These types of models use a weighted absolute deviation loss function in order to find the expected value of a response variable at a particular quantile. Extensions to high-dimensional sparse $\ell_1$ quantile regression have also been studied extensively [@belloni; @li]. These types of regression methods have shown to be effective for finding features which are correlated to larger magnitude values of a response variable when there is ample data to create a reliable model. In the types of applications we are considering, though, the extreme values tend to be very rare for a typical set of observations. This can potentially lead to empirical numerical instability due to the lack of adequate data to get accurate estimates. Also, in the case of quantile regression, selecting which quantile to use for this type of data is difficult as it is unclear how this should be chosen based on the number and magnitude of the extreme events.
One other widely-used approach for modeling extreme values involves pre-processing the data via some type of thresholding algorithm, keeping only the observed values of each variable which are above either a static or dynamic threshold and zeroing out the others. Examples of this in different fields include spike calling or deconvolution in neuroscience [@theis] or Otsu’s method in image processing [@otsu]. After these algorithms have been applied to the data, typical high-dimensional regression methods are then applied to the data. In general, thresholding data can help in extreme value regression analysis by removing any influence from non-extreme values. However, this type of filtering is not necessarily desirable in all situations. Thresholding approaches by their nature binarize the observations of a variable in to extreme and non-extreme categories, whereas in some cases it may make more sense to smooth the transition from extreme to non-extreme values if it is not clear where the boundary between the two should lie. Also, the addition of an extra data pre-processing step can potentially lead to less precise estimates from the following regression analysis, since any errors made in the former will propagate during the latter.
In this paper, we explore a different potential approach to tackle the problem of modeling and predicting extreme values. Our approach to this problem is to increase the relative weight of larger magnitude losses compared to regular ordinary least squares. Conceptually, this problem is analogous to increasing the power of the Gaussian kernel function, which leads to the generalized normal distribution [@sub]. Thus, we base our method on $\ell_p$ norm regression, which uses a general $p$ norm for regression rather than the ordinary $\ell_2$ norm. This is a method which has been well-studied as a whole in the past in the statistics literature [@lp1; @lp2]. However, much of the effort in previous research has been focused on showing that $\ell_p$-norm regression can be more robust to outliers [@lp4; @lp5] by using a norm between 0 and 1. On the other hand, we are interested in using this type of regression model to create a method which is more sensitive to extreme values in the response by using norms larger than the squared error loss, i.e. when $p > 2$. In this case, the regression model will be more sensitive to extreme values. General theoretical properties of $\ell_p$ norm regression have been examined in previous literature [@lp3], but the performance with respect to application to data with extreme values has not been well studied. The situation when $p > 2$ for $\ell_p$ norm regression presents its own unique theoretical and practical challenges, which we investigate in this paper.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces and characterizes the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression method and presents the algorithm used for parameter estimation. We then prove consistency and sparsistency results in section 3. Lastly, in section 4, we investigate the performance of extreme value regression through simulation studies.
Regression for Extreme Values
=============================
We observe a data matrix $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times p}$ of predictor variables and a vector $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ of responses, and we would like to find features in $\mathbf{X}$ that are correlated with the extreme values of $\mathbf{y}$. (For simplicity, we presume in this paper without loss of generality that each of the variables are centered and scaled.) In this paper, will consider two different contexts under which the response variable vector could be produced. The first of these is a linear model, which will be the main focus of the theory presented in section 3 and the empirical investigations of section 4. Here, we assume that the data are generated from a simple linear process: $$\mathbf{y}_i = \mathbf{X}_i \mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^* + \epsilon_i, \, \epsilon \text{ i.i.d.}.$$ In order to produce large magnitude extreme values in the observed response $\mathbf{y}_i$ from this model, either some of the corresponding predictors at the observed time $\mathbf{X}_i$ need to be large in magnitude relative or some of the parameters in $\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^*$ need to be large in magnitude. The other model that we investigate with empirical studies is a mixture model case. With this data generating model, we assume that the response is generated via a deterministic mixture model process: $$\mathbf{y}_i = \sum_{k = 1}^{K-1} \mathds{1}_{ik} f(\mathbf{X}_{i}) \mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k + \mathds{1}_{iK} \mathbf{X}_{i} \mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_K + \epsilon_i, \epsilon \text{ i.i.d.}.$$ Here, we impose the structural constraint that columns of $\mathbf{X}$ are generated from $K$ mixture components, where each column is a member of exactly one of the components $\{1, 2, \hdots, K\}$; this is denoted using the indicator function $\mathds{1}_{jk}$. In this particular setting, we study the case where only one of the mixture model components, which we arbitrarily denote as the $K$-th component, is correlated with the observed extreme values in the response, while the other components are associated with the non-extreme observations. Per the formulation above, we only assume for this model that the relationship between the extreme values in the response and those corresponding mixtures is linear; the relationship between the non-extreme values in the response and their predictive features can be of any form. Also, following from the linear model case, we assume that a particular observed extreme value in the response $\mathbf{y}_i$ is correlated with a relatively large value in one or more of the predictors $\mathbf{X}_i$ which comprise one of the extreme value mixture model components.
Note that in the above models, we assume that the errors $\epsilon_i$ are independently and identically distributed, but do not necessarily assume in either model that they follow a Gaussian distribution. In section 3, we will study both the cases where $\epsilon$ follows a Gaussian distribution and where $\epsilon$ follows a generalized normal, or Subbotin, distribution [@sub]. The generalized normal distribution is defined as $$f(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}) = \frac{\gamma}{2\sigma\Gamma(1/\gamma)} e^{-\left(\frac{|\epsilon|}{\sigma}\right)^{\gamma}}.$$ for scale parameter $\sigma > 0$ and shape parameter $\gamma> 0$. When $\gamma = 2$, the generalized normal distribution will be equivalent to a Gaussian distribution, while when $\gamma > 2$ the generalized normal distribution will have a thinner tail compared to a Gaussian. We are specifically interested in studying the case where the generalized normal distribution with $\gamma >2$ as a potential error distribution of the data generating model.
To get estimates of the parameters of the models above, we propose to use the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression model, which is the $\ell_{\gamma}$-norm regression for $\gamma > 2$. The foundation for this method is a generalized linear model applied to the generalized normal distribution as described above. Estimation of the parameters of the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression model can thus be done by minimizing the loss function of the form $$\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{X}, \hat{\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}) = \frac{1}{\gamma N}\|\mathbf{y} - \mathbf{X} \hat{\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} \|_{\gamma}^{\gamma}$$ where $\gamma$ corresponds to the shape parameter in the generalized normal distribution. It follows naturally from the Gaussian case that estimating the parameters of the generalized normal distribution for a particular value of $\gamma$ is analogous to minimizing an $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression model. As follows from above, we are particularly interested in the case of $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression for $\gamma > 2$. We also note here that in this paper we assume $\gamma$ to be a fixed user-set parameter rather than a variable to estimate.
The loss functions of the three regression methods are shown in Figure \[fig:margplot\]; specifically, the extreme linear regression loss function for $\gamma = 4, 6, $ and $8$ and the loss for quantile regression at the 0.5, 0.9, and 0.99 quantiles are shown. Comparing the different methods, we see the advantage that the $\gamma$-th power error loss has over the the other two loss functions. For residual values with magnitudes between 0 and 1, the extreme value loss function puts less weight on the residuals compared to the squared error loss. However, the extreme value loss puts more weight on residual values whose magnitudes are greater than 1, relative to the squared error loss. In particular, the differences in these weights grows exponentially as the magnitude of the residual increases linearly. Thus, extreme linear regression will find an estimate of the parameters of the model which fits closer to the extreme values of a response variable. Quantile regression, on the other hand, can only put large weights on either positive or negative residuals, not both. Therefore, it is not suitable for a response that has both positive and negative extreme values. Additionally, quantile regression puts more weight on small residuals relative to large ones compared to either the extreme value or least squares loss functions, since the growth of the loss function is linear.
[0.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
To illustrate how extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression results differs from ordinary linear regression results in practice, we construct a simple univariate linear regression example. We generate a predictor variable from a Gaussian distribution, then create a response variable that has a negative linear relationship with the predictor. To that data, we add a cluster of observations which are large positive extreme values in the response variable and in the upper quantile of the predictor variable, which creates a positive relationship between the predictor and the extreme values of the response variable. The data generated from the simulation set up and the resulting estimates from the ordinary least squares along with 4th, 6th, and 8th power error losses are shown in Figure \[fig:margplot\]. As we can see from the figure, the ordinary linear regression model captures the negative trend that appears for the observations associated with non-extreme values of the response. On the other hand, the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression instead finds the positive relationship between the predictor and the extreme positive values in the response, with higher powers moving the resulting regression line closer to the extreme values. This gives us a good indication that a relatively large $\gamma$-th power error loss function could be of use for finding relationships between features and the extreme values of a response variable.
Sparse Extreme Value Regression
-------------------------------
In high-dimensional regression problems, automatic feature selection techniques are used to obtain sparse solutions. In many contexts, this is done by adding a sparsity-inducing regularization penalty. In the case of ordinary linear regression, this leads to the penalized squared error loss function. Applying the same idea to the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression model gives the loss function: $$\min_{\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}} \frac{1}{2N} \|\mathbf{y} - \mathbf{X}\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\|_{\gamma}^{\gamma} + \lambda \mathcal{P}(\beta).$$ The form of the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm loss function permits the usage of any type of regularization penalty that can be applied to the ordinary linear regression case. For example, one can employ more complex penalties such as SCAD [@scad] or MCP [@mc], or specify a more specific structure with penalties such as the Fused Lasso [@fs], Group Lasso [@grp], or Exclusive Lasso [@exc].
Similar to the Lasso and other penalized ordinary linear regression models, the objective function for the penalized extreme linear regression can be decomposed in to the sum of two convex functions, the residual norm and the penalty terms. Thus, a proximal gradient descent algorithm can be used to estimate $\hat{\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}$. Algorithmic convergence properties of proximal gradient descent algorithms for penalized linear regression have been well-studied in recent literature. Notably, it has been shown that the proximal gradient algorithm is guaranteed to converge to a minimum. Additionally, because the $\ell_{\gamma}$ loss function is convex for $\gamma > 2$, if the regularization penalty is also convex, then the algorithm is guaranteed to converge to a global solution [@admm]. Algorithm \[alg1\] gives the general outline of the algorithm.
Theoretical Results
===================
In this section, we present theoretical results for consistency and model selection consistency of the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm estimator with an $\ell_1$ Lasso regularization penalty. Our results bear similarity to existing results for the consistency of Lasso-regularized M-estimators; the main difference between the results presented here and those in previous works lies in the distributional assumptions of the errors. Specifically, our contribution lies in deriving concentration bounds for sub-Weibull and sub-Gamma random variables. Consider the linear data generating model: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{y}_i = \bxi^T \mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^* + \epsilon_i, \, \epsilon \text{ i.i.d.}. $$ The Extreme Lasso regression thus solves the optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{minimize}_{\beta} \sum_{i=1}^n | y_i - \bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}|^{\gamma} + \lambda \| \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}\|_1\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we consider the case when $\gamma$ is an even integer. The problem can now be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname*{minimize}_{\beta} \sum_{i=1}^n (y_i - \bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta})^\gamma + \lambda \| \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}\|_1\end{aligned}$$ Define $${\mathcal{L}}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \ell (\bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- y_i).$$ Clearly, ${\mathcal{L}}$ belongs to the family of M-estimators, whose properties have been widely studied in literature; in particular, @negahban2012unified [@loh2017statistical; @loh2013regularized] have established the consistency of M-estimators in the high-dimensional setting. Thus, we apply the ideas and theories for high-dimensional M-estimators from these papers to the Extreme Lasso case to obtain the results for the regularized extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression. Formal proofs for all of the statements in Section 3 can be found in the Appendix.
Consistency of M-estimators
---------------------------
In this section, we state previous results regarding the consistency and variable selection consistency for general robust M-estimators. In the literature, @negahban2012unified established consistency while @lee2015model established model selection consistency, also known as sparsistency, for high-dimensional M-estimators.
\[mestconsis\] Suppose ${\mathcal{L}}$ satisfies the Restricted Strong Convexity (RSC) condition with curvature $\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda \geq 2 \| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*) \|_{\infty} .\end{aligned}$$ Then $\hat \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}$ exists and satisfies the bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \hat \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^* \|_2 &\leq \frac{3 \sqrt{s}}{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}} \lambda\end{aligned}$$ where $s = |\text{supp}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*)|$, i.e., $\|\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*\|_0$.
Note Lemma \[mestconsis\] corresponds to Theorem 1 in @negahban2012unified assuming that the restricted strong convexity (RSC) holds with tolerance parameter $\tau_{ {\mathcal{L}}} = 0$. Also, here we consider $\ell_1$ penalty and $\Psi(\mathcal M) = \sqrt s$. Similarly, @loh2017statistical established statistical consistency for high-dimensional robust M-estimators.
\[mestmodelconsis\] Suppose the following conditions hold:
\(1) $\ell$ satisfies RSC.
\(2) $\ell$ satisfies irrepresentability.
Let $\kappa_{\text{IC}}$ denote the compatibility constant defined in @lee2015model. Then, for any $\frac{4 \kappa_{\text{IC}}}{\tau} \| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*) \|_{\infty} < \lambda < \frac{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}^2}{2L} \big(2\sqrt s + \frac{\sqrt s}{\kappa_\text{IC}} \frac{\tau}{2} \big)^{-2} \frac{\tau}{\kappa_\text{IC}}$, the optimal solution to an M-estimator problem is unique and model selection consistent: $\hat \beta \in M$.
Further, if $\min_{a \in \mathcal S} |\beta_a^*| > \frac{2}{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}} } \big( \sqrt{s} + \frac{\tau}{4} \frac{\sqrt s}{\kappa_\text{IC}}\big) \lambda $, then the estimator is also sign consistent: $\text{sign}(\hat \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}_{\mathcal S}) = \text{sign} (\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*_{\mathcal S})$.
Lemma \[mestmodelconsis\] refers to Theorem 3.4 in @lee2015model. The finite constant $\kappa_\text{IC}$ is the compatibility constant between the irrepresentable term and $\rho^*$. $\tau$ is the constant in the irrepresentable condition. Since we consider the $\ell_1$-norm, i.e., $\rho = \| \cdot \|_1$, we have $k_{\rho} = \sqrt{s}$ and $k_{\rho^*} = 1$ in the theorem. $L$ is a constant such that $\| \nabla^2 \ell(\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}) - \nabla^2 \ell(\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*) \|_2 \leq L \| \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*\|_2$. Note in the Lasso problem, it can be shown that $L = 0$; hence there is no upper bound for $\lambda$. In the Extreme Lasso case, in general we have $L \neq 0$ and there is an upper bound for $\lambda$.
Importantly, the results from both Lemma \[mestconsis\] and Lemma \[mestmodelconsis\] are entirely deterministic. Thus, we can guarantee that, under certain conditions, the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression with the lasso penalty will provide consistent estimates of the true parameters of the model. Additionally, both Lemma \[mestconsis\] and Lemma \[mestmodelconsis\] suggest that the key ingredients for statistical consistency are the boundedness of $\| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\beta^*)\|_{\infty}$, which ultimately determines the rate of convergence of $\hat \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}$ to $\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*$ and the local RSC condition. Notice that when $\ell$ is the squared error loss, we get the same consistency and model selection consistency rate for the Lasso regression problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\beta^*)\|_{\infty} = \frac{1}{n} \| \X^T ( y - \X \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^* )\|_{\infty} = \| \X^T \epsilon\|_{\infty}/n\end{aligned}$$ For Extreme Lasso case, i.e. $ \ell (\bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- y_i) = (y_i - x_i^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta})^{\gamma}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\beta^*)\|_{\infty} = \frac{1}{n} \| \sum_{i=1}^n \gamma x_i (y_i - x_i^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^*)^{\gamma-1} \|_{\infty} = \gamma \cdot \frac{1}{n} \| \X^T \big(|\epsilon|^{\circ (\gamma-1)} \circ \text{sgn}(\epsilon) \big) \|_{\infty} \end{aligned}$$ When $\gamma$ is even: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\beta^*)\|_{\infty} = \gamma \| \X^T \epsilon^{\circ (\gamma-1)} \|_{\infty} /n .\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\beta^*)\|_{\infty} = \gamma \cdot \frac{1}{n} \| \X^T \epsilon^{\circ (\gamma-1)} \|_{\infty} .\end{aligned}$$
Consistency of the Extreme Lasso
--------------------------------
To establish complete results for consistency and model selection consistency for the Extreme Lasso, we first build a concentration bound for the quantity $\| \nabla {\mathcal{L}}(\beta^*)\|_{\infty}$, i.e., $\gamma \cdot \frac{1}{n} \| \X^T \epsilon^{\circ (\gamma-1)} \|_{\infty}.$ To do this, we first need to build a tail bound for $\epsilon_i^{\gamma-1}$, which will differ under different distributional assumptions on the covariates and error terms in the linear model. These assumptions on the distributional properties will come into play in verifying that the inequality and the RSC condition hold with high probability under the prescribed sample size scaling. We can then combine the tail bound results with Lemma \[mestconsis\] and Lemma \[mestmodelconsis\] to derive full results. In this subsection, we present tail bounds for $\frac{1}{n} \| \X^T \epsilon^{\circ (\gamma-1)} \|_{\infty} $ under two different distribution assumptions on the error $\epsilon$.
### Sub-Gaussian Errors
We first assume that $\epsilon_i$ follows a sub-Gaussian distribution, and we construct a tail bound for a sub-Gaussian random variable raised to a power.
For sub-Gaussian random variable $\Q$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P( |\Q|^{\gamma - 1} \geq t) \leq 2 \exp\bigg\{- \frac{ t^{2/(\gamma - 1)}}{2\sigma^2} \bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$\[subweibulltail\]
Under ordinary least squares, i.e. when $\gamma = 2$, we get the usual sub-Gaussian tail bound; when $\gamma = 3$, $\Q^2$ follows a sub-exponential distribution. When $\gamma \geq 4$, as we have for the Extreme Lasso, $\Q^{\gamma - 1}$ is neither sub-Gaussian nor sub-exponential. Instead, in this situation the tail bound will follow what is known in the literature as a sub-Weibull distribution [@kuchibhotla2018moving; @vladimirova2019sub], which we define below.
A random variable $\Z$ is said to be sub-Weibull of order $\alpha>0,$ denoted as sub-Weibull($\alpha$), if $$\|\Z\|_{\psi_{\alpha}}<\infty, \quad \text { where } \psi_{\alpha}(x):=\exp \left(x^{\alpha}\right)-1 \quad \text { for } x \geq 0.$$
Based on this definition, it follows that if $\Z$ is sub-Weibull $(\alpha),$ then $$\mathbb{P}(|\Z| \geq t) \leq 2 \exp (-\frac{t^{\alpha}}{\|\Z\|_{\psi_{\alpha}}^{\alpha}}), \text { for all } t \geq 0.$$ In the Extreme Lasso problem, since $\epsilon_i$ is sub-Gaussian, we have $\mathbb P( |\epsilon_i|^{\gamma - 1} \geq t) \leq 2 \exp\bigg\{- \frac{ t^{2/(\gamma - 1)}}{2\sigma^2} \bigg\}$, which means $\epsilon_i^{\gamma - 1}$ is sub-Weibull, i.e., $ \| \epsilon_i^{\gamma - 1} \|_{\psi_{2/(\gamma - 1)}} < \infty$. In the literature, @kuchibhotla2018moving established concentration inequalities related to sub-Weibull random variables. We apply the results and build a tail bound for $\| \sum_{i=1}^n \bxi \epsilon_i^{\gamma-1} \|_{\infty}/n$, i.e., $\| \X^T \epsilon^{\circ (\gamma-1)} \|_{\infty}/n$ by making the substitution $\Z = \epsilon_i^{\gamma - 1}$. Note that by @negahban2012unified, restricted strong convexity (for M-estimators) with respect to the $\ell_2$-norm is equivalent to the restricted eigenvalues condition (for the Lasso estimator).
Consider the Lasso estimator for linear regression case. Suppose there exists $0 < \alpha \leq 2$, and $\nu, K_{n,p} > 0$ such that $$\max \bigg\{ \| X_i \|_{M,\psi_{\alpha}}, \| \epsilon_i \|_{\psi_\nu} \bigg \} \leq K_{n,p} \hspace{5mm} \text {for all} \hspace{2mm} 1 \leq i \leq n.$$ Also suppose $n \geq 2$, $k \geq 1$ and the covariance matrix $\Sigma_n$ satisfies $\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma_n) \geq K_{n,s}$. Then, with probability at least $1- 3(np)^{-1} $, $$\left\| \frac{1}{n} \sum_i^n X_i \epsilon_i \right \|_{\infty} \leq 7 \sqrt{2} \sigma_{n, p} \sqrt{\frac{\log (n p)}{n}}+\frac{C_{\tau} K_{n, p}^{2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / \tau}(2 \log (n p))^{1 / \tau}}{n}$$
where $\frac{1}{\tau} = \frac{1}{\alpha} + \frac{1}{\nu}$. \[sumofsubweibulltail\]
\[subgauconsis\] Given the Extreme Lasso program with regularization parameter $\lambda_n = 2 \gamma \big( 7 \sqrt{2} \sigma_{n, p} \sqrt{\frac{\log (n p)}{n}}+$
$\frac{C_{\tau} K_{n, p}^{2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / \tau}(2 \log (n p))^{1 / \tau }}{n}\bigg)$, then with probability at least $ 1 - 3 (np)^{-1} $, any optimal solution $\hat \beta$ satisfies the bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \hat \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^* \|_2 &\leq \frac{6 \sqrt{s}}{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}} \cdot \gamma \bigg( 7 \sqrt{2} \sigma_{n, p} \sqrt{\frac{\log (n p)}{n}}+\frac{ C_{\tau} K_{n, p}^{2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / \tau}(2 \log (n p))^{1 / \tau }}{n} \bigg).\end{aligned}$$
where $\tau = 2/(\gamma-1)$.
\[subgaumodelconsis\] Consider the Extreme Lasso program with sub-Gaussian error. Assume that the loss $\ell$ satisfies Restricted Strong Convexity and covariance matrices satisfy irrepresentability. Consider the family of regularization parameters $\lambda = \frac{4 \kappa_{\text{IC}}}{\tau} \cdot \gamma \bigg( 7 \sqrt{2} \sigma_{n, p} \sqrt{\frac{\log (n p)}{n}}+\frac{ C_{\tau} K_{n, p}^{2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / \tau}(2 \log (n p))^{1 / \tau }}{n} \bigg)$, then the following properties holds with probability greater than $ 1 - 3 (np)^{-1} $:
\(i) The Lasso has a unique solution with support contained within $S$, i.e. $S(\hat \beta) \subset S(\beta^*)$.
\(ii) If $\min_{a \in S} | \beta^{*}_{a}| > ( \frac{\tau}{ \kappa_{\text{IC}}} \cdot \frac{1}{4} + 1 ) \cdot \frac{2\sqrt{s}}{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}} \cdot \frac{4 \kappa_{\text{IC}}}{\tau} \cdot \gamma \bigg[ 7 \sqrt{2} \sigma_{n, p} \sqrt{\frac{\log (n p)}{n}}+\frac{ C_{\tau} K_{n, p}^{2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / \tau}(2 \log (n p))^{1 / \tau }}{n} \bigg] $ , the lasso estimator is also sign consistent: $\text{sign} (\hat \beta_S) = \text{sign} (\beta^{*}_S)$.
Applying the result of Theorem \[subgauconsis\] for $\gamma = 2$, we can achieve the usual consistency rate of $\sqrt{k \log p / n}$ for the ordinary squared error Lasso loss function under the constraint $$K_{\varepsilon, r}(\log (n p))^{-1 / 2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / 2}=o\left(n^{1 / 2}\right)$$ Note that the probability of the bound being satisfied approaches 1 as $n \to \infty$, and thus the bound is proportional $\log(np)$ instead of the usual $\log p$. By setting the probability to be $1 - O(p^{-1})$, the usual Lasso rate $\sqrt{k \log p / n }$ can be recovered.
### Subbotin Error
In the following section, we assume that $\epsilon$ follows a Subbotin distribution, i.e., $\epsilon \sim \text{Subbotin}(\gamma)$. We study this particular distributional assumption as the Extreme Lasso problem is equivalent to minimizing the negative log-likelihood of the Subbotin distribution plus the regularization penalty. To see this, recall the likelihood of Subbotin distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
f_Y(\y;\X;\operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}) &= c_1 \prod_{i=1}^n \exp \bigg[ - |y_i - \bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}|^{\gamma} \bigg] \\
&= c_1 \exp \bigg[ - \sum_{i=1}^n |y_i - \bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}|^{\gamma} \bigg] \end{aligned}$$ Thus, the negative log-likelihood, $\ell(\bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- y_i) \propto \sum_{i=1} |y_i - \bxi^T \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}|^{\gamma}$, corresponds to the loss function in the Extreme Lasso problem. Similar to before, our goal is to build a tail bound for $\| \X^T \epsilon^{\circ (\gamma-1)} \|_{\infty}/n$. To do this, we first observe that $\epsilon_i^{\theta}$ follows a Gamma distribution.
\[changeofvariable\] Suppose $\Z \sim $ Subbotin($\alpha$), where $\alpha$ is an even integer, then $$\Y= \Z^{\alpha} \sim Gamma(\frac{1}{\alpha},1).$$
Thus, by Lemma \[changeofvariable\], we have $\epsilon_i^{\theta} \sim \text{Gamma}(\frac{1}{\theta},1)$. Hence, $\epsilon_i^{\theta}$ follows a Gamma distribution and can be bounded by sub-Gamma tail bounds in literature [@boucheron2013concentration]. These results are stated in Lemma \[subgammatail\] and used to derive the results for Theorem \[subbotinconsis\] and Theorem \[subbotinmodelconsis\] below.
\[subgammatail\] If $\Z \sim $ Gamma($\alpha,\beta$), then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P [\Z - \mathbb E \Z] \geq \sqrt{2 \nu t} + ct ] \leq e^{-t} \hspace{5mm} $$ where $\nu = \alpha \beta^2$, $c = \beta$. We call that $\Z$ is sub-Gamma with $(\nu,c)$.
\[sumofsubgammatail\] If $\Z \sim $ Gamma($\alpha,\beta$), then with probability at least $1 - c_1 \exp(- c_2 \log p)$, $$\left\| \frac{1}{n} \sum_i^n X_i \epsilon_i \right \|_{\infty} \leq \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg[ 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\gamma}} + \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg]$$
\[subbotinconsis\] Given the Extreme Lasso program with regularization parameter $\lambda_n = 2 \gamma \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg[ 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\gamma}} + \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg] $, then with probability at least $1 - c_1 \exp(- c_2 \log p)$, any optimal solution $\hat \beta$ satisfies the bounds: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \hat \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^* \|_2 &\leq \frac{6 \sqrt{s}}{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}} \gamma ( \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg[ 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\gamma}} + \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg] ).\end{aligned}$$
\[subbotinmodelconsis\] Consider the Extreme Lasso program with Subbotin distributed error. Assume that the loss $\ell$ satisfies Restricted Strong Convexity and covariance matrices satisfy irrepresentability. Consider the family of regularization parameters $\lambda = \frac{4 \kappa_{\text{IC}}}{\tau} \gamma \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg[ 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\gamma}} + \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg] $, then the following properties holds with probability greater than $1 - c_1 \exp(- c_2 \log p)$:
\(i) The Lasso has a unique solution with support contained within $S$. (i.e., $S(\hat \beta) \subset S(\beta^*)$.
\(ii) If $\min_{a \in S} | \beta^{*}_{a}| > (\frac{\tau}{\kappa_{\text{IC}}} \cdot \frac{1}{4} + 1 ) \cdot \frac{2\sqrt{s}}{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}} \cdot \frac{4 \kappa_{\text{IC}}}{\tau} \gamma \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg[ 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\gamma}} + \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg]$, the lasso estimator is also sign consistent: $\text{sign} (\hat \beta_S) = \text{sign} (\beta^{*}_S)$.
Note that Gaussian distribution is equivalent to the Subbotin distribution when $\theta = 2$. Thus, in the case where $\epsilon_i$ is a Gaussian random variable, we have by Lemma \[changeofvariable\] that $\epsilon_i^{2}$ is Gamma($\frac{1}{2},1)$. Hence, $\epsilon_i^2$ is sub-Gamma with $(\frac{1}{2},1)$. Suppose that $\| \X_j \|_{\infty} \leq 1$, we then have $\X_j^T \epsilon$ is a sub-Gamma$(n/2,1)$ random variable. Thus, it follows from Lemma \[subgammatail\] that, in this particular case, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P\big( \X_j^T \epsilon - \mathbb E [\X_j^T \epsilon] \geq 2 \sqrt{ n t } + t \big) \leq e^{-t}.\end{aligned}$$ However, if we instead use known Lasso results for $\epsilon$ with sub-Gaussian tail bounds and set $t = \sigma \sqrt{\frac{c \log p }{n}}$, then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P\big( |\X_j^T \epsilon |/n \geq { t } \big) \leq 2 e^{- \frac{nt^2}{2\sigma^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ In effect, the sub-Gamma tail bound has an extra term compared to the sub-Gaussian bound. This can be seen when comparing the result of Theorem \[subbotinconsis\] and Theorem \[subbotinmodelconsis\] to the Lasso consistency rate derived using sub-Gaussian tail bounds. Specifically, there is an extra factor of $\frac{\log p}{n}$ term in the consistency rate result from Theorem \[subbotinconsis\] and Theorem \[subbotinmodelconsis\] compared to the regular Lasso consistency rate. This is to be expected given that the sub-Gamma is generally a weaker distributional assumption compared to the sub-Gaussian. However, this does show that the bound for Theorem \[subbotinconsis\] and Theorem \[subbotinmodelconsis\] is not necessarily tight for any particular values of $\theta$.
Empirical Investigations
========================
We study the performance of regularized extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression on two sets of simulations studies, one on the ordinary linear model case and the other on the mixture model case. We compare our method with penalized ordinary least squares regression, $\ell_1$ quantile regression, and Lasso regression after preprocessing the data using data-driven thresholding. We fit the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression using $\gamma = 4$ and $\gamma = 6$. For $\ell_1$ quantile regression, we find parameter estimates at the 0.5, 0.9, 0.99, and 0.999 quantiles. Data-driven thresholding is done by using the adaptive CUSUM method [@acusum] to identify extreme values in the response variable and removing any data which does not correspond to those observed extreme values. The number of variables for all methods is selected via oracle sparsity tuning. We use 5 replications for each scenario. The results for each of the simulations studies are shown below using average F-1 scores along with the standard deviations across all replications. The full results, which include F-1 scores, true positive rates, and false positive rates, can be found in the Appendix.
Linear Model Simulations
------------------------
For the linear model case, we simulate data from the model $\mathbf{y}_i = \mathbf{X}_i \mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^* + \epsilon_i$ where $\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \overset{iid}{\sim} Gamma(\alpha, \beta)$ (using the rate parameterization) before centering such that $\bar{\epsilon} = 0.$ The predictor matrices $\mathbf{X}$ contain $n = 1000$ observations and $p = 750$ features. The columns of the matrix are generated as AR(1) processes with variance 1 and a cross-correlation between columns of $\rho = 0.9$. We then add large positive extreme values to the columns at known observation points; these are different for each column. The true parameter vector $\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^*$ is set to have 10 nonzero entries. Our goal is to recover the full non-zero support of $\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}^*$ without recovering false positives. Below, we analyze four different varying simulation specifications:
1. The signal to noise ratio of the extreme events relative to baseline noise, which we denote as $\tau$.
2. The number of extreme events added to each of the columns of $\mathbf{X}$.
3. The distribution of the errors $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$.
4. The number of dimensions $P$, holding the number of observations and parameter sparsity level constant.
#### Scenario 1: Magnitudes of Extreme Values in Response
Here, we change the size of the signal to noise ratio, comparing $\tau = 6, 7, 11$, and $15$. The results are shown in Table \[tab:lmm1\]. When the signal to noise ratio of the extreme values is not sufficiently large, none of the methods are able to select the correct features. Similarly, if the signal to noise ratio is large enough, all of the methods except quantile regression are able to pick out the correct features. However, we see that there is a fairly large window of $\tau$ values in which the extreme value regression methods are able to find the correct features while ordinary linear regression and thresholding fail.
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 11 $\tau$ = 15
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.196 (0.1382) 0.209 (0.1778) 0.875 (0.05) 0.938 (0.0481)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.296 (0.1416) 0.782 (0.0894) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.938 (0.0481)
Lasso 0.2 (0.1414) 0.225 (0.15) 0.3 (0) 0.938 (0.0481)
Median 0.149 (0.0357) 0.301 (0.2087) 0.529 (0.0626) 0.44 (0.1056)
Q0.9 0.149 (0.0357) 0.127 (0.0429) 0.185 (0.1239) 0.147 (0.0508)
Q0.99 0.095 (0.0394) 0.09 (0.0194) 0.102 (0.0355) 0.111 (0)
Q0.999 0.132 (0.1028) 0.219 (0.2222) 0.328 (0.2583) 0.321 (0.1821)
Threshold 0.028 (0.0556) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.893 (0.1056)
: \[tab:lmm1\]Average F-1 scores, changing relative extreme value magnitudes for the linear model.
#### Scenario 2: Number of Extreme Events in Response
We now vary the number of extreme value events $E$ from 1 to 4, with $\tau = 6$. Results are shown in Table \[tab:lmm2\]. As we observed above, in the case of one extreme event at $\tau = 6$, none of the methods do well. When there is more than one extreme event though, the extreme value regression is able to pick out the correct features. None of the other methods are able to perform nearly as well when we increase the number of extreme value events in this case, with only a slight improvement in performance at $E = 4$ compared to $E = 1$.
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.225 (0.05) 0.79 (0.0838) 0.913 (0.0857)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.788 (0.2022) 0.779 (0.1447) 0.85 (0.1291)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0.36 (0.1925) 0.339 (0.0773) 0.325 (0.05)
Median 0.529 (0.0626) 0.513 (0.059) 0.472 (0.1155) 0.457 (0.1337)
Q0.9 0.185 (0.1239) 0.301 (0.0809) 0.311 (0.157) 0.414 (0.1092)
Q0.99 0.102 (0.0355) 0.107 (0.0053) 0.099 (0.0048) 0.126 (0.0376)
Q0.999 0.328 (0.2583) 0.232 (0.0992) 0.334 (0.0793) 0.445 (0.2531)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15)
: \[tab:lmm2\]Average F-1 scores, changing number of extreme events for the linear model.
#### Scenario 3: Error Distributions
In this scenario, we change the distribution of the added errors by changing the rate parameter of the pre-centered Gamma distribution from which they are generated. By decreasing the rate parameter, we increase the variance of the errors and thus increase the probability of the presence of added errors with magnitudes that are approximately as large as the true extreme events themselves. We study the cases where $\beta = 0.33, 0.2, 0.125$, and $0.083$ at $\tau = 11$. We can see from Table \[tab:lmm3\] that, starting from the baseline scenario with $\beta = 0.33$, the increasing rate parameter significantly affects the extreme value regression models in terms of accuracy compared to the other methods. This is not surprising, since we would expect the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression model to be more sensitive to large errors that are not actually true signal. However, we note that, even in the scenario with the largest error variance, the extreme value regression methods still outperform all of the others.
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.125 $\beta$ = 0.083
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.8 (0.1155) 0.625 (0.1258) 0.275 (0.2217)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.75 (0.1732) 0.682 (0.1284) 0.425 (0.15)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0.2 (0.1414) 0.262 (0.1103) 0.175 (0.15)
Median 0.529 (0.0626) 0.338 (0.1134) 0.46 (0.1078) 0.403 (0.1414)
Q-0.9 0.185 (0.1239) 0.122 (0.0465) 0.121 (0.041) 0.097 (0.0071)
Q-0.99 0.102 (0.0355) 0.092 (0.0055) 0.092 (0.0096) 0.097 (0.0096)
Q-0.999 0.328 (0.2583) 0.202 (0.1506) 0.093 (0.0087) 0.093 (0.0105)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.05 (0.1) 0.073 (0.0994) 0 (0)
: \[tab:lmm3\]Average F-1 scores, changing error distribution for the linear model.
#### Scenario 4: Number of Dimensions
We change the number of dimensions of the model matrix to study the performance of the different methods in relatively higher dimensional settings. We let $P = 750, 1500, 2250, $ and $3000$, while we hold the number of true features constant (thus decreasing the sparsity level as we increase $P$). Table \[tab:lmm4\] shows the results. All of the approaches do tend to decay in accuracy. In particular, the least squares and extreme value regression methods tend to show a relatively larger decline in performance, while the the quantile regression at large quantiles and thresholding appear to be more stable. Once again though, even when performance decays in the higher dimensional settings, the F-1 scores for the extreme value regression methods still exceed any of the others.
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.75 (0.0577) 0.827 (0.0848) 0.627 (0.2906)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.65 (0.1) 0.642 (0.1962) 0.55 (0.1)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.529 (0.0626) 0.249 (0.0671) 0.247 (0.1579) 0.103 (0.0269)
Q-0.9 0.185 (0.1239) 0.117 (0.0553) 0.102 (0.0119) 0.103 (0.0269)
Q-0.99 0.102 (0.0355) 0.1 (0.0041) 0.089 (0.0051) 0.095 (0.0037)
Q-0.999 0.328 (0.2583) 0.117 (0.0495) 0.279 (0.2265) 0.089 (0.0051)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
: \[tab:lmm4\]Average F-1 scores, changing number of dimensions of predictor matrix in the linear model.
Mixture Model Simulations
-------------------------
For the mixture model case, we simulate data from the model $\mathbf{y}_i = \sum_{k = 1}^K \mathds{1}_{jk} \mathbf{X}_i \mathbf{\boldsymbol{\beta}}_k + \epsilon_i$ with $\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \overset{iid}{\sim} Gamma(\alpha, \beta)$; each column is exclusively associated with one component. As above, the predictor matrices $\mathbf{X}$ contain $N = 1000$ observations and $P = 750$ features, and the columns are generated as AR(1) processes. We use $K = 4$ mixture components. The first component contains features with one or more extreme values at one of several randomly selected observation points. The second component contains variables with no extreme values but which has a mean shift of $2 \sigma^2$ at the $N/2$th observation. The third component contains variables with high cross-correlation ($\rho = 0.9$) to one of the variables in the first mixture component, but with different extreme value observation points. The fourth contains uncorrelated white noise variables. Components 1, 2, and 3 each contain 10 of the features of the data matrix, while component 4 contains all of the other variables. We set parameter vectors for the first and third components to be non-zero and the other two to be fully zero. Our goal is to recover the variables that are in the first component without selecting any variables from any of the other components. Again, we analyze four different varying simulation specifications:
1. The signal to noise ratio of the extreme events relative to baseline noise, $\tau$.
2. The number of extreme events added to the variables in the first and third components.
3. The distribution of the errors $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$.
4. The number of dimensions $P$, holding the number of observations and parameter sparsity level for each of the mixture components constant.
#### Scenario 1: Magnitude of Extreme Values of Response Variable
We first vary the size of the signal to noise ratio between $\tau = 6, 7, 9, $ and $50.$ The results are shown in Table \[tab:mmm1\]. The extreme value methods are able to select the true features at a relatively smaller level of $\tau$. The least squares and thresholding methods are unable to select the features associated with the extreme values until $\tau$ is astronomically large. Meanwhile, the quantile regression methods appear to do better than many of the other methods when $\tau$ is relatively small, but the performance does not improve much with larger values of $\tau$.
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 9 $\tau$ = 50
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.128 (0.0986) 0.175 (0.1708) 0.9 (0.0816) 1 (0)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.259 (0.3143) 0.757 (0.0963) 1 (0) 1 (0)
Lasso 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15) 0 (0) 1 (0)
Median 0.094 (0.0022) 0.185 (0.1797) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.9 0.094 (0.0022) 0.14 (0.0887) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.99 0.179 (0.0599) 0.098 (0.0193) 0.312 (0.1434) 0.739 (0.1504)
Q0.999 0.348 (0.0986) 0.369 (0.1994) 0.394 (0.1643) 0.474 (0.1721)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.123 (0.1798) 0.384 (0.392) 0.977 (0.0455)
: \[tab:mmm1\]Average F-1 scores, changing relative extreme value magnitudes for the mixture model.
### Scenario 2: Number of Extreme Events in Response
Here, we change the number of extreme value events $E$ from 1 to 4 for $\tau = 6$. Results are shown in Table \[tab:mmm2\]. As we increase the number of extreme value events, the performance of the extreme value methods steadily increases. Thresholding and quantile regression also tend to perform slightly better with more extreme events, although the improvement is not as drastic. The least squares regression methods never are able to pick any of the features associated with the extreme events.
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.128 (0.0986) 0.313 (0.1514) 0.632 (0.1489) 0.836 (0.0473)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.259 (0.3143) 0.52 (0.0869) 0.795 (0.1527) 0.908 (0.0789)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.094 (0.0022) 0.094 (0.0022) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.9 0.094 (0.0022) 0.094 (0.0022) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.99 0.179 (0.0599) 0.421 (0.1032) 0.604 (0.093) 0.65 (0.1238)
Q0.999 0.348 (0.0986) 0.358 (0.0519) 0.45 (0.1935) 0.474 (0.1154)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.229 (0.1455) 0.596 (0.1489) 0.758 (0.1173)
: \[tab:mmm2\]Average F-1 scores, changing number of extreme events for the mixture model.
### Scenario 3: Error Distributions
In this scenario, we vary the distribution of the added errors by changing the rate parameter to $\beta = 0.33, 0.2, 0.166$, and $0.125$ at $\tau = 9$. Table \[tab:mmm3\] displays the results. Once again, an increase in the rate parameter significantly degrades the performance the extreme value methods because of the increased presence of large magnitude errors, while other methods are not affected nearly as much. We do eventually see a point where the extreme value methods perform worse than quantile or thresholding.
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.166 $\beta$ = 0.125
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.9 (0.0816) 0.875 (0.1258) 0.816 (0.0526) 0.278 (0.3587)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0.582 (0.2852) 0.184 (0.217)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.094 (0.0022)
Q-0.9 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.094 (0.0022)
Q-0.99 0.312 (0.1434) 0.14 (0.0494) 0.249 (0.0897) 0.24 (0.0465)
Q-0.999 0.394 (0.1643) 0.299 (0.0897) 0.19 (0.0186) 0.115 (0.0505)
Threshold 0.384 (0.392) 0.05 (0.1) 0.64 (0.0773) 0.508 (0.2058)
: \[tab:mmm3\]Average F-1 scores, changing error distribution for the mixture model.
### Scenario 4: Number of Dimensions
We change the number of dimensions of the model matrix to $P = 750, 1500, 2250, $ and $3000$, with $\tau = 9$ and holding the number of features in components 1, 2, and 3 constant. Results are in Table \[tab:mmm4\]. The performance of the extreme value and least squares methods do not change much with the increased dimensionality. The quantile regression methods actually perform slightly better with more dimensions, while thresholding tends to do worse.
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.9 (0.0816) 0.816 (0.0526) 0.922 (0.0673) 0.838 (0.0062)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 1 (0) 0.947 (0) 0.961 (0.0263) 0.947 (0)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q-0.9 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q-0.99 0.312 (0.1434) 0.238 (0.0794) 0.189 (0.0744) 0.093 (0.0262)
Q-0.999 0.394 (0.1643) 0.39 (0.0962) 0.501 (0.0663) 0.577 (0.2264)
Threshold 0.384 (0.392) 0.32 (0.1879) 0.316 (0.087) 0 (0)
: \[tab:mmm4\]Average F-1 scores, changing number of dimensions of predictor matrix in the mixture model.
Real Data Investigations
------------------------
We now study the performance of regularized extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression on two different real-world data sets to demonstrate the potential usefulness of the method in different applications.
### Neuroscience: Calcium Imaging
The first data set we look at comes from calcium imaging studies in the field of neuroscience. The data set we examine here contains fluorescence traces for spontaneous neuronal activity for 6386 simultaneously recorded neurons in the visual cortex of a mouse brain. Most of the traces of neuron activity, when plotted over time, look like Figure \[fig:realspikeact\]; we see a few large spikes representing times when the neurons fire, and mean zero white noise otherwise. However, some of the neuron activity in the data set look like Figure \[fig:realbaseact\], where there appears to be a substantial mean shift in the fluorescence traces over time.
[0.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
[0.475]{} {width="\linewidth"}
For this particular study, we use the full fluorescence trace data set as our set of predictor variables. We then simulate a response variable using the linear model setup. To do this, we first select a set neurons that exhibit large spike activity with no mean shift and a set of neurons that exhibit a baseline mean shift. We then choose a random subset of both of these types of neurons and take a linear combination of them, subject to added noise, in order to create our response variable. Our goal for this study is to select the large spike activity neurons which comprise the simulated response variable without selecting the chosen baseline mean shift neurons or any of the other neurons in the data set. Values of $\lambda$ are selected via cross-validation. We show mean F-1 score results and standard errors over 4 replications for medium and hard difficulty cases in Table \[tab:realdat\]. We create 3 different simulations, adjusting the approximate signal to noise ratio between the spikes and the baseline shifts. Full results in tabular form can be found in the Appendix.
$\tau$ = 10 $\tau$ = 7.5 $\tau$= 5
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.78 (0.0977) 0.605 (0.1008) 0.152 (0.0991)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.805 (0.2162) 0.5 (0.1008) 0.44 (0.1008)
Lasso 0.277 (0.1604) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.053 (0.0365) 0.085 (0.0088) 0.077 (0.0065)
Q-0.9 0 (0) 0.085 (0.0088) 0.076 (0.0065)
Q-0.99 0.103 (0.003) 0.182 (0) 0.165 (0)
Q-0.999 0.098 (0.0027) 0.126 (0.0105) 0.113 (0)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
: \[tab:realdat\]Average F-1 scores, real data example.
As we might expect, the resulting F-1 scores for all methods decrease as we decrease the signal to noise ratio of the extreme values relative to the baseline noise. This occurs at about the same rate for the extreme value and least squares methods. However, we can see that the extreme value regression methods perform much better on the whole compared to the least squares regressions. Interestingly, the quantile regression do not appear to degrade (or even change much at all) in performance as the signal to noise ratio decreases, though they are not very accurate to begin with. The thresholding method tends to fail here because it tends to overselect random noise as extreme values in the response.
### Finance: Volatility Modeling
The second data set we look at comes from the daily closing stock prices for the companies which compose the FTSE 100 Index of the London Stock Exchange. Specifically, the data contains daily percent changes in closing stock prices for 98 FTSE 100 corporations from January 1st, 2016 to December 31st 2017, encapsulating a total of 504 open trading days (only corporations corporations that were a part of the FTSE 100 for the entire duration of the time period are analyzed). For our analysis, we chose Fresnillo Plc (FRES), a mining corporation which is incorporated in the United Kingdom and headquartered in Mexico City, as our response variable; this particular corporation was selected because it showed a few days of highly volatile activity during the time period in both the positive and negative directions. The other 97 corporations were included as potential features. We fit Lasso regression and 8th power Extreme Lasso regression models to the overall data and compare these results to a Lasso regression fit to the same data set preprocessed to include only the 5 most volatile days for FRES. Values of $\lambda$ are selected via cross-validation. Overall, the results from the Extreme Lasso regression model fit on the overall data are much closer to the Lasso regression fit to the most volatile days compared to the ordinary Lasso regression model, as seen in Table \[tab:fres\]. Thus, we can see that the results from an extreme linear regression model can closely resemble the results one would get of running a two-step pipeline to filter for extreme values before fitting an ordinary linear regression model
Model F-1 Score
--------------- -----------
Lasso 0.4827
Extreme Lasso 0.8387
: \[tab:fres\] F-1 scores for Lasso versus Extreme Lasso compared to Lasso on volatile days for FRES stock volatility data.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we have introduced the extreme value regression, a potential new methodological approach to linear regression for extreme values. Our method is motivated by $\ell_{\gamma}$-norm regression, which gives much more weight to the loss for large magnitude residuals relative to ordinary least squares. This concept has several advantages over other methods currently used in the literature, namely that it does not require using a two-step pipeline of pre-processing the data before analysis, nor does it force the data to be binarized as either extreme or non-extreme. Our method also does not necessitate the a priori choice of certain model hyperparameters that may be difficult to select. Our simulation studies provide promising results which demonstrate that, for a response variable with rare extreme values, the extreme value $\ell_{\gamma}$ norm regression model with automatic feature selection performs better than quantile regression, thresholding, and least squares penalized regression in terms of selecting predictors which are correlated with the extreme values in the response. We have also shown deterministic finite sample performance guarantees for consistency and model selection consistency of the Extreme Lasso regression model under the assumption of a linear data generating model with different potential error distributions, demonstrating that the estimates from the extreme $\ell_p$-norm regression model are reliable. The theoretical results here could also be of use for other types of similar problems. In particular, the concentration bounds and theory presented for the case of generalized normal distributed errors for $\gamma > 2$ could be applied to generate new theoretical results for other mathematical statistics problems.
There are several potential areas for future work in the extreme value $\ell_p$ norm regression. Our theoretical work has mainly focused on using a simple $\ell_1$ Lasso penalty for regularization under the linear regression data generating model. However, the extreme values in a response variable could come from a variety of different data generating models, such as the mixture model studied in Section 4; theoretical guarantees for these different cases could be interesting to explore. There remains potential methodological developments for the extreme value $\ell_p$ norm regression to explore as well. Just as ordinary regression methods are insufficient for fitting a model for the extreme values, traditional model selection methods may not perform well in this context. While we use regular cross-validation to select $\lambda$ during model fitting in our real data examples, we recognize that this may not be the optimal method. The model selection problem likely requires more nuanced treatment, as naive bootstrapping or cross-validation methods may not work well when the extreme values are particularly rare. Also, while we have only presented potential applications to neuroscience and finance, our method has the potential to be applied broadly to a variety of fields, including in signal processing or for spectral domain data, and explorations in to other applications could provide new insights. In conclusion, we develop a novel method that opens many area for future research.
Proofs for Section 3
====================
Lemma 3.3
---------
For $t > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P(\Q^{\gamma} \geq t) = \mathbb P(\Q \geq t^{^{1/\gamma}}) = \mathbb P( e^{\lambda \Q} \geq e^{\lambda t^{^{1/\gamma}}} ) \leq \frac{e ^{ \sigma^2 \lambda^2 / 2 } }{ e^{\lambda t^{^{1/\gamma}}}} = \exp \bigg\{ \sigma^2 \lambda^2 / 2 - \lambda t^{^{1/\gamma}} \bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side is minimized by $\lambda^* = \frac{t^{1/\gamma}}{\sigma^2}$. Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P(\Q^{\gamma} \geq t) \leq \exp\bigg\{- \frac{ t^{2/\gamma}}{2\sigma^2} \bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ $\square$
Theorem 3.1
-----------
In the Extreme Lasso problem, by Lemma \[subweibulltail\], $ \| \epsilon_i^{\gamma - 1} \|_{\psi_\nu} \leq K_{n,p}$ where $\nu = \frac{2}{\gamma -1}$. For fixed design $\X$, $\X_i$’s are marginally sub-Weibull $(\infty)$ and $$\max _{1 \leq i \leq n}\left\|X_{i}\right\|_{M, \psi_{2}} \leq \max _{1 \leq i \leq n}\left\|X_{i}\right\|_{M, \psi_{\infty}}=\max _{1 \leq i \leq n} \max _{1 \leq j \leq p}\left|X_{i}(j)\right|.$$ Applying Lemma \[sumofsubweibulltail\] with $\alpha=\infty$, we have $\tau = 2/(\gamma-1)$. Therefore, by choosing $\lambda_n$ to be $$\lambda_n = 2 \gamma \big( 7 \sqrt{2} \sigma_{n, p} \sqrt{\frac{\log (n p)}{n}}+ \frac{C_{\tau} K_{n, p}^{2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / \tau}(2 \log (n p))^{1 / \tau }}{n}\bigg),$$ the Extreme Lasso estimator satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\| \hat \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}- \operatorname{\boldsymbol \beta}^* \|_2 &\leq \frac{6 \sqrt{s}}{\kappa_{ {\mathcal{L}}}} \cdot \gamma \bigg( 7 \sqrt{2} \sigma_{n, p} \sqrt{\frac{\log (n p)}{n}}+\frac{ C_{\tau} K_{n, p}^{2}(\log (2 n))^{1 / \tau}(2 \log (n p))^{1 / \tau }}{n} \bigg)\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau = 2/(\gamma-1).$
$\square$
Theorem 3.2
-----------
Similar to Theorem \[subgauconsis\], we prove model selection Consistency holds by applying Lemma \[mestmodelconsis\] with the concentration bound demonstrated in Lemma \[sumofsubweibulltail\].
$\square$
Lemma 3.5
---------
Suppose $\Z \sim $ Subbotin($\alpha$), i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
f_\Z(z) = \frac{\alpha}{2 \Gamma(\frac{1}{\alpha} )} \exp\big[ - | z |^{\alpha} \big] .\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Y = \Z ^{\alpha} $, then $z = \pm y^{\frac{1}{\alpha}}$, $| \frac{dz}{dy} | = \frac{1}{\alpha} y^{\frac{1}{\alpha} - 1} $ and $$\begin{aligned}
f_\Y(y) = \frac{\alpha}{\Gamma(\frac{1}{\alpha})} \exp[-y] \frac{1}{\alpha} y^{\frac{1}{\alpha} - 1} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\frac{1}{\alpha})} \exp[-y] y^{\frac{1}{\alpha} - 1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\Y= \Z^{\alpha} \sim$ Gamma$(\frac{1}{\alpha},1)$.
$\square$
Lemma 3.7
---------
In our case, by Lemma \[changeofvariable\], we have $\epsilon_i^{\theta} \sim$ Gamma$(1/\theta,1)$. Hence, Lemma \[subgammatail\] suggests $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P\big( \epsilon_i^{\theta} - \mathbb E [\epsilon_i^{\theta}] \geq 2 \sqrt{2 \frac{1}{\theta} t } + t \big) \leq e^{-t}.\end{aligned}$$ If $\gamma - 1 \leq \theta$, we can show that $\epsilon_i^{\gamma-1}$ is also sub-Gamma with $(\frac{1}{\theta},1)$ as the latter one has lower tail. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P\big( \epsilon_i^{\gamma-1} - \frac{1}{\theta} \geq 2 \sqrt{2 \frac{1}{\theta} t } + t \big) \leq \mathbb P\big( \epsilon_i^{\theta} - \frac{1}{\theta} \geq 2 \sqrt{2 \frac{1}{\theta} t } + t \big) \leq e^{-t}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\| \X_j \|_{\infty} \leq 1$, we have $\X_j^T \epsilon^{\gamma-1}$ is sub-Gamma with $(n/\theta,1)$ since sum of sub-Gamma is also sub-Gamma. From this, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P\big( \X_j^T \epsilon^{\gamma-1} - \mathbb E [\X_j^T \epsilon^{\gamma-1}] \geq 2 \sqrt{2 \frac{n}{\theta} t } + t \big) \leq e^{-t}.\end{aligned}$$ By using union bounds, we thus have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb P\big( \| \X^T \epsilon^{\gamma-1} \|_{\infty} \geq 2 \sqrt{2 \frac{n}{\theta} t } + t \big) \leq p e^{-t} .\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $t = \log p$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\|\X^T \epsilon^{\gamma-1} \|_{\infty} \leq 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\theta}} \sqrt{n \log p} + \log p \end{aligned}$$ with probability at least $1 - c_1 \exp(- c_2 \log p)$. This is equivalent to: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\X^T \epsilon^{\gamma-1} \|_{\infty}/n & \leq 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\theta}} \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} + \frac{\log p}{n} \\
& = \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg[ 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\theta}} + \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg] \\
& \leq \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg[ 2 \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\gamma}} + \sqrt{ \frac{\log p}{n}} \bigg] \\\end{aligned}$$ with probability at least $1 - c_1 \exp(- c_2 \log p)$.
$\square$
Theorem 3.3
-----------
By applying Lemma \[mestconsis\] with the concentration bound demonstrated in Lemma \[sumofsubgammatail\], we have the consistency result.
$\square$
Theorem 3.4
-----------
By applying Lemma \[mestmodelconsis\] with the concentration bound demonstrated in Lemma \[sumofsubgammatail\], we have the model consistency result.
$\square$
Full Tabular Results
====================
Linear Model
------------
[*Scenario 1: Changing Magnitude of Extreme Values of Response Variable*]{}
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 11 $\tau$ = 15
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.196 (0.1382) 0.209 (0.1778) 0.875 (0.05) 0.938 (0.0481)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.296 (0.1416) 0.782 (0.0894) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.938 (0.0481)
ExSCAD 4th 0.196 (0.1382) 0.209 (0.1778) 0.875 (0.05) 0.938 (0.0481)
ExSCAD 6th 0.296 (0.1416) 0.782 (0.0894) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.938 (0.0481)
ExMCP 4th 0.1 (0.1155) 0.195 (0.1556) 0.888 (0.0637) 0.938 (0.0481)
ExMCP 6th 0.255 (0.0662) 0.757 (0.1606) 0.864 (0.0474) 0.938 (0.0481)
Lasso 0.2 (0.1414) 0.225 (0.15) 0.3 (0) 0.938 (0.0481)
SCAD 0.2 (0.1414) 0.225 (0.15) 0.3 (0) 0.938 (0.0481)
MCP 0.2 (0.1414) 0.225 (0.15) 0.3 (0) 0.963 (0.0477)
Median 0.149 (0.0357) 0.301 (0.2087) 0.529 (0.0626) 0.44 (0.1056)
Q0.9 0.149 (0.0357) 0.127 (0.0429) 0.185 (0.1239) 0.147 (0.0508)
Q0.99 0.095 (0.0394) 0.09 (0.0194) 0.102 (0.0355) 0.111 (0)
Q0.999 0.132 (0.1028) 0.219 (0.2222) 0.328 (0.2583) 0.321 (0.1821)
Threshold 0.028 (0.0556) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.893 (0.1056)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 score for changing extreme value magnitude.
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 11 $\tau$ = 15
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.193 (0.1355) 0.196 (0.1571) 0.875 (0.05) 0.927 (0.0487)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.293 (0.1421) 0.767 (0.1054) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.927 (0.0487)
ExSCAD 4th 0.193 (0.1355) 0.196 (0.1571) 0.875 (0.05) 0.927 (0.0487)
ExSCAD 6th 0.293 (0.1421) 0.767 (0.1054) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.927 (0.0487)
ExMCP 4th 0.1 (0.1155) 0.191 (0.1488) 0.877 (0.0517) 0.927 (0.0487)
ExMCP 6th 0.262 (0.0828) 0.764 (0.1467) 0.855 (0.053) 0.927 (0.0487)
Lasso 0.2 (0.1414) 0.225 (0.15) 0.3 (0) 0.927 (0.0487)
SCAD 0.2 (0.1414) 0.225 (0.15) 0.3 (0) 0.927 (0.0487)
MCP 0.2 (0.1414) 0.225 (0.15) 0.3 (0) 0.952 (0.0552)
Median 0.398 (0.2045) 0.318 (0.16) 0.446 (0.041) 0.435 (0.0842)
Q0.9 0.398 (0.2045) 0.164 (0.1179) 0.158 (0.1061) 0.145 (0.0449)
Q0.99 0.128 (0.1367) 0.086 (0.0384) 0.09 (0.0362) 0.125 (0)
Q0.999 0.175 (0.2165) 0.196 (0.2072) 0.303 (0.2673) 0.352 (0.2432)
Threshold 0.031 (0.0625) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.864 (0.1174)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing extreme value magnitude.
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 11 $\tau$ = 15
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.011 (0.0017) 0.011 (0.0014) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (7e-04)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.01 (0.002) 0.003 (0.0017) 0.002 (8e-04) 0.001 (7e-04)
ExSCAD 4th 0.011 (0.0017) 0.011 (0.0014) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (7e-04)
ExSCAD 6th 0.01 (0.002) 0.003 (0.0017) 0.002 (8e-04) 0.001 (7e-04)
ExMCP 4th 0.011 (0.0014) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (7e-04)
ExMCP 6th 0.01 (0.002) 0.003 (0.0017) 0.002 (8e-04) 0.001 (7e-04)
Lasso 0.011 (0.0019) 0.01 (0.002) 0.009 (0) 0.001 (7e-04)
SCAD 0.011 (0.0019) 0.01 (0.002) 0.009 (0) 0.001 (7e-04)
MCP 0.01 (8e-04) 0.01 (0.002) 0.009 (0) 0.001 (8e-04)
Median 0.004 (0.0061) 0.009 (0.0046) 0.011 (0) 0.008 (0.0013)
Q0.9 0.008 (0.0036) 0.011 (0.0045) 0.01 (0.003) 0.008 (0.0016)
Q0.99 0.017 (0.0093) 0.016 (0.0058) 0.018 (0.0059) 0.009 (0)
Q0.999 0.015 (0.0083) 0.016 (0.0055) 0.013 (0.0078) 0.008 (0.0039)
Threshold 0.009 (0.0019) 0.011 (0.0017) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.002 (0.0017)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing extreme value magnitude.
[*Scenario 2: Changing Number of Extreme Events in Response*]{}
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.225 (0.05) 0.79 (0.0838) 0.913 (0.0857)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.788 (0.2022) 0.779 (0.1447) 0.85 (0.1291)
ExSCAD 4th 0.875 (0.05) 0.225 (0.05) 0.79 (0.0838) 0.913 (0.0857)
ExSCAD 6th 0.85 (0.0577) 0.788 (0.2022) 0.779 (0.1447) 0.85 (0.1291)
ExMCP 4th 0.888 (0.0637) 0.25 (0.1) 0.788 (0.1192) 0.913 (0.0857)
ExMCP 6th 0.864 (0.0474) 0.813 (0.1555) 0.779 (0.1447) 0.89 (0.0978)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0.36 (0.1925) 0.339 (0.0773) 0.325 (0.05)
SCAD 0.3 (0) 0.36 (0.1925) 0.339 (0.0773) 0.325 (0.05)
MCP 0.3 (0) 0.295 (0.0741) 0.339 (0.0773) 0.325 (0.05)
Median 0.529 (0.0626) 0.513 (0.059) 0.472 (0.1155) 0.457 (0.1337)
Q0.9 0.185 (0.1239) 0.301 (0.0809) 0.311 (0.157) 0.414 (0.1092)
Q0.99 0.102 (0.0355) 0.107 (0.0053) 0.099 (0.0048) 0.126 (0.0376)
Q0.999 0.328 (0.2583) 0.232 (0.0992) 0.334 (0.0793) 0.445 (0.2531)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores for changing number of extreme events.
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.225 (0.05) 0.782 (0.0894) 0.902 (0.0818)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.777 (0.1913) 0.759 (0.1297) 0.85 (0.1291)
ExSCAD 4th 0.875 (0.05) 0.225 (0.05) 0.782 (0.0894) 0.902 (0.0818)
ExSCAD 6th 0.85 (0.0577) 0.777 (0.1913) 0.759 (0.1297) 0.85 (0.1291)
ExMCP 4th 0.877 (0.0517) 0.25 (0.1) 0.777 (0.0997) 0.902 (0.0818)
ExMCP 6th 0.855 (0.053) 0.802 (0.1436) 0.759 (0.1297) 0.882 (0.1133)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0.333 (0.1414) 0.329 (0.0583) 0.325 (0.05)
SCAD 0.3 (0) 0.333 (0.1414) 0.329 (0.0583) 0.325 (0.05)
MCP 0.3 (0) 0.291 (0.0676) 0.329 (0.0583) 0.325 (0.05)
Median 0.446 (0.041) 0.484 (0.078) 0.449 (0.0937) 0.444 (0.1012)
Q0.9 0.158 (0.1061) 0.283 (0.0754) 0.299 (0.148) 0.409 (0.1113)
Q0.99 0.09 (0.0362) 0.115 (0.0121) 0.098 (0.0096) 0.129 (0.0276)
Q0.999 0.303 (0.2673) 0.239 (0.1036) 0.322 (0.1004) 0.441 (0.2547)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing number of extreme events.
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.003 (0.0013) 0.001 (0.0011)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.002 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.0026) 0.003 (0.0017) 0.002 (0.0017)
ExSCAD 4th 0.002 (7e-04) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.003 (0.0013) 0.001 (0.0011)
ExSCAD 6th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.0026) 0.003 (0.0017) 0.002 (0.0017)
ExMCP 4th 0.002 (7e-04) 0.01 (0.0014) 0.003 (0.0013) 0.001 (0.0011)
ExMCP 6th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.0019) 0.003 (0.0017) 0.002 (0.0017)
Lasso 0.009 (0) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.009 (0) 0.009 (7e-04)
SCAD 0.009 (0) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.009 (0) 0.009 (7e-04)
MCP 0.009 (0) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.009 (0) 0.009 (7e-04)
Median 0.011 (0) 0.008 (0.0022) 0.008 (0.0011) 0.008 (0.0013)
Q0.9 0.01 (0.003) 0.011 (0.0016) 0.012 (0.0017) 0.009 (0.0011)
Q0.99 0.018 (0.0059) 0.01 (0.0013) 0.012 (0.0013) 0.011 (0.002)
Q0.999 0.013 (0.0078) 0.01 (0.0017) 0.01 (0.003) 0.008 (0.0036)
Threshold 0.01 (7e-04) 0.01 (7e-04) 0.009 (0) 0.01 (7e-04)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing number of extreme events.
[*Scenario 3: Changing Error Distribution*]{}
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.125 $\beta$ = 0.083
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.8 (0.1155) 0.625 (0.1258) 0.275 (0.2217)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.75 (0.1732) 0.682 (0.1284) 0.425 (0.15)
ExSCAD 4th 0.875 (0.05) 0.8 (0.1155) 0.625 (0.1258) 0.275 (0.2217)
ExSCAD 6th 0.85 (0.0577) 0.75 (0.1732) 0.682 (0.1284) 0.425 (0.15)
ExMCP 4th 0.888 (0.0637) 0.825 (0.0957) 0.625 (0.1258) 0.275 (0.2217)
ExMCP 6th 0.864 (0.0474) 0.788 (0.166) 0.575 (0.0957) 0.425 (0.15)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0.2 (0.1414) 0.262 (0.1103) 0.175 (0.15)
SCAD 0.3 (0) 0.2 (0.1414) 0.262 (0.1103) 0.175 (0.15)
MCP 0.3 (0) 0.2 (0.1414) 0.27 (0.1197) 0.15 (0.1732)
Median 0.529 (0.0626) 0.338 (0.1134) 0.46 (0.1078) 0.403 (0.1414)
Q-0.9 0.185 (0.1239) 0.122 (0.0465) 0.121 (0.041) 0.097 (0.0071)
Q-0.99 0.102 (0.0355) 0.092 (0.0055) 0.092 (0.0096) 0.097 (0.0096)
Q-0.999 0.328 (0.2583) 0.202 (0.1506) 0.093 (0.0087) 0.093 (0.0105)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.05 (0.1) 0.073 (0.0994) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores for changing residual distribution.
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.125 $\beta$ = 0.083
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.8 (0.1155) 0.625 (0.1258) 0.275 (0.2217)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.75 (0.1732) 0.667 (0.1247) 0.425 (0.15)
ExSCAD 4th 0.875 (0.05) 0.8 (0.1155) 0.625 (0.1258) 0.275 (0.2217)
ExSCAD 6th 0.85 (0.0577) 0.75 (0.1732) 0.667 (0.1247) 0.425 (0.15)
ExMCP 4th 0.877 (0.0517) 0.825 (0.0957) 0.625 (0.1258) 0.275 (0.2217)
ExMCP 6th 0.855 (0.053) 0.777 (0.1526) 0.575 (0.0957) 0.425 (0.15)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0.2 (0.1414) 0.252 (0.1013) 0.175 (0.15)
SCAD 0.3 (0) 0.2 (0.1414) 0.252 (0.1013) 0.175 (0.15)
MCP 0.3 (0) 0.2 (0.1414) 0.266 (0.1146) 0.15 (0.1732)
Median 0.446 (0.041) 0.33 (0.0991) 0.449 (0.0937) 0.385 (0.1168)
Q-0.9 0.158 (0.1061) 0.12 (0.0449) 0.117 (0.034) 0.094 (0.0136)
Q-0.99 0.09 (0.0362) 0.086 (0.0099) 0.086 (0.0176) 0.096 (0.0199)
Q-0.999 0.303 (0.2673) 0.207 (0.1615) 0.087 (0.0163) 0.088 (0.0184)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.05 (0.1) 0.072 (0.1048) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing residual distribution.
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.125 $\beta$ = 0.083
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.003 (0.0016) 0.005 (0.0017) 0.01 (0.003)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.002 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.0023) 0.005 (0.0017) 0.008 (0.002)
ExSCAD 4th 0.002 (7e-04) 0.003 (0.0016) 0.005 (0.0017) 0.01 (0.003)
ExSCAD 6th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.0023) 0.005 (0.0017) 0.008 (0.002)
ExMCP 4th 0.002 (7e-04) 0.002 (0.0013) 0.005 (0.0017) 0.01 (0.003)
ExMCP 6th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.002) 0.006 (0.0013) 0.008 (0.002)
Lasso 0.009 (0) 0.012 (0.0039) 0.011 (0.0016) 0.011 (0.002)
SCAD 0.009 (0) 0.012 (0.0039) 0.011 (0.0016) 0.011 (0.002)
MCP 0.009 (0) 0.011 (0.0019) 0.01 (0.0014) 0.011 (0.0023)
Median 0.011 (0) 0.009 (0.0019) 0.008 (0.0013) 0.009 (8e-04)
Q-0.9 0.01 (0.003) 0.012 (7e-04) 0.014 (0.0023) 0.013 (0.0013)
Q-0.99 0.018 (0.0059) 0.015 (0.0017) 0.015 (0.0029) 0.013 (0.0026)
Q-0.999 0.013 (0.0078) 0.011 (0.0033) 0.015 (0.0026) 0.015 (0.0034)
Threshold 0.01 (7e-04) 0.014 (0.0048) 0.016 (0.0045) 0.014 (0.0013)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing residual distribution.
[*Scenario 4: Changing Number of Dimensions*]{}
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.75 (0.0577) 0.827 (0.0848) 0.627 (0.2906)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.65 (0.1) 0.642 (0.1962) 0.55 (0.1)
ExSCAD 4th 0.875 (0.05) 0.75 (0.0577) 0.827 (0.0848) 0.627 (0.2906)
ExSCAD 6th 0.85 (0.0577) 0.65 (0.1) 0.642 (0.1962) 0.55 (0.1)
ExMCP 4th 0.888 (0.0637) 0.75 (0.0577) 0.615 (0.2091) 0.425 (0.2062)
ExMCP 6th 0.864 (0.0474) 0.664 (0.1218) 0.521 (0.1279) 0.6 (0)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0.3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0.3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.529 (0.0626) 0.249 (0.0671) 0.247 (0.1579) 0.103 (0.0269)
Q-0.9 0.185 (0.1239) 0.117 (0.0553) 0.102 (0.0119) 0.103 (0.0269)
Q-0.99 0.102 (0.0355) 0.1 (0.0041) 0.089 (0.0051) 0.095 (0.0037)
Q-0.999 0.328 (0.2583) 0.117 (0.0495) 0.279 (0.2265) 0.089 (0.0051)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores for changing number of dimensions.
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.875 (0.05) 0.75 (0.0577) 0.752 (0.0346) 0.542 (0.2378)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.85 (0.0577) 0.65 (0.1) 0.617 (0.1607) 0.55 (0.1)
ExSCAD 4th 0.875 (0.05) 0.75 (0.0577) 0.752 (0.0346) 0.542 (0.2378)
ExSCAD 6th 0.85 (0.0577) 0.65 (0.1) 0.617 (0.1607) 0.55 (0.1)
ExMCP 4th 0.877 (0.0517) 0.75 (0.0577) 0.663 (0.2358) 0.425 (0.2062)
ExMCP 6th 0.855 (0.053) 0.672 (0.0713) 0.544 (0.1423) 0.6 (0)
Lasso 0.3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0.3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0.3 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.446 (0.041) 0.229 (0.0473) 0.247 (0.1426) 0.124 (0.0845)
Q-0.9 0.158 (0.1061) 0.111 (0.0596) 0.107 (0.0266) 0.124 (0.0845)
Q-0.99 0.09 (0.0362) 0.101 (0.0083) 0.081 (0.0084) 0.091 (0.0068)
Q-0.999 0.303 (0.2673) 0.112 (0.0494) 0.267 (0.2336) 0.081 (0.0084)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing number of dimensions.
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.003 (8e-04) 0.004 (0) 0.008 (0.0028)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.002 (8e-04) 0.005 (0.0014) 0.005 (0.0019) 0.006 (0.0014)
ExSCAD 4th 0.002 (7e-04) 0.003 (8e-04) 0.004 (0) 0.008 (0.0028)
ExSCAD 6th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.005 (0.0014) 0.005 (0.0019) 0.006 (0.0014)
ExMCP 4th 0.002 (7e-04) 0.003 (8e-04) 0.004 (0.0029) 0.008 (0.0028)
ExMCP 6th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.004 (0.0013) 0.006 (0.002) 0.005 (0)
Lasso 0.009 (0) 0.015 (0.002) 0.014 (0) 0.015 (0.002)
SCAD 0.009 (0) 0.015 (0.002) 0.014 (0) 0.015 (0.002)
MCP 0.009 (0) 0.014 (0.0022) 0.013 (0.0014) 0.014 (0.0014)
Median 0.011 (0) 0.012 (0.0011) 0.01 (0.0026) 0.012 (0.0058)
Q-0.9 0.01 (0.003) 0.014 (0.0028) 0.013 (0.0028) 0.015 (0.0029)
Q-0.99 0.018 (0.0059) 0.012 (0.0011) 0.016 (0.0017) 0.014 (0.0011)
Q-0.999 0.013 (0.0078) 0.014 (0.0028) 0.012 (0.0051) 0.016 (0.0017)
Threshold 0.01 (7e-04) 0.021 (7e-04) 0.02 (0.0098) 0.016 (0.0052)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing number of dimensions.
Mixture Model
-------------
[*Scenario 1: Changing Magnitude of Extreme Values of Response Variable*]{}
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 9 $\tau$ = 50
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.128 (0.0986) 0.175 (0.1708) 0.9 (0.0816) 1 (0)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.259 (0.3143) 0.757 (0.0963) 1 (0) 1 (0)
ExSCAD 4th 0.128 (0.0986) 0.175 (0.1708) 0.9 (0.0816) 1 (0)
ExSCAD 6th 0.259 (0.3143) 0.757 (0.0963) 1 (0) 1 (0)
ExMCP 4th 0.028 (0.0556) 0.106 (0.1222) 0.82 (0.0688) 0.972 (0.0556)
ExMCP 6th 0.105 (0.2105) 0.653 (0.1974) 0.946 (0.0454) 1 (0)
Lasso 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15) 0 (0) 1 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15) 0 (0) 1 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15) 0 (0) 1 (0)
Median 0.094 (0.0022) 0.185 (0.1797) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.9 0.094 (0.0022) 0.14 (0.0887) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.99 0.179 (0.0599) 0.098 (0.0193) 0.312 (0.1434) 0.739 (0.1504)
Q0.999 0.348 (0.0986) 0.369 (0.1994) 0.394 (0.1643) 0.474 (0.1721)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.123 (0.1798) 0.384 (0.392) 0.977 (0.0455)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores for changing magnitude of extreme value magnitude.
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 9 $\tau$ = 50
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.131 (0.102) 0.175 (0.1708) 0.9 (0.0816) 1 (0)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.246 (0.2936) 0.742 (0.1067) 1 (0) 1 (0)
ExSCAD 4th 0.131 (0.102) 0.175 (0.1708) 0.9 (0.0816) 1 (0)
ExSCAD 6th 0.246 (0.2936) 0.742 (0.1067) 1 (0) 1 (0)
ExMCP 4th 0.031 (0.0625) 0.112 (0.1315) 0.842 (0.0618) 1 (0)
ExMCP 6th 0.111 (0.2222) 0.686 (0.1878) 1 (0) 1 (0)
Lasso 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15) 0 (0) 1 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15) 0 (0) 1 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0.075 (0.15) 0 (0) 1 (0)
Median 0.089 (0.0038) 0.172 (0.1629) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0)
Q0.9 0.089 (0.0038) 0.131 (0.0795) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0)
Q0.99 0.166 (0.0587) 0.1 (0.0322) 0.303 (0.1415) 0.671 (0.1675)
Q0.999 0.389 (0.1361) 0.346 (0.188) 0.373 (0.1713) 0.426 (0.1602)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.122 (0.1714) 0.353 (0.3505) 0.958 (0.0833)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing magnitude of extreme value magnitude.
$\tau$ = 6 $\tau$ = 7 $\tau$ = 9 $\tau$ = 50
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.011 (0.0013) 0.011 (0.0023) 0.001 (0.0011) 0 (0)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.01 (0.0028) 0.004 (0.0017) 0 (0) 0 (0)
ExSCAD 4th 0.011 (0.0013) 0.011 (0.0023) 0.001 (0.0011) 0 (0)
ExSCAD 6th 0.01 (0.0028) 0.004 (0.0017) 0 (0) 0 (0)
ExMCP 4th 0.01 (8e-04) 0.01 (0.0014) 0.002 (8e-04) 0 (0)
ExMCP 6th 0.01 (0.0023) 0.004 (0.002) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Lasso 0.013 (7e-04) 0.012 (0.002) 0.014 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0.013 (7e-04) 0.012 (0.002) 0.014 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0.013 (7e-04) 0.012 (0.0019) 0.013 (0.0014) 0 (0)
Median 0.014 (7e-04) 0.012 (0.002) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0)
Q0.9 0.014 (8e-04) 0.014 (8e-04) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (7e-04)
Q0.99 0.014 (0.004) 0.014 (0.007) 0.01 (0.0026) 0.006 (0.0032)
Q0.999 0.007 (0.0032) 0.011 (0.0052) 0.01 (0.0036) 0.01 (0.0051)
Threshold 0.009 (0.0023) 0.011 (0.0019) 0.008 (0.0034) 0.001 (0.0014)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing magnitude of extreme value magnitude.
[*Scenario 2: Changing Number of Extreme Events in Response*]{}
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.128 (0.0986) 0.313 (0.1514) 0.632 (0.1489) 0.836 (0.0473)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.259 (0.3143) 0.52 (0.0869) 0.795 (0.1527) 0.908 (0.0789)
ExSCAD 4th 0.128 (0.0986) 0.313 (0.1514) 0.632 (0.1489) 0.836 (0.0473)
ExSCAD 6th 0.259 (0.3143) 0.52 (0.0869) 0.795 (0.1527) 0.908 (0.0789)
ExMCP 4th 0.028 (0.0556) 0.164 (0.136) 0.559 (0.2802) 0.743 (0.1306)
ExMCP 6th 0.105 (0.2105) 0.239 (0.2046) 0.697 (0.2623) 0.83 (0.0989)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.094 (0.0022) 0.094 (0.0022) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.9 0.094 (0.0022) 0.094 (0.0022) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q0.99 0.179 (0.0599) 0.421 (0.1032) 0.604 (0.093) 0.65 (0.1238)
Q0.999 0.348 (0.0986) 0.358 (0.0519) 0.45 (0.1935) 0.474 (0.1154)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.229 (0.1455) 0.596 (0.1489) 0.758 (0.1173)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores for changing number of extreme events.
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.131 (0.102) 0.328 (0.1627) 0.667 (0.1571) 0.847 (0.0547)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.246 (0.2936) 0.542 (0.0949) 0.817 (0.1599) 0.944 (0.0642)
ExSCAD 4th 0.131 (0.102) 0.328 (0.1627) 0.667 (0.1571) 0.847 (0.0547)
ExSCAD 6th 0.246 (0.2936) 0.542 (0.0949) 0.817 (0.1599) 0.944 (0.0642)
ExMCP 4th 0.031 (0.0625) 0.182 (0.144) 0.599 (0.2817) 0.837 (0.0834)
ExMCP 6th 0.111 (0.2222) 0.259 (0.2049) 0.761 (0.2223) 0.937 (0.0745)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.089 (0.0038) 0.089 (0.0038) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0)
Q0.9 0.089 (0.0038) 0.089 (0.0038) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0)
Q0.99 0.166 (0.0587) 0.397 (0.0874) 0.588 (0.1032) 0.691 (0.0929)
Q0.999 0.389 (0.1361) 0.369 (0.0525) 0.479 (0.2206) 0.479 (0.1158)
Threshold 0 (0) 0.234 (0.1401) 0.653 (0.1768) 0.767 (0.1054)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing number of extreme events.
E = 1 E = 2 E = 3 E = 4
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.011 (0.0013) 0.008 (0.0023) 0.004 (0.0019) 0.002 (8e-04)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.01 (0.0028) 0.006 (0.0013) 0.002 (0.002) 0.001 (8e-04)
ExSCAD 4th 0.011 (0.0013) 0.008 (0.0023) 0.004 (0.0019) 0.002 (8e-04)
ExSCAD 6th 0.01 (0.0028) 0.006 (0.0013) 0.002 (0.002) 0.001 (8e-04)
ExMCP 4th 0.01 (8e-04) 0.008 (7e-04) 0.004 (0.0028) 0.002 (7e-04)
ExMCP 6th 0.01 (0.0023) 0.008 (0.0013) 0.002 (0.002) 0.001 (8e-04)
Lasso 0.013 (7e-04) 0.013 (7e-04) 0.013 (7e-04) 0.013 (7e-04)
SCAD 0.013 (7e-04) 0.013 (7e-04) 0.013 (7e-04) 0.013 (7e-04)
MCP 0.013 (7e-04) 0.012 (0.0013) 0.012 (0.0019) 0.012 (0.0019)
Median 0.014 (7e-04) 0.014 (7e-04) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0)
Q0.9 0.014 (8e-04) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0.0014) 0.014 (8e-04)
Q0.99 0.014 (0.004) 0.009 (0.0013) 0.006 (0.0023) 0.004 (0.0013)
Q0.999 0.007 (0.0032) 0.008 (0.0011) 0.007 (0.0038) 0.007 (0.0026)
Threshold 0.009 (0.0023) 0.009 (0.0011) 0.004 (0.0022) 0.003 (0.0013)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing number of extreme events.
[*Scenario 3: Changing Error Distribution*]{}
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.166 $\beta$ = 0.125
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.9 (0.0816) 0.875 (0.1258) 0.816 (0.0526) 0.278 (0.3587)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0.582 (0.2852) 0.184 (0.217)
ExSCAD 4th 0.9 (0.0816) 0.875 (0.1258) 0.816 (0.0526) 0.278 (0.3587)
ExSCAD 6th 1 (0) 1 (0) 0.582 (0.2852) 0.184 (0.217)
ExMCP 4th 0.82 (0.0688) 0.818 (0.0819) 0.735 (0.1126) 0.288 (0.3796)
ExMCP 6th 0.946 (0.0454) 0.917 (0.0556) 0.693 (0.1714) 0.144 (0.1744)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.094 (0.0022)
Q-0.9 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.094 (0.0022)
Q-0.99 0.312 (0.1434) 0.14 (0.0494) 0.249 (0.0897) 0.24 (0.0465)
Q-0.999 0.394 (0.1643) 0.299 (0.0897) 0.19 (0.0186) 0.115 (0.0505)
Threshold 0.384 (0.392) 0.05 (0.1) 0.64 (0.0773) 0.508 (0.2058)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores for changing residual distribution.
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.166 $\beta$ = 0.125
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.9 (0.0816) 0.875 (0.1258) 0.861 (0.0556) 0.281 (0.358)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 1 (0) 1 (0) 0.589 (0.2837) 0.194 (0.2291)
ExSCAD 4th 0.9 (0.0816) 0.875 (0.1258) 0.861 (0.0556) 0.281 (0.358)
ExSCAD 6th 1 (0) 1 (0) 0.589 (0.2837) 0.194 (0.2291)
ExMCP 4th 0.842 (0.0618) 0.869 (0.1245) 0.893 (0.1368) 0.307 (0.3857)
ExMCP 6th 1 (0) 1 (0) 0.821 (0.1798) 0.17 (0.209)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.089 (0.0038)
Q-0.9 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.089 (0.0038)
Q-0.99 0.303 (0.1415) 0.133 (0.0438) 0.251 (0.0829) 0.232 (0.0391)
Q-0.999 0.373 (0.1713) 0.277 (0.0854) 0.182 (0.0343) 0.107 (0.0505)
Threshold 0.353 (0.3505) 0.05 (0.1) 0.689 (0.092) 0.517 (0.2134)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing residual distribution.
$\beta$ = 0.33 $\beta$ = 0.2 $\beta$ = 0.166 $\beta$ = 0.125
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.001 (0.0011) 0.002 (0.0017) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.009 (0.0045)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.005 (0.0038) 0.01 (0.0032)
ExSCAD 4th 0.001 (0.0011) 0.002 (0.0017) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.009 (0.0045)
ExSCAD 6th 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.005 (0.0038) 0.01 (0.0032)
ExMCP 4th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.002 (0.0017) 0.001 (0.0013) 0.007 (0.0033)
ExMCP 6th 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.002 (0.0017) 0.009 (0.0026)
Lasso 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.013 (7e-04)
SCAD 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.013 (7e-04)
MCP 0.013 (0.0014) 0.013 (7e-04) 0.012 (0.0016) 0.012 (0.0019)
Median 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (7e-04)
Q-0.9 0.014 (0) 0.015 (7e-04) 0.013 (0.0014) 0.013 (0.0023)
Q-0.99 0.01 (0.0026) 0.013 (0.002) 0.01 (0.0023) 0.011 (0.0013)
Q-0.999 0.01 (0.0036) 0.011 (0.0017) 0.012 (0.0028) 0.015 (0.002)
Threshold 0.008 (0.0034) 0.011 (7e-04) 0.004 (0.0013) 0.006 (0.003)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing residual distribution.
[*Scenario 4: Changing Number of Dimensions*]{}
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.9 (0.0816) 0.816 (0.0526) 0.922 (0.0673) 0.838 (0.0062)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 1 (0) 0.947 (0) 0.961 (0.0263) 0.947 (0)
ExSCAD 4th 0.9 (0.0816) 0.816 (0.0526) 0.922 (0.0673) 0.838 (0.0062)
ExSCAD 6th 1 (0) 0.947 (0) 0.961 (0.0263) 0.947 (0)
ExMCP 4th 0.82 (0.0688) 0.782 (0.0708) 0.765 (0.0679) 0.683 (0.134)
ExMCP 6th 0.946 (0.0454) 0.854 (0.0619) 0.961 (0.0263) 0.885 (0.0876)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q-0.9 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0) 0.095 (0)
Q-0.99 0.312 (0.1434) 0.238 (0.0794) 0.189 (0.0744) 0.093 (0.0262)
Q-0.999 0.394 (0.1643) 0.39 (0.0962) 0.501 (0.0663) 0.577 (0.2264)
Threshold 0.384 (0.392) 0.32 (0.1879) 0.316 (0.087) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores for changing number of dimensions.
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.9 (0.0816) 0.861 (0.0556) 0.947 (0.0611) 0.802 (0.1235)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)
ExSCAD 4th 0.9 (0.0816) 0.861 (0.0556) 0.947 (0.0611) 0.802 (0.1235)
ExSCAD 6th 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)
ExMCP 4th 0.842 (0.0618) 0.853 (0.0524) 0.929 (0.0825) 0.795 (0.1136)
ExMCP 6th 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0)
Lasso 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0)
Q-0.9 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0) 0.091 (0)
Q-0.99 0.303 (0.1415) 0.207 (0.0762) 0.18 (0.0684) 0.092 (0.0468)
Q-0.999 0.373 (0.1713) 0.371 (0.1244) 0.486 (0.0278) 0.567 (0.2974)
Threshold 0.353 (0.3505) 0.344 (0.1929) 0.335 (0.0958) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates for changing number of dimensions.
P = 750 P = 1500 P = 2250 P = 3000
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.001 (0.0011) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.0029)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
ExSCAD 4th 0.001 (0.0011) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (8e-04) 0.003 (0.0029)
ExSCAD 6th 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
ExMCP 4th 0.002 (8e-04) 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (8e-04) 0.002 (0.001)
ExMCP 6th 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Lasso 0.014 (0) 0.013 (8e-04) 0.013 (8e-04) 0.013 (0.001)
SCAD 0.014 (0) 0.013 (8e-04) 0.013 (8e-04) 0.013 (0.001)
MCP 0.013 (0.0014) 0.011 (0.0013) 0.012 (0.0017) 0.013 (0.001)
Median 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0) 0.014 (0)
Q-0.9 0.014 (0) 0.017 (0.0013) 0.015 (0.0026) 0.014 (0.001)
Q-0.99 0.01 (0.0026) 0.017 (0.0078) 0.012 (0.0019) 0.016 (0.0086)
Q-0.999 0.01 (0.0036) 0.01 (0.0045) 0.007 (0.0014) 0.007 (0.0067)
Threshold 0.008 (0.0034) 0.007 (0.0017) 0.008 (0.0016) 0.012 (0.0019)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates for changing number of dimensions.
### Real Data Generated Response
$\tau$ = 10 $\tau$ = 7.5 $\tau$= 5
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.78 (0.0977) 0.605 (0.1008) 0.152 (0.0991)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.805 (0.2162) 0.5 (0.1008) 0.44 (0.1008)
ExSCAD 4th 0.78 (0.0977) 0.605 (0.1008) 0.147 (0.0991)
ExSCAD 6th 0.805 (0.2162) 0.5 (0.1008) 0.427 (0.1008)
ExMCP 4th 0.783 (0.1) 0.605 (0.1008) 0.153 (0.1128)
ExMCP 6th 0.78 (0.2071) 0.543 (0.144) 0.43 (0.1008)
Lasso 0.277 (0.1604) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0.277 (0.1604) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0.27 (0.1533) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.053 (0.0365) 0.085 (0.0088) 0.077 (0.0065)
Q-0.9 0 (0) 0.085 (0.0088) 0.076 (0.0065)
Q-0.99 0.103 (0.003) 0.182 (0) 0.165 (0)
Q-0.999 0.098 (0.0027) 0.126 (0.0105) 0.113 (0)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average F-1 scores.
$\tau$ = 10 $\tau$ = 7.5 $\tau$= 5
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0.762 (0.0946) 0.639 (0.1064) 0.137 (0.075)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0.788 (0.2175) 0.528 (0.1064) 0.465 (0.1064)
ExSCAD 4th 0.762 (0.0946) 0.639 (0.1064) 0.144 (0.075)
ExSCAD 6th 0.788 (0.2175) 0.528 (0.1064) 0.462 (0.1064)
ExMCP 4th 0.754 (0.0979) 0.639 (0.1064) 0.158 (0.1259)
ExMCP 6th 0.762 (0.2056) 0.564 (0.1386) 0.451 (0.1064)
Lasso 0.243 (0.135) 0 (0) 0 (0)
SCAD 0.243 (0.135) 0 (0) 0 (0)
MCP 0.233 (0.1305) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Median 0.042 (0.03) 0.075 (0.0133) 0.068 (0.0103)
Q-0.9 0 (0) 0.075 (0.0133) 0.07 (0.0103)
Q-0.99 0.106 (0.0064) 1 (0) 0.889 (0)
Q-0.999 0.095 (0.0052) 0.173 (0.0356) 0.177 (0)
Threshold 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
: \[tab:\]Average true positive rates.
$\tau$ = 10 $\tau$ = 7.5 $\tau$= 5
------------------------ ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
ExLasso ($\gamma = 4$) 0 (2e-04) 0.001 (2e-04) 0.002 (3e-04)
ExLasso ($\gamma = 6$) 0 (4e-04) 0.001 (2e-04) 0.001 (2e-04)
ExSCAD 4th 0 (2e-04) 0.001 (2e-04) 0.002 (3e-04)
ExSCAD 6th 0 (4e-04) 0.001 (2e-04) 0.001 (2e-04)
ExMCP 4th 0 (2e-04) 0.001 (2e-04) 0.002 (0.001)
ExMCP 6th 0 (3e-04) 0.001 (2e-04) 0.001 (2e-04)
Lasso 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (1e-04) 0.002 (1e-04)
SCAD 0.002 (7e-04) 0.001 (1e-04) 0.002 (1e-04)
MCP 0.002 (0.0011) 0.002 (4e-04) 0.002 (1e-04)
Median 0.023 (0.0049) 0.017 (0.0034) 0.016 (0.0023)
Q-0.9 0.02 (0) 0.004 (7e-04) 0.007 (0.0023)
Q-0.99 0.011 (8e-04) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Q-0.999 0.013 (8e-04) 0.007 (0.0019) 0.005 (0)
Threshold 0.013 (0.0017) 0.012 (0.0013) 0.012 (0.0013)
: \[tab:\]Average false positive rates.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors acknowledge support from NSF DMS-1554821 and NSF NeuroNex-1707400.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Measurements in the radio regime embrace a number of effective approaches for WISP searches, often covering unique or highly complementary ranges of the parameter space compared to those explored in other research domains. These measurements can be used to search for electromagnetic tracers of the hidden photon and axion oscillations, extending down to $\sim 10^{-19}$eV the range of the hidden photon mass probed, and closing the last gaps in the strongly favoured 1–5$\mu$eV range for axion dark matter. This provides a strong impetus for several new initiatives in the field, including the WISP Dark Matter eXperiment (WISPDMX) and novel conceptual approaches for broad-band WISP searches in the 0.1–1000$\mu$eV range.'
author:
- |
[*Dieter Horns$^1$, Axel Lindner$^2$, Andrei Lobanov$^{3,1}$, Andreas Ringwald$^2$*]{}\
$^1$Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, Germany\
$^2$Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), Hamburg, Germany\
$^3$Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, Germany
title: 'WISPers from the Dark Side: Radio Probes of Axions and Hidden Photons'
---
WISP in the radio regime
========================
The scope of experimental studies of dark matter (DM) has been expanding steadily towards low energies and to weakly interacting slim particles (WISP) [@Jaeckel:2010ni; @Ringwald:2012hr; @Hewett:2012if] such as axions, axion-like particles (ALP) and hidden photons (HP). Best revealed by their coupling to standard model (SM) photons, the WISP may give rise to dark matter for a broad range of the particle mass and the photon coupling strength [@Arias:2012az] as indicated by red lines in Fig. \[fig:lobanov1\]. At particle masses above $\sim 10^{-3}$eV, the existing constraints effectively rule out WISP as DM particles, while there are very few measurements reaching sensible exclusion levels at lower energies. This domain corresponds to the radio regime at frequencies below 240GHz where highly sensitive measurement techniques are developed for radioastronomical measurements, with typical detection levels of $\lesssim 10^{-22}$W. Such sensitivity provides excellent opportunities for laboratory [@Asztalos:2009yp; @Wagner:2010mi; @Horns:2013] and astrophysical [@Pshirkov:2009] searches for WISP of both cosmological (dark matter) and astrophysical origin (photon-WISP conversion). The dependence of the latter signal in HP on the distance to the target object also offers a unique tool for reaching particle masses down to $\lesssim 10^{-18}$eV [@Lobanov:2013pr] (see Fig. \[fig:lobanov1\]).
![Exclusion limits for hidden photon (top) and ALP (bottom) couplings to SM photons. Existing measurements are indicated with gray/blue/dark green shades and white captions. Expected limits from future measurements are indicated with light green shades and black captions. The yellow band in the axion plot marks properties of the QCD axion. Red color indicates theoretical constrains for hidden photon and axion production and expectations for dark matter and dark radiation (for hidden photons) produced by hidden photons (figures adapted from [@Hewett:2012if]).[]{data-label="fig:lobanov1"}](andrei_lobanov_fig1a.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
![Exclusion limits for hidden photon (top) and ALP (bottom) couplings to SM photons. Existing measurements are indicated with gray/blue/dark green shades and white captions. Expected limits from future measurements are indicated with light green shades and black captions. The yellow band in the axion plot marks properties of the QCD axion. Red color indicates theoretical constrains for hidden photon and axion production and expectations for dark matter and dark radiation (for hidden photons) produced by hidden photons (figures adapted from [@Hewett:2012if]).[]{data-label="fig:lobanov1"}](andrei_lobanov_fig1b.pdf){width="99.00000%"}
Astrophysical measurements
==========================
Astrophysical measurements in the radio can broaden substantially the range of parameter space probed for ALP and HP. Analysis of the WMAP CMB measurements in the radio domain at frequencies above 22GHz has already provided excellent ALP and HP bounds down to masses of $2\times
10^{-14}$eV [@Mirizzi:2009nq; @Mirizzi:2009iz]. Dedicated radio astronomical measurements at frequencies below 22GHz should extend axion searches to masses below $10^{-9}$eV and probe coupling constants down to $10^{-14}$GeV$^{-1}$ [@Chelouche:2009]. Signals from relic DM axions can be detected in the spectra of isolated neutron stars [@Pshirkov:2009] and possibly also in pulsars.
Hidden photon signals in compact radio sources
----------------------------------------------
For hidden photons ($\gamma_\mathrm{s}$), radio observations at frequencies below 22GHz offer an excellent (if not unique) tool for placing bounds on the mixing angle $\chi$ for $m_{\gamma_\mathrm{s}}$ down to $\approx 10^{-18}$eV [@Lobanov:2013pr]. Existing data are sufficiently accurate for detection of kinetic mixing angles $\chi$ down to $\sim 0.01$, yielding presently a weak hint for a possible oscillatory signal with $\chi \approx 0.02$ in the 2–$5\,\times 10^{-16}$eV energy range. As adverse systematic effects mimicking the signal cannot be presently excluded, this indication should be verified. Placing better bounds on $\chi$ down to $\lesssim 10^{-3}$ can be made by using the expanded capabilities of the next generation radio astronomical facilities [@Lobanov:2013pr].
Laboratory experiments
======================
Laboratory experiments using resonant microwave cavities at frequencies between 0.5 and 34GHz have yielded the best sensitivity achieved for HP and ALP dark matter at masses below 10$^{-3}$eV [@Bradley:2003rv]. While capable of reaching the fundamental sensitivity levels, these experiments are slow in scanning over large ranges of mass. Novel and fast broadband measurement techniques are critically needed here.
Microwave cavity experiments
----------------------------
Building on the success of the ADMX axion DM searches [@Asztalos:2009yp; @Wagner:2010mi; @Bradley:2003rv] covering the 2-5$\mu$eV energy range, a WISP Dark Matter eXperiment has been initiated at DESY and the University of Hamburg, aiming at covering the 0.8-2$\mu$eV energy range. The experiment utilizes a 208-MHz resonant cavity used at the DESY HERA accelerator and plans to make use of the H1 solenoid magnet. The cavity has a volume of 460 liters and a resonant amplification factor $Q=46000$ at the ground TM$_{010}$ mode. The H1 magnet provides $B=1.15$T in a volume of 7.2m$^3$. The signal is amplified by a broad-band 0.2–1GHz amplifier with a system temperature of 100K. Broad-band digitization and FFT analysis of the signal are performed using a commercial 12-bit spectral analyzer, enabling measuring at several resonant modes simultaneously.
Since the bandwidth of a single measurement is $\propto Q^{-1}$, the resonant modes of the cavity must be tuned in order to enable scanning over a sizable range of particle mass. The tuning will be done with a plunger assembly providing a $\sim 2$MHz tuning range at the ground mode. The expected exclusion limits are shown in Fig. \[fig:lobanov1\].
Experimental concepts for broad-band searches
---------------------------------------------
The exceptional sensitivity of microwave cavity experiments comes at the expense of rather low scanning speeds ($\sim 10$MHz/year for WISPDMX), which makes it difficult to implement this kind of measurements for scanning over large ranges of particle mass. To overcome this difficulty, new experimental concepts are being developed that could relax the necessity of using the resonant enhancement and working in a radiometer mode with an effective $Q=1$.
The measurement bandwidth of radiometry experiments is limited only by the detector technology, with modern detectors employed in radio astronomy routinely providing bandwidths in excess of 1 GHz and spectral resolutions of better than $10^{6}$.
One possibility for a radiometer experiment is to employ a spherical dish reflector that provides a signal enhancement proportional to the area of the reflector [@Horns:2013]. Another possibility is to use the combination of large chamber volume and strong magnetic field provided by superconducting TOKAMAKs or stellarators such as the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator in Greifswald (providing $B=3\,T$ in a 30m$^3$ volume). The exclusion limits expected to be achievable with the spherical reflector and stellarator experiments are shown in Fig. \[fig:lobanov1\].
Deriving from the stellarator approach, a large chamber can be designed specifically for the radiometer searches, with the inner walls of the chamber covered by fractal antenna elements providing a broad-band receiving response and also enabling directional sensitivity to the incoming photons (through high time resolution enabling phase difference measurements between individual elements).
Further exploration of these approaches should ultimately enable performing definitive searches for hidden photon and axion/ALP dark matter in the $10^{-7}$–$10^{-3}$eV mass range.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Andrei Lobanov acknowledges support from the Collaborative Research Center (Sonderforschungsbereich) SFB 676 “Particles, Strings, and the Early Universe” funded by the German Research Society (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG).
[99]{}
J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**60**]{} (2010) 405 \[arXiv:1002.0329 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Ringwald, Phys. Dark Univ. [**1**]{}, 116 (2012) \[arXiv:1210.5081 \[hep-ph\]\]. J.L. Hewett, H. Weerts, R. Brock [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1205.2671 \[hep-ex\].
P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**1206**]{}, 013 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.5902 \[hep-ph\]\]. \[ADMX Collaboration\], S. J. Asztalos [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 041301 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.5914 \[hep-ex\]\].
A. Wagner, G. Rybka, M. Hotz [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 171801 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.3766 \[hep-ex\]\]. D. Horns, J. Jaeckel, Lindner, A. [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**4**]{}, 016 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.2970 \[hep-ph\]\].
M.S. Pshirkov, S.B. Popov, JETP [**108**]{}, 384 (2009) \[arXiv:0711.1264 \[astro-ph\]\].
A.P. Lobanov, H.-S. Zechlin, D. Horns, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 065004 (2013) \[arXiv:1211.6268 \[astro-ph.co\]\]
A. Mirizzi, J. Redondo and G. Sigl, JCAP [**0908**]{}, 001 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.4865 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Mirizzi, J. Redondo and G. Sigl, JCAP [**0903**]{}, 026 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.0014 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. Chelouche, R. Rabad[á]{}n, S.S. Pavlov, F. Castej[ó]{}n, ApJSS [**180**]{}, 1 (2009) \[arXiv:0806.0411 \[astro-ph\]\].
R. Bradley, J. Clarke, D. Kinion [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{}, 777 (2003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The mystery of dark energy suggests that there is new gravitational physics on long length scales. Yet light degrees of freedom in gravity are strictly limited by Solar System observations. We can resolve this apparent contradiction by adding a Galilean-invariant scalar field to gravity. Called Galileons, these scalars have strong self-interactions near overdensities, like the Solar System, that suppress their dynamical effect. These nonlinearities are weak on cosmological scales, permitting new physics to operate. In this Letter, we point out that a massive gravity inspired coupling of Galileons to stress energy gravity can have a surprising consequence: enhanced gravitational lensing. Because the enhancement appears at a fixed scaled location for a wide range of dark matter halo masses, stacked cluster analysis of weak lensing data should be able to detect or constrain this effect.'
author:
- Mark Wyman
title: 'Galilean-invariant scalar fields can strengthen gravitational lensing'
---
Our understanding of cosmology has been profoundly affected by the discovery of cosmological acceleration. It may signal a breakdown of General Relativity on long length scales. This has initiated a search for consistent modifications of GR. The leading models for modifying gravity are scalar-tensor theories: chameleonic / f(R) theories [@cham; @fR] and the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) model [@DGP] and its descendants [@cascading]. Until now, models have assumed that the scalar couples only to the trace of the stress-energy tensor. Since radiation’s stress-energy is trace-free, gravitational lensing is unaltered.
The scalar field found in the decoupling limit of the DGP model, $\pi$ [@Luty:2003vm], has an intriguing quality: it is galilean invariant in the action. That is, the scalar part of the action is unchanged under the replacement $\pi \rightarrow \pi + c + b_\mu x^\mu$, where $c$ and the $b_\mu$ are arbitrary constants. This galilean symmetry can arise as a manifestation of higher-dimensional symmetries [@DBIGal], emerge as a consequence of giving the graviton a mass [@massgrav; @decoupling; @hel0], or simply be posited as a foundation for model building [@galileon]. Fields with galilean-invariant actions are special: they are a symmetry-protected set of derivatively self-coupled fields with higher-order derivative actions, but with equations of motion that have only two derivatives operating on the field at a time. Equations of motions with more than two time derivatives are in danger of being ill-defined. Fields with this symmetry are broadly called [*galileons*]{}. Galileon equations of motion contain derivative terms raised to higher powers. The non-linearities introduced by these terms allow galileons to exhibit the Vainshtein mechanism [@vainshtein]: the scalar field becomes strongly coupled to itself near matter sources. This suppresses its gradients. Since the scalar force comes from gradients, their dynamical influence is suppressed near matter sources. This allows galileons to pass solar system tests while still having non-trivial effects on longer length scales. These effects include observables, like extra large scale structure and faster peculiar velocities [@Wyman:2010jp].
In the decoupling limit of massive gravity [@decoupling], de Rham et al. find a galileon-type theory with an additional coupling to stress-energy. This has a profound consequence: they are able to degravitate [@hel0; @degrav], or suppress the background curvature caused by, the cosmological constant at the linearized level. In this letter, we point out that couplings of the form described in [@decoupling] also have a striking phenomenological consequence: they can significantly strengthen gravitational lensing relative to GR.
The basic features of this enhancement are as follows. For a spherically symmetric source, it vanishes as $r\rightarrow0$, giving negligible Parameterized Post Newtonian (PPN) effects. It also tends to zero as $r\rightarrow \infty$, the limit where the dynamical effect of the field is largest. For the parameters of the massive gravity model, the lensing shear is enhanced $\sim5\%$ relative to GR for any spherically symmetric mass configuration. The increased shear occurs at an intermediate length scale within the strong coupling radius of the theory, the so-called Vainshtein radius – see Fig. \[ratio\]. This radius is given by $r_*= (r_s r_c^2)^{1/3}$, where $r_s$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the source and $r_c$ is the Compton wavelength associated with the graviton, typically $\sim c/H_0$. For the sun, $r_* \sim$ kpc; for a typical galaxy $r_* \sim$ Mpc; and for a galaxy cluster, $r_* \sim$ 10 Mpc. In the NFW profile, the change in shear is at the percent level for a wide range of radii (Fig. \[nfw\]). This lensing effect is qualitatively different from the parametrized deviations from GR discussed in e.g. [@Hu:2007pj]: it is a localized, inherently nonlinear effect that disappears on long length scales and in linearized perturbation theory. It appears at length scales that are very well measured by galaxy surveys. The effect is nearly constant in $r_{200}$ units for different halo masses and concentrations. Hence, it should be possible to discover or constrain this effect by stacked analysis of many halos’ weak lensing data rescaled by their virial radii. Planned experiments like the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) [@LSST] should have sufficient depth to observe this effect.
[**Enhancing the lensing potential:**]{} For the decoupling limit galileon-type scalar field $\pi$, called the helicity-0 graviton, that arises in theories of massive gravity [@decoupling; @hel0], the coupling of the field to stress-energy has the form (h\_ + \_ + \_\_)T\^, \[coupling\] where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are $\mathcal{O}(1)$ dimensionless coefficients, $\Lambda_3 = (M_{Pl} \,m_g^2)^{1/3}$ is the strong coupling scale of the theory, $M_{Pl} = (1/G)^{1/2}$ is the Planck mass, and $m_g$ is the mass of the graviton. For our estimates we will take the graviton to have a Compton wavelength, $r_c = m_g^{-1} \simeq c/H_0$, the Hubble scale today; and we will work in units where $G=c=\hbar=1$. This “Einstein frame" result is the simplest version of a class of theories studied in [@decoupling; @hel0]. In this limit, the metric can be diagonalized and the scalar’s effect more easily isolated. Despite these complications, it is clear from the derivations in [@decoupling; @hel0] that the metric whose geodesics determine the paths of photons is the one that includes both tensor ($h_{\mu \nu}$) and scalar ($\partial_\mu \pi \partial_\nu \pi$) parts. Earlier studies [@DGP; @galileon] of galileon fields did not contain the coupling $\propto (\partial \pi)^2$ although the absence of this coupling means that the $\pi$ field’s stress-energy coupling is not obviously invariant under the galilean symmetry.
As pointed out in [@hel0], this novel coupling permits the degravitation of a small cosmological constant in the decoupling limit. In this note, we point out that this coupling has another consequence: the enhancement of the gravitational lensing potential. For linearized GR, we have $h_{00} =\Psi$, $h_{ij}= \Phi \delta_{ij}$. For lensing in standard GR, the relevant potential is then given by $\Phi_L = \half(\Phi - \Psi).$ In the presence of a spherically symmetric mass distribution, galileons generically have a non-trivial $\partial_r \pi$ and an approximately vanishing $\dot{\pi}$. The additional coupling changes the equations of motion slightly, but $\dot{\pi}\rightarrow0$ is still a good solution. The extra coupling in the lagrangian implies that the potential $\Phi$ is modified, leading to a fractional change $\mathcal{R}(r)$ in the lensing potential $\Phi_L$ given by : + , (r) ; = (\_r )\^2. \[defR\]
For our estimates, we will work with a general galileon theory [@galileon], using coefficients consistent with [@decoupling; @hel0] and including the extra stress-energy coupling found in [@decoupling; @hel0] and given in Eqn. \[coupling\]. The scalar part of this theory then has the lagrangian
![Radial dependence of the fractional change in the lensing potential, Eqn. \[rat\], for a point-like central mass, assuming $a_1=-1/2$ and $a_2=1/2$ (which gives $\alpha=1$, $\beta=1$, $\eta=1$, $\mu=3/2$, and $\nu=1/2$) in the scalar field equations. The radius is scaled by $r_* = (r_s r_c^2)^{1/3}$, where $r_s$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the source and $r_c$ is the Compton wavelength (or inverse mass) of the graviton, typically $\sim c/H_0$. For the sun, $r_* \sim$ kpc; for a typical galaxy $r_* \sim$ Mpc; and for a galaxy cluster, $r_* \sim$ 10 Mpc. The peak change of $\sim$4% is achieved for $r\simeq0.33\, r_*$[]{data-label="ratio"}](ratio.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
\_& = & ()\^2 + ()\^2+ $[\Pi]^2(\partial \pi)^2 - \right . \\
&& \nonumber \left . 2 [\Pi] \partial_\mu \Pi^{\mu}_\nu \partial^\nu \pi - [\Pi^2] (\partial \pi)^2 + 2 \partial_\mu \Pi^\mu_\nu \Pi^\nu_\lambda \partial^\lambda \pi$\
&& + (\_ + \_\_)T\^ . In this equation, we have abbreviated some expressions: $(\partial \pi)^2 \equiv \partial_\mu \pi \partial^\mu \pi$ and $\Pi^\mu_\nu \equiv \partial^\mu \partial_\nu \pi$. We have also included five dimensionless $\mathcal{O}(1)$ coefficients, $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\eta$, $\mu$ and $\nu$. Although gradients of $\pi$ are suppressed near matter sources by the Vainshtein mechanism, the appearance of the small scale $\Lambda_3^{-3}$ in the gradients’ coupling to stress-energy permits $\Delta \Phi$ to become large. As we will see, the fractional change in $\Phi$ is largest when $\pi' \equiv \partial \pi / \partial r \propto r^{-1/2}$. In spherical symmetry, the equation of motion for $\pi$ becomes an algebraic equation for $\pi'$. This equation is [@galileon] 3 $\frac{\pi'}{r}$ + $\frac{\pi'}{r}$\^2 + $\frac{\pi'}{r}$\^3 = . \[galeom\] This admits a general closed form solution which is too lengthy to reproduce here. We have included 5 free coefficients thus far, but in the massive gravity [@decoupling] case these are derived from just two parameters, $a_1$ and $a_2$: $\alpha =-2 a_1$, $\beta = 2 a_2$, $\eta = 4 a_1^2$, $\mu=-6a_1 a_2$, and $\nu=2 a_2^2$. (In [@hel0], there is also a third free parameter, $a_3$. When $a_3\neq 0$, the action cannot be diagonalized into scalar and tensor components. Since this makes the physics more difficult to understand and is unnecessary to our purposes, we leave $a_3=0$). This reduction of the parameter space gives a form of the solution for $\pi'(r)$ that is different and simpler than the general cubic solution, due to a cancellation that occurs when $2 \mu^2 = 9 \eta \nu$. Note also that [@galileon] finds general constraints on the parameters; for instance, $a_1<0$ is required for radial perturbative stability. We will specialize to the $a_1, a_2$ parameters for the remainder of this paper. The solution to Eqn. \[galeom\] as a fraction of the Newtonian force, $\Psi'$, is given in terms of $x = r/r_*$, $r_*\equiv(2GM\,r_c^2)^{1/3}$, by =x\^2 . \[piprime\]
Next, we insert Eqn. \[piprime\] into Eqn. \[defR\] and study its behavior for a point mass. The first thing to check is that the lensing modification vanishes near the origin, since gravitational lensing in this regime is tightly constrained by various PPN tests. We need (r\~0) r\^[n]{}, n>-\[rule\] so that the behavior of the ratio $\Delta \Phi / \Phi_L \rightarrow 0$ as $r\rightarrow 0$. This is what we find. Interestingly, the $\nu=0$ case – which recovers the galileon theory that emerges in the DGP model – has $n=-1/2$. This implies that the modification to lensing from a DGP-like scalar would be non-zero at the origin. Since the enhancement amplitude is independent of $\Lambda_3$, it persists even in the $m_g \rightarrow \infty$ limit. This is forbidden by numerous PPN tests of GR. So inclusion of higher-order terms in the galileon lagrangian was critical for finding an effect that is not already ruled out. This degree of non-linearity arises naturally in [@decoupling].
For our solution, the behavior near zero is given by (r\~0) = $\frac{a_1}{a_2^2}$\^[1/3]{} + + (r\^3), i.e., approaching a small constant near $r=0$, giving an $n=0$ scaling in Eqn. \[rule\]. Thus our solution does not violate solar system tests.
The other limit to check is $r\rightarrow \infty$. Here again, the ratio vanishes, since galileon theories generically recover $\pi'(r\rightarrow\infty) \propto 1/r^2$, so it scales as $1/r^3$ for large $r$.
These limiting behaviors imply that the solution must at some point pass through the $r^{-1/2}$ scaling that will give a $\Delta \Phi$ with the same radial scaling as $\Phi_L[\mbox{GR}]$ and hence a finite rescaling of the strength of gravitational lensing. For the parameters of the massive gravity model and general $r$, the fractional change in the 3D lensing potential is given by (x) = $(-4\,a_1a_2)^{1/3}\(\frac{2\,a_1^2}{a_2} x^3+1$\^[1/3]{} + 2a\_1x\^[2]{} \[rat\], where $x=r/r_*$, $r_* \equiv (2 G M r_c^2)^{1/3}$. Note that the ratio takes a particularly simple form for $a_1=-1/2$, $a_2=1/2$; we will make this choice in our plots. This choice also gives the same long-distance dynamics as the DGP model (i.e., $\pi'(r) / \Psi_N'(r) \rightarrow 1/3$ for $r\gg r_*$). We have plotted $\mathcal{R}(r)$ in Fig. \[ratio\]. $\mathcal{R}(r)$ reaches a maximum at $x_o=r_o/r_*= ((2\sqrt{3}-3)a_2/18a_1^2)^{1/3}$ given by (x\_o) = (2-3) 0.04. This peak amplitude is independent of the parameter choices $a_1$ and $a_2$ and can be regarded as a prediction of the theory. Though small, this modification gives a potentially observable modification to the tangential shear of extended halos; this is illustrated in Fig. \[nfw\].
![The fractional change in the tangential shear for three NFW halo profiles as a function of radius scaled by the halo’s virial radius ($r/r_{200}$), assuming $a_1=-1/2$, $a_2=1/2$ and $r_c = 3000$ Mpc in the scalar field equations. These plots describe halos with any virial mass, $M_{200} \propto r_{200}^3$. The three concentrations plotted are $c=8$ (solid red), $c=6$ (dashed blue), and $c=4$ (dash-dotted black). []{data-label="nfw"}](NFWratio.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
[**Weak lensing:**]{} The enhancement to lensing we are studying peaks on intermediate length scales. Weak lensing around galaxies and clusters is thus the best place to look for its effects. Hence, we calculate the effective change in the tangential lensing shear caused by the galileon for a Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) halo profile, following [@wrightbrainerd]. We plot this for three different halo concentrations in Fig. \[nfw\]. (N.B. Existing parameterizations of modified gravity (e.g. [@Hu:2007pj]) are designed to work on scales characterized by linear overdensities, $k \lesssim 0.1$ h/Mpc. The effects we are describing vanish on those scales, so they are not adequate to studying this effect.)
For an NFW halo, the modification peaks at $\sim0.5\, r_{200}$ and at $\sim 9 \, r_{200}$ for this parameter set, where $r_{200}$ is the virial radius. It depends quite weakly on halo concentration. Because $M_{200} \propto r_{200}^3$ and $r_* \propto M_{200}^{1/3}$, the effect peaks at the same locations, as measured in units of $r_{200}$, for all $M_{200}$. This makes the effect potentially observable: we can stack the lensing results from many clusters, scaled by their virial radii, and look for the effect to emerge statistically. The same reasoning also implies that the character of the modification will be redshift independent if the galileon’s parameters do not depend strongly on cosmology. We should caution that this cosmological behavior is not well understood. A simple estimate of when the effect turns on is when the Universe comes within its own $r_*$, which occurs around $z\sim1$. So our predictions are likely robust for $1 \gtrsim z \ge 0$.
[**Detectability:**]{} Over the easily observable range $r<1.5 r_{200}$, $\langle | \Delta \gamma |\rangle \sim 1\%$ (Fig. \[nfw\]). Taking this as a signal above a known background, we can estimate what observations are needed to detect it. The GR shear at these radii is $\gamma\sim 10^{-2}$. Assuming a shape variability of $\sigma_\gamma =0.3$, we find $N_{obs}\sim10^7$ observations are needed for $S/N \gtrsim 1$. We can estimate $N_{obs}\simeq(N_{gal}/\mbox{arcmin}^2) N_{\mbox{lenses}} A_{\mbox{lens}}$. We can get $N_{obs}\sim10^7$ with an LSST-like depth of $40$ galaxies / arcmin$^2$ [@LSST] if we stack, e.g., $>5\times10^4$ lenses that each subtend 5 arcmin$^2$. Our data cannot achieve this [@Reyes:2010tr]. We are performing a more thorough study of detectability now [@tocome].
[**Strong lensing:**]{} To see the effect of the galileon coupling on strong lensing, we can find a solution to Eqn. \[galeom\] for a singular isothermal sphere (SIS) and study its behavior near $r=0$, the strong lensing regime. The SIS has a density $\rho(r) \propto r^{-2}$ and a mass profile $\propto r$. It turns out that the galileon-sourced 2D shear profile can be calculated in closed form for the SIS in terms of hypergeometric functions. For the SIS, the galileon-generated fractional increase in the lensing potential grows as $(r/r_c)^{2/3}$ for small $r$. This means that the galileon field generates an effective projected density profile $\Sigma (\xi\sim0) \propto \xi^{-1/3}$, where $\xi$ is the 2D radial distance from the center of the source after the line-of-sight direction has been integrated out. Unfortunately, this component is quite small. For this additional source of effective surface density to generate even a $>1$% increase in the effective Einstein radius, $\theta_E$, the mass per radius of the SIS would have to be $\gtrsim 10^{13} M_\odot/$Mpc. This is unlikely to account for the apparent excess of lensing arcs seen in gravitational lensing surveys, e.g. [@lensing].
[**Conclusions:**]{} In this paper, we have given a first study of the modifications to gravitational lensing generated by the inclusion of a new coupling of a scalar component of gravity to stress-energy. This coupling arises naturally in ghost-free theories of massive gravity [@decoupling], and is reasonable to include in phenomenological theories of galilean-invariant scalar fields. The generic effect of this coupling is to strengthen gravitational lensing on length scales $\sim 0.5\, r_*$, where $r_* = (r_s r_c^2)^{1/3}$; $r_s$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the source and $r_c$ is the Compton wavelength (or inverse mass) of the graviton, typically $\sim c/H_0$. For the sun, $r_* \sim$ kpc; for a typical galaxy $r_* \sim$ Mpc; and for a galaxy cluster, $r_* \sim$ 10 Mpc. The enhancement to tangential shear is at the percent level for the parameter combinations that appear in the massive graviton version of the galileon theory. The enhancement appears at a fixed location in relation to a halo’s virial radius for a wide range of masses and concentrations. This should allow stacked analysis of weak lensing data to measure or constrain this effect.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We are very grateful to Neal Dalal, Claudia de Rham, Mike Gladders, Wayne Hu, and Melanie Simet for extended discussions, to the anonymous referees for constructive suggestions, and to Sasha Belikov, Will High, Rachel Mandelbaum, Beth Reid, Youngsoo Park, Ali Vanderveld, and Dan Wesley for helpful exchanges. The work of M.W. at the University of Chicago is supported by the Department of Energy.
[99]{}
D. F. Mota and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B [**581**]{}, 141 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0306047\]; J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 171104 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0309300\]; Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 044026 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0309411\]. W. Hu and I. Sawicki, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{}, 064004 (2007); A. A. Starobinsky, [*JETP Lett.*]{} [**86**]{}, 157 (2007). G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B [**485**]{}, 208 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0005016\]. e.g., C. de Rham et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 251603 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.2072 \[hep-th\]\]. M. A. Luty, M. Porrati, R. Rattazzi, JHEP [**0309**]{}, 029 (2003). \[hep-th/0303116\]. C. de Rham and A. J. Tolley, JCAP [**1005**]{}, 015 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.5917 \[hep-th\]\]. G. Gabadadze, Phys. Lett. B [**681**]{}, 89 (2009) \[arXiv:0908.1112 \[hep-th\]\]; C. de Rham, Phys. Lett. B [**688**]{}, 137 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.5474 \[hep-th\]\]; C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze and A. J. Tolley, arXiv:1011.1232 \[hep-th\]. C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Lett. B [**693**]{}, 334 (2010) \[arXiv:1006.4367 \[hep-th\]\]; C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 044020 (2010) \[arXiv:1007.0443 \[hep-th\]\]. C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze, L. Heisenberg and D. Pirtskhalava, arXiv:1010.1780 \[hep-th\]. A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 064036 (2009) \[arXiv:0811.2197 \[hep-th\]\]. A. I. Vainshtein, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**39**]{}, 393 (1972). J. Khoury and M. Wyman, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 064023 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.1292 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 044032 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.2046 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali and G. Gabadadze, arXiv:hep-th/0209227; G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Shifman, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**67**]{}, 044020 (2003); G. Dvali, S. Hofmann and J. Khoury, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**76**]{}, 084006 (2007). LSST Science Collaborations and LSST Project 2009, LSST Science Book, Version 2.0, arXiv:0912.0201, http://www.lsst.org/lsst/scibook
W. Hu and I. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 104043 (2007) \[arXiv:0708.1190 \[astro-ph\]\]; L. Pogosian, A. Silvestri, K. Koyama and G. B. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 104023 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.2382 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. O. Wright and T. G. Brainerd, Ap. J. 534 (2000) 34, \[arXiv:astro-ph/9908213\].
e.g., R. Mandelbaum et al, JCAP [**0808**]{}, 006 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.2552 \[astro-ph\]\]; Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**405**]{}, 2078 (2010) \[arXiv:0911.4972 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]; R. Reyes, et al. Nature [**464**]{}, 256 (2010) \[arXiv:1003.2185 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Wyman, Y. Park and W. Hu, [*in prep*]{}.
M. D. Gladders, H. Hoekstra, H. K. C. Yee, P. B. Hall and L. F. Barrientos, Astrophys. J. [**593**]{}, 48 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0303341\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Relative out of plane displacements of the constituent layers of two dimensional materials gives rise to unique low frequency breathing modes. By computing the height-height correlation functions in momentum space, we show that, the layer breathing modes (LBMs) can be mapped consistently to vibrations of a simple linear chain model. Our calculated thickness dependence of LBM frequencies for few layer (FL) graphene and molybdenum disulphide (MoS$_{2}$) are in excellent agreement with available experiments. Our results show a redshift of LBM frequency with increase in temperature, which is a direct consequence of anharmonicities present in the interlayer interaction. We also predict the thickness and temperature dependence of LBM frequencies for FL hexagonal boron nitride (hBN). Our study provides a simple and efficient way to probe the interlayer interaction for layered materials and their heterostructures, with the inclusion of anharmonic effects.'
author:
- Indrajit Maity
- Prabal K Maiti
- Manish Jain
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: Temperature Dependent Layer Breathing Modes in Two Dimensional Materials
---
Two dimensional (2D) materials, for example, graphene, transition metal dichalcogenides, hBN, are being studied extensively for their exciting electronic, thermal, mechanical properties [@novoselovroadmap; @beyondgraphene]. A great deal of effort has also been directed towards understanding hybrid structures of these 2D materials [@geimhetero]. It is well known that, typically few layers of 2D materials and their hybrid structures are coupled by weak van der Waals (VDW) forces. Such layer-layer couplings give rise to unique low frequency *interlayer* vibrational modes at finite temperature, namely, shear and layer breathing modes (LBMs). [@tanshear; @review_acsnano]. It has been found experimentally that, LBMs are more sensitive to external perturbations than shear modes [@luitemperature]. These LBMs can be used as direct probe to determine layer thickness, stacking order, effects of external environment, adsorbates etc [@luiLBM1; @luitemperature; @hegraphene; @zhangMoS2; @zhaoMoS2; @boukhichaMoS2; @yanMoS2; @lingP; @zhaoBi2Te3; @mos2_graphene; @heNbSe2; @heReS2; @luivdw]. Furthermore, LBMs play a crucial role in interlayer electric conductance [@conductance], thermoelectric transport [@phani_nano]. Understanding the origin and quantification of LBM frequencies is thus of immense practical importance.
Three key features emerge from the low frequency Raman spectroscopic measurements of LBMs in 2D materials : (i) A system with $n$ layers will have $n-1$ *distinct* LBMs [^1]. (ii) LBM frequencies (at the $\Gamma$ point) are highly sensitive to the thickness of the material i.e. number of layers. For instance, when the number of layers of graphene is increased from 2 to 8, the lowest LBM frequency redshifts from 81 cm$^{-1}$ to 22 cm$^{-1}$ [@luitemperature]. (iii) The lowest LBM frequency also redshifts with increment of temperature ($T$), as seen in experiments by controlled laser heating [@luitemperature; @lingP]. The reported linewidths in Raman spectroscopic measurements for LBMs are typically larger than shear modes [@boukhichaMoS2]. These observations suggest the presence of strong anharmonicity in the interlayer interaction for LBMs. In this work, we address these three key aspects of LBMs.
A 2D material embedded in 3D space can have out of plane acoustic phonon modes called flexural modes (ZA). In the harmonic approximation, these flexural modes have a dispersion, $\omega_{flex} \propto q^{2}$ for small momentum, $q$. For $n$ layers, due to interlayer coupling, the degeneracy in ZA branch is lifted and *distinct* modes appear in the vibrational spectra, implying vertical stretching/compression of the layers. These modes are known as LBMs (ZO$^{\ensuremath{'}}$, optical modes). In order to understand the thickness dependence of LBMs, two common approaches are used. First, a linear chain model of $n$ masses with nearest neighbor interaction is used widely to determine LBM frequencies. This simple model has been shown to predict the frequencies accurately, given a knowledge of nearest neighbor layer coupling [@luitemperature; @zhaoMoS2; @luiLBM1; @zhaoMoS2; @boukhichaMoS2]. However, the mapping of the $n$ layer system to such a simple model starting from a more general description of the constituent layers is unclear. The effects of next-nearest neighbor layer coupling in such a model have not been quantified as well. Second, first principles calculations based on density functional perturbation theory (DFPT) are frequently used to calculate LBM frequencies [@sahaphonons; @zhaoMoS2]. In these calculations, however, the temperature dependence of LBMs is not revealed. The inclusion of anharmonic effects i.e. multi-phonon processes and thermal expansion coefficients are necessary to capture the temperature dependence of LBM frequencies.
Here, we present a simple method to calculate LBM frequencies by using a combination of classical molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and theory of membranes. We justify the application of linear chain model in the small momentum regime ($q\to 0$), by computing the height-height correlations. Our calculations of layer dependence of LBM frequencies for few-layer graphene and MoS$_2$ are in excellent agreement with available experiments. We show the evolution of LBM frequency with temperature for bilayer (BL) system of graphene, MoS$_{2}$ and hBN. In the studied temperature ($T$) range, we find expansion of interlayer separation and redshift in LBM frequency with $T$ increment. As, the interlayer separation is calculated directly from MD simulation, *all* anharmonicities in the interlayer interaction are incorporated in the calculation.
We perform MD simulations with periodic boundary condition in the $NPT$ ensemble using Nosé-Hoover thermostat and barostat as implemented in LAMMPS [@plimpton]. We simulate three different layered materials, namely, graphene, MoS$_2$, h-BN and vary the number of layers from 2 to 6. Initially, all the samples are chosen to be roughly square shaped and contain $\approx$ 8000-9000 atoms per layer ($N$). After equilibration, we use 4000 snapshots (2 nanosecond production run) to average the calculated properties. We use different forcefields (FFs) to compute LBM frequencies. For graphene three different FFs are adopted : Long Range Bond Order Potential for Carbon (LCBOP) [@los2003], a combination of Reactive Empirical Bond Order potential and Lennard-Jones potential (REBO+LJ) [@brennersecond; @graphene_lj] and Dreiding, a more generic FF [@mayo]. For the case of MoS$_{2}$ and hBN, a mix of Stillinger-Weber and Lennard-Jones potential (SW+LJ) [@jiangsw; @liang2009; @liang2012erratum] and Dreiding are used, respectively.
The applicability of the theory of membranes (a continuum description) to understand long-wavelength physics in 2D materials, such as graphene, is now well established [@nelsonbook; @fasolinoripples; @amorim]. In the harmonic approximation of membrane theory, the bending energy for a BL system with weak VDW interaction between the layers, can be written as, $$E_{BL} = \frac{1}{2}\int \big[\kappa (\nabla^{2}h_{1})^{2} + \kappa (\nabla^{2}h_{2})^{2} + \sigma (h_{1}-h_{2})^{2}\big]d^{2}x$$ where $\kappa$ is the bending rigidity of each constituent layer, $h_{1}$, $h_{2}$ are heights of two layers with respect to each of their reference plane and $\sigma$ denotes the interlayer coupling. In the momentum space, using the combinations $h=(h_{1} + h_{2})/\sqrt{2}$ and $\delta h =
(h_{1}-h_{2})/\sqrt{2}$, one can identify two modes : *mean* and *fluctuation* mode. The corresponding height correlation functions [^2], are $$H^{BL}(q) = \langle|h(q)|^{2}\rangle = \frac{Nk_{B}T}{S_{0}\kappa q^{4}}$$ $$\delta H^{BL}(q) = \langle |\delta h(q)|^{2} \rangle = \frac{Nk_{B}T}{S_{0}(\kappa q^{4} + 2\sigma)}$$ where $S_{0}$ is the surface area per atom and $q=|\vec{q} |$, is defined by the dimension of the simulation box. The dispersion relations for the long-wavelength physics, can be inferred from the above relations : $\omega_{mean} = \sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{\rho}}q^{2}$ and $\omega_{fluc}=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa q^{4} + 2\sigma}{\rho}}$, where $\rho$ is the two dimensional mass density \[See Supplementary Information (SI); Section A for single layer sheet and B for bilayer system\]. It should be noted that, quantum effects are neglected in the calculation of height correlation functions ($H^{BL}(q)$, $\delta H^{BL}(q)$). While the effects are important at low $T$, these effects are reported to be unimportant above a crossover temperature, $T^{*} \sim$ 70-90 K [@amorim]. All the correlation functions presented here, are calculated for $T \geq$ 150 K, hence, quantum effects can be neglected.
Fig.1(a) shows height correlation functions per atom ($H^{BL}(q)/N$, $\delta H^{BL}(q)/N$) for the *mean* and *fluctuation* modes in BL graphene and MoS$_2$ at room temperature. In the figure we have shown the results for BL graphene using REBO+LJ and for BL MoS$_2$ using SW+LJ. However, the main features of the height correlation functions are insensitive to the choice of forcefields. The *mean* mode of BL graphene is well described within the harmonic approximation (Eqn.(2)) for $0.5 \text{\AA}^{-1}
\leq q \leq 1.0\text{\AA}^{-1}$. The membrane theory predicts a change in scaling, from $H^{BL}(q)\propto q^{-4}$ to $H^{BL}(q)\propto q^{-3.18}$, when anharmonicities become important owing to the coupling of bending and stretching [@leself]. This deviation from the harmonic approximations of membrane theory i.e. a change of scaling from $H^{BL}(q)\sim q^{-4}$, is found in all the simulated samples. Our results show that, anharmonic effects are more pronounced in BL MoS$_2$, compared to that of graphene (Fig.1(a)). More generally, we find *mean* mode of BL system behaves like a single layer for all the simulated materials . The *fluctuation* mode for both BL graphene and MoS$_2$ becomes a constant for $q \lesssim 0.2 \text{\AA}^{-1} $. This implies that near the zone center ($\Gamma$ point) the interlayer coupling ($\sigma$) dictates the height fluctuations, as predicted by Eqn.(3). This aspect of the *fluctuation* mode is key for the rest of our work. Contrary to the *mean* mode, for small $q$, the anharmonicities arising from the coupling between bending and stretching are found to be irrelevant for the *fluctuation* mode. The *fluctuation* mode is identified with LBM. The Bragg peaks (Fig.1(a)) signify the underneath crystal lattice structure and breakdown of membrane theory.
For $q \to 0 $, $\omega_{mean} \to 0$ and $\omega_{fluc} \to
\sqrt{\frac{2\sigma}{\rho}}$ ; We identify $\omega_{fluc}$ as the LBM frequency (ZO$^{\ensuremath{'}}$) of a BL system. This *dispersion-less* feature of $\omega_{fluc}$ help us in two significant ways : (i) We can estimate $\sigma$ directly from the flat region of $\delta H^{BL}(q)$, without depending on any other mechanical parameters. (ii) The mapping of the BL system to linear chain model (Fig.1(b)) becomes transparent. In such a model, the force constants are determined solely from the interlayer coupling. The schematics of the modes of the constituent layers at the $\Gamma$ point are shown in the inset of Fig.1(a). The interlayer interaction lifts the degeneracy of the flexural modes of each layer into $\omega_{mean}$ and $\omega_{fluc}$ for $q \to 0$. This can be confirmed from the differences of $\delta H^{BL}(q)/N$ and $H^{BL}(q)/N$. In table I, we show the force constants for BL graphene and MoS$_2$ and compare those with the values obtained from first principles calculations. As can be easily examined from the table, our results are in excellent agreement with earlier reports.
[|\*[4]{}[c|]{}]{} & & &\
Graphene & 300 K & 8.1 & REBO + LJ\
& & 7.3 & LCBOP\
Graphene & 0 K & 7.9 & DFPT [@sahaphonons]\
MoS$_2$ & 300 K & 8.3 & SW + LJ\
MoS$_2$ & 0 K & 9.26 & DFPT [@zhaoMoS2]\
The generalization of LBMs from BL to few layer (FL) system, can be done in similar fashion as in Eqn.(1). Keeping only the nearest neighbor layer coupling terms in FL system, we find the normalized eigenvectors and use them to compute all the height correlation functions *explicitly* \[See SI, section C, D\]. We find, the *mean* mode of FL system behaves like a single layer, for the studied sample sizes. Similar to the case of BL system, the *fluctuation* modes are identified with LBMs. In Fig.2 we show the layer dependence of LBM frequencies for graphene, MoS$_{2}$ and hBN. For a $n$ layer system, there are $(n-1)$ distinct LBM frequencies. As can be seen from the figures, our results for graphene (Fig.2(a)) and MoS$_2$ (Fig.2(b)) capture the layer dependence accurately. The figures also show LBM frequencies using DFPT [@sahaphonons; @zhaoMoS2]. Experimental data for graphene are shown only for the lowest LBM frequency as they dominate the Raman response [@luitemperature]. The LBM with lowest frequency display an extraordinarily simple structure, where constituent layers expand and compress with respect to the mid-layer (odd n) or mid-point (even n). Qualitatively, this mode results to least restoring force, hence, lowest frequency (For schematics see SI, section D.1 ). With Dreiding, the frequencies are overestimated by $\sim 28 \%$ (Fig.2(c)) for FL graphene. Although overestimated, the general trend for the thickness dependence of LBM frequencies is similar for hBN and graphene, consistent with another prediction [@michel]. We can’t compare the LBM frequencies for hBN with the experimental data, as LBMs have not been characterized for hBN yet.
Two simple traits of the evolution of frequencies with thickness of 2D samples must be pointed out : (i) Upon increasing the number of layers, interlayer coupling between nearest neighbor layers remain almost constant (within the error bar), consistent with earlier report [@sahaphonons]. Thus, by computing $\sigma$ from BL system and using a simple linear chain model the dramatic redshifts of lowest frequency of LBMs with thickness can be captured, *without calculating explicitly* the height fluctuation modes for FL sample. (ii) The effect of next-nearest neighbor interaction, is found to be negligible, for all the simulated samples (see SI, section C.1). If the coupling is significant enough, this method can be easily applied by adding more terms to the bending energy and reevaluating the height fluctuation correlations with normalized eigenvectors.
So far, in the bending energy cost (Eqn.1) for a BL system, both the interlayer and intralayer interaction terms are assumed to be harmonic. As is well known, at constant $P$, upon heating the material, the volume changes. This change in volume can be explained via inclusion of anharmonic terms in the Hamiltonian. Also the change of phonon frequency ($\omega$) with $T$ can only be obtained from the anharmonicities of the potential energy. We calculate the change of LBM frequency with $T$, $\chi = \frac{d\omega}{dT}$, the first order temperature coefficient, to discern the anharmonic effects in the interlayer interaction. In this regard, we also compute the change of interlayer separation with $T$, $\alpha_{\perp} = \frac{1}{c}\frac{dc}{dT}$. All the reported values are estimated for BL system, with $T$ well below the melting point.
Fig.3 shows the temperature dependence of interlayer separation and LBM frequency for BL graphene with REBO+LJ and Dreiding FF. Our results show that the equilibrium spacing between layers, $c$ increases with $T$ ($\alpha_{\perp} > 0$). Moreover, increasing $T$ leads to the softening of the *effective spring constant*, $\sigma$ of the harmonic oscillator. This results a redshift ($\chi < 0$) of the LBM frequency, which can also be substantiated from table II. All the anharmonic effects are automatically included in our calculation of $\sigma$. In principle, $\chi$ can be grouped into two parts : “self energy" shift due to direct anharmonic coupling of the phonon modes, $\chi_{V}$ and shift because of the volume change of the material, $\chi_{T}$ [@lingP; @frequency_dependence]. As all our simulations are carried out at constant $P$, both contributions are included in the estimated $\chi$. The second order temperature coefficient is found to be irrelevant in the studied temperature range. In table II, we have shown $\alpha_{\perp}$, for BL systems and compared it to the bulk values [^3]. With standard Dreiding parameters $\alpha_{\perp}$ is always underestimated compared to more accurate FFs. We find that $\alpha_{\perp}$ for BL (with accurate FFs) is larger than that of the bulk (experiments). It is interesting to note that there is a difference in order of magnitude for $\alpha_{\perp}$ $(\sim 10^{-5}$ K$^{-1}$) and the in-plane expansion coefficient, $\alpha_{\parallel}$ $(\sim 10^{-6}$ K$^{-1}$). This is consistent with earlier observations [@mounet; @hBN_expansion]. However, the fact that $\alpha_{\perp}$ is greater than $\alpha_{\parallel}$ is not very surprising. This is due to the difference in strengths of interlayer and intralayer interactions of 2D materials.
[|\*[4]{}[c|]{}]{} & & &\
BL & REBO+LJ & 4.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & -12.4 $\pm$ 0.8\
Graphene & Dreiding & 1.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & -6 $\pm$ 1\
& LCBOP & 6.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & -22.6 $\pm$ 0.9\
Graphite & Expt. [@graphite_expansion] & 2.7 & -\
BL MoS$_2$ & SW+LJ & 2.4 $\pm$ 0.3 & -9.4 $\pm$ 1.4\
Bulk MoS$_2$ & DFPT [@mos2_expansion] & 1.1 & -\
BL hBN & Dreiding & 2.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & -6.7 $\pm$ 0.8\
Bulk hBN & Expt. [@hBN_expansion] & 3.77 & -\
In summary, we have analyzed out of plane vibrations of 2D materials using a combination of classical molecular dynamics simulations and membrane theory. We report our results for three different classes of 2D materials, namely, graphene, MoS$_{2}$, hBN. We provide, a consistent way to map LBMs of few layers of stacked 2D materials to a simple linear chain model in the long-wavelength limit. The thickness sensitivity of LBM frequencies at the $\Gamma$ point, are well captured and in agreement with earlier reports. We also find, a redshift of LBM frequency upon increasing $T$. We compute the interlayer separation thermal expansion coefficient along with the shift in LBM frequency for BL systems. We show that with accurate FFs LBM frequencies can be reliably estimated within this simple picture. Our method also provides a framework to capture pressure or any other external environmental effects on LBM frequencies. This study opens up the possibility of efficiently computing LBM frequencies (including anharmonic effects) to characterize and understand properties of 2D materials and their heterostructures.
The authors thank the Supercomputer Education and Research Center (SERC) at IISc for providing computational resources. The authors also thank Gaurav Kumar Gupta for comments on the manuscript.
[^1]: There is no periodicity in the out of plane (z) direction of FL system. $\Gamma - A$ branch of the bulk counterpart is non existent in the Brillouin zone (BZ). One can show, the frequencies of LBMs at $\Gamma$ point for FL system, are associated with vibrations of their bulk correspondent along $\Gamma - A$ direction
[^2]: This is the height-height correlation in momentum space. For convenience, we write it as height correlation function.
[^3]: The value of $\alpha_{\perp}$ and $\chi$ for MoS$_2$ is calculated by changing $T$ from 150 K to 450 K only
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A. Ganczarczyk'
- 'C. Notthoff'
- 'M. Geller'
- 'A. Lorke'
- 'D. Reuter'
- 'A. D. Wieck'
bibliography:
- 'paper\_concept\_v4\_epl.bib'
title: 'Tunable ballistic rectification in a density-modulated two-dimensional-system'
---
The high charge carrier mobilities of two-dimensional electron gases (2DEGs) in semiconductor heterostructures combined with lithography on the nanometer scale have made it possible to study ballistic transport in semiconductor devices with feature sizes smaller than the elastic mean free path. In such mesoscopic devices, certain transport properties are determined by the geometry of the device rather than by material properties. In these structures with ballistic transport, nonlinear behaviour can be observed, such as bend resistance in mesoscopic cross structures [@Timp1988; @Hirayama1991] or symmetric behaviour of two-terminal nonlinear electric conduction [@Lofgren2004]. It has been reported that such devices can operate up to room-temperature and at switching frequencies of more than $50~\textrm{GHz}$ [@Song2001]. Other examples are three-terminal ballistic Y switches [@Hieke2000; @Worschech2001; @Xu2001], or ballistic rectifiers of different designs [@Song1998; @Lofgren2003; @Hackens2004; @Haan2004; @Knop2006].
In the past, the ballistic rectification in such devices has been obtained by the broken symmetry in the shape of a mesoscopic cross junction. In the first example of a ballistic rectifier by Song et al. [@Song1998], the symmetry breaking structure consists of an asymmetric artificial scatterer in the shape of a triangle. The scatterer guides carriers in a predetermined spatial direction, independent of the direction of the input current. Here, we will investigate whether rectification can be obtained, when the broken symmetry is caused by a step in the carrier density parallel to the input current. The idea for this arrangement derives itself from the question whether a broken symmetry between “left” and “right” can lead to a net flow between left and right for non-equilibrium electrons. While Song et al. used specular reflection of electrons to achieve the rectification, we use the refraction of electrons at the density-step in the 2DEG according to Snell’s law for charge carrier densities. Manipulation of ballistic electrons by refraction was successfully used before in the linear regime [@Spector1990; @Spector1990a; @Noguchi1993; @Fukai1992]. To the best of our knowledge, however, the nonlinear properties of refraction in ballistic semiconductor structures have not been studied before.
We here present a new device geometry to build a ballistic electron rectifier, in which the sign and the amplitude of the rectified voltage can be tuned by an applied gate voltage. The rectifying device consists of a long, narrow two-dimensional conductive channel, partially covered by two parallel metallic surface gate electrodes (see fig. \[fig.1\]). By applying a voltage to the two gates, we induce two stripes of different charge carrier densities running parallel to the channel. When a current is applied along the channel, the density gradient perpendicular to the channel induces a transverse voltage, which - due to the symmetry of the device - does not change polarity when the current direction is reversed. The results are reproduced by a classical, single particle billiard model [@Beenakker1989], which describes the motion of ballistic electrons.
The samples investigated here, are fabricated from a modulation-doped $\textrm{GaAs}$/$\textrm{Al}_{0.34}\textrm{Ga}_{0.66}\textrm{As}$ heterostructure grown by molecular beam epitaxy. The heterostructure contains a 2DEG, situated $110~\textrm{nm}$ below the surface. The sheet charge carrier density, mobility and mean free path at a temperature of $T=4.2~\textrm{K}$ are $2.87 \cdot 10^{15}~\textrm{m}^{-2}$, $28.8~\textrm{m}^2/\textrm{Vs}$ and $\approx 5~\mu \textrm{m}$, respectively. Optical lithography and successive wet chemical etching is used to define the macroscopic mesa structure. Ohmic contacts are made of Ni/AuGe/Au layers formed by high-vacuum deposition and successive thermal annealing. The metallic gate electrodes are defined by electron beam lithography and consist of a $50~\textrm{nm}$ thick Au layer. A schematic picture of the rectifier is shown in fig. \[fig.1\]. The source-drain voltage $V_{SD}$ is applied between the “S” and “D” terminals. Different gate voltages $V_{GA}$, $V_{GB}$ can be applied to the gates. The transverse voltage $V_y$ is measured between the terminals $A$ and $B$. The conductive channel has a length of $1000~\mu \textrm{m}$ and a width of $100~\mu \textrm{m}$, while the length of the two metallic gate electrodes is $900~\mu \textrm{m}$ and the distance between the two gates is $1~\mu \textrm{m}$ , which equals the width of the transition region between areas of different carrier densities. While the overall sample size is much higher than the mean free path, the dimension of the most important part in the sample, namely the transition region, is much smaller. Using a macroscopic sample geometry enables us to use source-drain voltages in the order of $100~\textrm{mV}$ without occupation of excited subbands in the 2DEG and ensures a homogeneous current flow. All measurements are performed at $4.2~\textrm{K}$.
Figure \[fig.2\](a) shows the transverse voltage $V_y$ as a function of the source-drain voltage $V_{SD}$ for different gate voltages $V_{GA}$. In the following, $V_{GA}$ is applied between gate A and ground, whereas gate B is always grounded, so in effect, two parallel stripes of different carrier density are formed. Similar results have been obtained using a ’push-pull’ configuration, applying $V_{SD}$ symmetrically with respect to the middle terminals [@Knop2006]. Note that in order to maintain the full symmetry of the device along the current direction, two identical gates were prepared. This also allows us to also realize device configurations with three stripes of different carrier densities. For reasons of clarity, however, we only show measurements with one gate biased. The measurements taken with both gates biased show the same characteristics as the data discussed here.
It can be seen that $V_y$ is dominated by a contribution, which depends roughly linearly on $V_{SD}$. We attribute this linear antisymmetric contribution to imperfections of the device geometry such as slightly shifted voltage probes and a minute misalignment angle between the gates and the etched channel. Symmetry considerations show that such contributions are antisymmetric with respect to $V_{SD}$, whereas all contributions originating from the two parallel stripes of different carrier density must be symmetric in $V_{SD}$. A separation of the symmetric part $V_r = [V_y(V_{SD}) + V_y(-V_{SD})]/2$ yields the rectification characteristics, which will be discussed in the following. Note, however, that a rectifying behaviour can already be seen in the raw data in fig. \[fig.2\], in particular for $V_{GA} = -0.35~\textrm{V}$.
The symmetric part of the transverse voltage $V_r$ shown in fig. \[fig.2\](b) exhibits a parabolic dependence on the source-drain voltage $V_{SD}$. Somewhat surprisingly, we find $V_r \propto {V_{SD}}^2$ to an accuracy of about ${10}^{-3}$. Increasing the source-drain voltage $V_{SD}$ to $100~\textrm{mV}$ leads to a transverse voltage $V_r$ of $0.58~\textrm{mV}$ for a gate voltage of $V_{GA}=-350~\textrm{mV}$. The polarity of the rectified transverse voltage $V_r$ depends only on the polarity of the gate voltages and corresponds to an induced flow of electrons from the high-carrier-density area to the low-density-area. Furthermore, the measurements demonstrate that the value of the transverse voltage depends on the magnitude of the density-gradient (increasing transverse voltage with increasing difference in the gate voltages, fig. \[fig.2\](b)) and on the charge carrier mobility, fig. \[fig.2\](c).
To account for the experimental results, we numerically simulate the “refraction” of ballistic electrons at the boundary between areas of different charge carrier densities (see inset fig. \[fig.3\] using Snell’s law for charge carrier densities [@Spector1990; @Spector1990a; @Noguchi1993; @Fukai1992]. The simulation includes the electric field needed to drive the applied source-drain current. This is an essential ingredient, since no charge separation is possible for a system in equilibrium. All electrons start at the source terminal with randomly chosen starting angle. After a random scattering time - chosen with a Possionian distribution - a new random angle is set for each electron. Between scattering events, the electrons move ballistically under the influence of refraction and acceleration by the source-drain field. This process is repeated until the electron reaches the drain terminal [^1]. The number of electrons starting from the regions A and B at the source terminal is chosen according to the respective carrier densities in the 2DEG. The corresponding numbers at the drain terminal are evaluated from the simulation. The relative change in population is converted into a change in Fermi-energy, which is then converted into a built in (transverse) voltage. To check the validity of the procedure and to avoid numerical artifacts, we calculated the transverse voltage in the absence of a driving source-drain bias and found an almost vanishing transverse voltage, as expected for the equilibrium situation. Furthermore, we verified that the calculated transverse voltage is independent of the source-drain distance and thus represents the steady-state value.
Figure \[fig.3\] shows the simulated transverse voltage $V_y$ as a function of the source-drain voltage $V_{SD}$ for different gate voltages $V_{GA}$. The data points represent the numerical results, whereas the lines are the modulus function fits to the data points. For negative gate voltages $V_{GA}$, the transverse voltage $V_y$ is positive ($\Phi_A < \Phi_B$). The opposite polarity is observed for positive gate voltages. The same behaviour is observed in the measurements, where the transverse current also corresponds to a flow of electrons towards the lower density area. The simulation also shows similar dependences on the magnitude of the density-gradient and on the carrier mobility as in the measurements. Furthermore, both experimental and simulated results yield transverse voltages in the same order of magnitude (between $5$ and $25~\mu \textrm{V}$) for source-drain voltages up to $V_{SD} \approx 25~\textrm{mV}$. However, the dependence of the calculated transverse voltage on the source-drain voltage resembles a modulus function ($V_r \propto | V_{SD} |$, i.e. nonlinear/non-ohmic), whereas the experiment shows a parabolic dependence. This indicates that the presence of the transverse voltage cannot be fully described with the model developed here. More sophisticated transport models need to be developed to explain this discrepancy.
The numerical simulations clearly indicate that the observed rectification can be traced back to the ballistic motion in the vicinity of the density gradient. This is further supported by the dependence of the rectified voltage on the electronic mean free path, given by the 2DEG mobility. As shown in fig. \[fig.2\](c), changing the carrier mobility by either changing the temperature or using a different heterostructure, strongly influences the rectified voltage. In agreement with the ballistic picture, $V_r$ increases with increasing mobility. Furthermore, thermoelectric effects [@Molenkamp1990] can be ruled out as a possible explanation for the observed rectification because of the constant density of states in 2DEGs. Using the analytical expression given by Davies [@Davies1998; @Ashcroft1976] for the chemical potential as a function of temperature, we estimate the thermal voltage in the present experiment to be the order of $10^{-12}~\textrm{V}$.
We would like to mention that even though the above discussion is based on the physics of ballistic rectifiers, our results could have much broader significance. For example, the two metallic regions with different carrier densities do not necessarily have to be two-dimensional. Also, the structure is essentially featureless along the direction of the input current (contrary to other ballistic rectification devices). It is therefore possible to realize a corresponding three-dimensional structure by simply fusing or evaporating two metals of different carrier density. In general, our findings may be of relevance for other binary systems, where the non-equilibrium scattering at the boundary is symmetry-broken. A periodic continuation of the density gradient, while keeping the broken symmetry in $y$-direction, would lead to a ratchet potential. In such a ratchet, an agitation along the $x$-direction would induce a net flow of carriers perpendicular to the direction of excitation. First experiments to realize such a ’transverse ratchet’ are presently under way.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated tunable ballistic rectification in a density-modulated two-dimensional-system. The polarity and value of the rectified transverse voltage depend on the direction and magnitude of the density gradient of the charge carrier density inside the 2DEG. The results are partially in agreement with a simulation based on a classical billiard model. While the experiment results show a quadratic dependence of the transverse voltage on the source-drain voltage, the results from the simulation give a behavior, which resembles a modulus function. The calculated data reproduces the correct output polarity of the transverse voltage, the qualitative dependence of transverse voltage on the gate voltage and the observation that the transverse voltage increases with increasing mobility.
We thank Alik Chaplik and Dietrich Wolf for very fruitful discussions and acknowledge financial support from the SFB 616.
[^1]: To ensure that the electrons reach the drain terminal after a manageable number of scattering events, only forward scattering (scattering angle $-\frac{\pi}{2} < {\Theta}_{sc} < \frac{\pi}{2}$) is taken into account.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show a perturbation result for the boundedness of the Riesz transform: if $M$ and $M_0$ are complete Riemannian manifolds which are isometric outside a compact set, we give sufficient conditions so that the boundedness on $L^p$ of the Riesz transform on $M_0$ implies the boundedness on $L^p$ of the Riesz transform on $M$.'
author:
- 'Baptiste Devyver[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'bibliographie.bib'
title: A perturbation result for the Riesz transform
---
Riesz transform, $p-$hyperbolicity, non-negative Ricci curvature.
*MSC Classification: 43A, 53C, 58J*
Introduction
============
Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold. The Riesz transform problem, namely giving conditions on $p$ and on the manifold such that the operator $d\Delta^{-1/2}$ – the so-called Riesz transform – is bounded on $L^p$, has recently undergone certain progresses. A pioneering result which goes back to 1985 is a theorem of D. Bakry [@Bakry] which asserts that if the Ricci curvature of $M$ is non-negative, then the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for every $1<p<\infty$. However, it is only recently that some progresses have been made to understand the behaviour of the Riesz transform if some amount of negative Ricci curvature is allowed. A general question is the following:
\[Bakry\] What is the analogue of Bakry’s result for manifolds with non-negative Ricci curvature (or with a “small" amount of negative Ricci curvature) outside a compact set ?
Here, the “smallness" should be understood in an integral sense, i.e. $Ric_-\in L^r(\mathrm{d}\mu)$, for some value of $r$ and some measure $\mathrm{d}\mu$. A very partial answer has been provided in [@Coulhon-Zhang], where it is shown essentially that if the Ricci curvature is smaller in an integral sense than a constant $\varepsilon$ (depending on the geometry of $M$), then the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^p$ for every $1<p<\infty$. However, this result is not entirely satisfying, since it does not say what happens if the integral of the Ricci curvature is bigger than the threshold $\varepsilon$: it does not thus cover the case of manifolds having non-negative Ricci curvature outside a compact set. Unlike manifolds with non-negative Ricci curvature, manifolds with non-negative Ricci curvature outside a compact set can exhibit several ends, as well as more complicated topology (although it is far from being clear how to quantify this), and it has been known for already some time that Bakry’s result stated as such cannot hold for manifolds with non-negative Ricci curvature outside a compact set. Indeed, as is shown in [@Coulhon-Duong2], the Riesz transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\#{\mathbb{R}}^n$, the connected sum of two Euclidean spaces, is not bounded on $L^p$ for $p>n$, although ${\mathbb{R}}^n\#{\mathbb{R}}^n$ has Riemannian curvature which vanishes outside a compact set. It was proved later in [@Carron-Coulhon-Hassell] that the Riesz transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\#{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is bounded on $L^p$ if and only if $1<p<n$ ($1<p\leq2$ if $n=2$). In the same paper, the authors also prove that if the manifold has *only one end* and is isometric outside the compact set to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, then the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^p$ for all $1<p<\infty$. This was pushed further by C. Guillarmou and A. Hassell in [@Guillarmou-Hassell1] to study the Riesz transform on asymptotically conical manifolds: (a particular case of) their result is that when we glue together several conical manifolds, then if there are more than one end, the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^p$ iff $1<p<n$; and if there is only one end and the manifold is isometric outside a compact set to a conical manifold $M_0$, then the range of boundedness of the Riesz transform is the same as it is on $M_0$. The results cited above are in fact perturbation results for the Riesz transform, and let us reformulate them in the following way:
[@Carron-Coulhon-Hassell],[@Guillarmou-Hassell1]\[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\] In the class of connected asymptotically Euclidean (or more generally asymptotically conical) manifolds of dimension $d$, the boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^p$ is stable:
1. Under “gluing" (that is, connected sum construction), and change of both the metric and the topology on a compact set, if $1<p<d$.
2. Under change of both the metric and the topology on a compact set, if $p\geq d$.
It is however a result very specific to the class of manifolds under consideration: the proofs rely on a precise study of the kernel of $d\Delta^{-1/2}$, using the difficult techniques of *b-calculus*, for which we need a very precise description of the structure at infinity of both the manifold and the metric. There is thus no hope to generalize these proofs to general manifolds with non-negative Ricci curvature outside a compact set. Then G. Carron proved in [@Carron4] a key perturbation result, which is more general. Let us say that on $(M,g)$ a *Sobolev inequality* (of dimension $n>2$) holds if
$$\label{Sobolev}\tag{$S_n$}
||f||_{\frac{2n}{n-2}}\leq C||\nabla f||_2,\,\forall f\in C_0^\infty(M)$$
Then we define:
[ *The *Sobolev dimension* $d_S(M)$ is defined as the supremum of the set of $n$ such that the Sobolev inequality of dimension $n$ is satisfied on $M$ (in the case where the Sobolev inequality is not satisfied for any $n$, we let by convention $d_S=-\infty$).* ]{}
The Sobolev dimension needs not be equal to the topological dimension of $M$, in fact one has only the inequality
$$d_S\geq \hbox{dim}(M)$$ (see [@Saloff-Coste1]). For asymptotically conical manifolds, the Sobolev dimension and the topological dimension coincide, but $\mathbb{H}^n$, the hyperbolic space of dimension $n$, satisfies $d_S(\mathbb{H}^n)=+\infty$. Carron’s perturbation result states as follows:
\[resultat Carron\][@Carron4]\
Let $M_0$ and $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifolds (not necessarily connected), isometric outside a compact set, which satisfy $d_S>3$ and with Ricci curvature bounded from below. Assume that the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for some $p\in (\frac{d_S}{d_S-1},d_S)$. Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold isometric to $M_0$ at infinity, then the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$.
Here, isometric at infinity means that we can find two compact sets $K_0$ and $K$ (resp. of $M_0$ and of $M$), such that $M\setminus K$ is isometric to $M_0\setminus K_0$, and the fact that the manifolds are not supposed to be connected is to allow connected-sum constructions. This result extends $(1)$ of Theorem \[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\] to a much more general class of manifolds, namely to manifolds with Ricci curvature bounded from below, and satisfying a Sobolev inequality – the dimension parameter up to which we can glue together two such manifolds while preserving the boundedness of the Riesz transform being the Sobolev dimension $d_S$. The fact that $d_S(M_0)=d_S(M)$ follows from [@Carron3], Proposition 2.7. We see thus that, rather than the topological dimension, an important quantity from the point of view of the perturbation theory for the Riesz transform is the Sobolev dimension.\
A way to rephrase Carron’s result is that for $p<d_S$, the boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^p$ is preserved under gluing and perturbation of the metric and the topology on a compact set. Thus, for example, the boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^p$ for *any* $1<p<\infty$ is preserved under gluing, perturbation of the topology and of the metric in the class of manifolds whose ends are isometric to $\mathbb{H}^n$ at infinity. However, when $d_S<\infty$, Carron’s result does not say anything concerning the generalization of $(2)$ of Theorem \[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\]: explicitely, when $p\geq d_S$, what happens for the boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^p$ if we start with a manifold with one end, and we change both the metric and the topology on a compact set, without making any gluing, i.e. preserving the fact that the manifold has only one end?\
Let us mention at this point a perturbation result of Coulhon and Dungey [@Coulhon-Dungey] which investigates what happens for the Riesz transform if we change the metric and the Riemannian measure. Under quite mild conditions on the perturbation, they show that the boundedness on $L^p$ of the Riesz transform is preserved under a change of metric and of measure, *for any* $1<p<\infty$. However, their main assumption is that the underlying manifold is the same, that is they allow no change of topology *at all*, and their method relies crucially on this assumption. As a consequence, it is not possible from their result to get either $(1)$ or $(2)$ of Theorem \[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\], even for the case of the Euclidean space.\
\
In the paper [@Devyver-Riesz1], we use Carron’s perturbation result to answer Question \[Bakry\] for the case $p<d_S$: under the assumptions that $d_S>3$, that the negative part of the Ricci curvature is in $L^{\frac{d_S}{2}-\varepsilon}\cap L^\infty$, and that the volume of balls of big radius $R$ is comparable to $R^{d_S}$, we show that the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^p$ for $1<p<d_S$. If in addition there are no non-zero $L^2$ harmonic $1-$forms, we also prove that the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^p$ for all $1<p<\infty$. However, it is expected that this last assumption is too strong to get the boundedness on the whole $(1,\infty)$, more precisely in [@Devyver-Riesz1] we made the following conjecture:
\[conj\] If $M$ is a manifold satisfying a Sobolev inequality, having non-negative Ricci curvature outside a compact set and only one end, then the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for every $1<p<\infty$.
In other words, is the presence of several ends the only obstruction in this class of manifolds to the boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^p$ for all $1<p<\infty$? Motivated by this conjecture, we generalize in this article both Theorem \[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\] and Theorem \[resultat Carron\]. We will assume that the manifold satisfies a Sobolev inequality so that $d_S$, the Sobolev dimension, is greater than $2$, and we will be interested in extending the mentionned perturbation results Theorems \[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\] and \[resultat Carron\] to the case where $p\geq d_S$. First, we define the hyperbolic dimension of $M$ to be (see section 1)
*The *hyperbolic dimension* $d_H(M)$ of $M$ is the supremum of the set of $p$ such that $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic.*
Our main result shows first that $d_H$ – and not $d_S$ as Carron’s result seems to indicate – is the relevant quantity to be considered from the point of view of the behaviour of the Riesz transform under gluing; and secondly, we are able to generalize (2) of Theorem \[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\] under much more general assumptions. Our result writes:
\[Riesz p-hyperbolique\]
Let $M$, $M_0$ be two Riemannian manifolds (not necessarily connected), isometric outside a compact set, whose Ricci curvature is bounded from below and satisfying $d_S>2$. We assume that the Riesz transform on $M_0$ is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in [p_0,p_1)$ with $\frac{d_S}{d_S-1}<p_0\leq 2$ and $p_1>\frac{d_S}{d_S-2}$. Then the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in\left[p_0,\min(d_H(M),p_1)\right)$. If furthermore $M$ has only one end, then the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in\left[p_0,p_1\right)$.
We now make a certain number of comments about this result:
**
1. We will prove in section 1 (Proposition \[dimension hyperbolic\]) that if the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in \left(\frac{d_S}{d_S-1},2\right]$, then
$$d_S\leq d_H,$$ so that under this mild assumption our result indeed generalizes Carron’s result (up to endpoints of the range of boundedness). Our result says that $d_H$, and not $d_S$, is the relevant quantity to be considered when we perform a gluing. However, due to the fact that the behaviour of the Riesz transform is not known for many examples, we do not know (although we think there exists) an example of a manifold $M_0$ for which $p_1>d_S$ and $d_H>d_S$. Nonetheless, we will see in Corollary \[Riesz non borne somme connexe p-hyperbolique\] an application using $d_H$ and not $d_S$.
2. In the case where $M$ has only one end, this result extends point $(2)$ of Theorem \[perturbation Carron-Coulhon-Hassell\] to the class of manifolds satisfying a Sobolev inequality. This provides evidence in favour of Conjecture \[conj\], and it could be also a necessary tool to prove it, in the same way that we used Carron’s result [@Carron4] in [@Devyver-Riesz1] in order to prove boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^p$ for $p<d_S$.
3. We expect that the hypothesis that $M_0$ satisfies a Sobolev inequality is too strong. A more reasonnable hypothesis would be that $M$ satisfies the *relative Faber-Krahn inequality*, which is equivalent (see [@Grigor'yan5]) to the fact that the volume form on $M$ is doubling and that the heat kernel of the Laplacian satisfies a Gaussian upper estimate.
4. We are not able to treat the upper endpoint of the range of boundedness. However, in all the known cases, the range of boundedness of the Riesz transform is an *open* interval, i.e. the Riesz transform is not bounded at the endpoints, and thus our limitation is not so disturbing. We also need to assume the the technical condition $p_1>\frac{d_S}{d_S-2}$, which is satisfied in most of the cases (and in all the interesting cases covered by Carron’s result, when $d_S\geq4$).
5. Recall that in Carron’s result, one needs to assume $d_S>3$. In our result, we can allow $d_S=3$, but in this case
$$\frac{d_S}{d_S-2}=d_S,$$ therefore we cannot deduce from our result that the Riesz transform on the connected sum of two copies of $R^3$ is bounded on $L^p$ for $1<p<3$ (which is true and was proved in [@Carron-Coulhon-Hassell]).
Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] has a certain number of interesting corollaries, which we describe now. The first three of them follow from Theorem (\[Riesz p-hyperbolique\]) with the hypothesis “$M$ has only one end", and the last one uses the hyperbolic dimension $d_H$. First, we recover a particular case of a result of C. Guillarmou and A. Hassell [@Guillarmou-Hassell1] on asymptotically conical manifolds, without using the heavy machinery of *b-calculus* – as in [@Guillarmou-Hassell1], this uses H.Q. Li’s result [@Li1] about the Riesz transform on conical manifolds.
\[asymptotic conic\]
Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold, isometric outside a compact set to a conical manifold $M_0={\mathbb{R}}_+^\star\times N$, with $(N,h)$ connected and compact of dimension $n-1$ – that is, $M_0$ is endowed with the metric $g=dt^2+t^2h$. Let $\lambda_1$ be the first non-zero eigenvalue of the Laplacian on $N$, and let
$$p_0:=\frac{n}{\frac{n}{2}-\sqrt{\lambda_1+\left(\frac{n-2}{2}\right)^2}}$$ (with $p_0=\infty$ if $\lambda_1\geq n-1$ by convention). Then if $n\geq3$, the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ when $1<p<p_0$, and is unbounded on $L^p$ when $p>p_0$.
Furthermore, we also have the following new results:
\[Riesz Ricci positive hors d’un compact\]
Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with one end, isometric outside a compact set to a manifold with non-negative Ricci curvature. We assume that on $M$ we have the following volume estimate: there is $x_0\in M$ and $\nu>2$ such that
$$V(x_0,R)\geq C R^\nu,\,\forall R>0,$$ then the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for all $\frac{\nu}{\nu-1}<p<\infty$.
\[Lie group\]
Let $M_0$ be a connected and simply connected nilpotent Lie group, and let $M$ be isometric outside a compact set to $M_0$. Then the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for every $1<p<\infty$.
Finally, we have the following corollary, which is also new:
\[Riesz non borne somme connexe p-hyperbolique\]
Let $n\geq3$, and let $N$ be a manifold which is $q-$hyperbolic for some $q>n$, and which has Ricci curvature bounded from below. Then the Riesz transform on $M=N\#{\mathbb{R}}^n$, the connected sum of $N$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, is not bounded on $L^p$ for $n<p<\infty$. In particular, the Riesz transform on the connected sum ${\mathbb{R}}^n\#\mathbb{H}^n$ of an Euclidean space and a hyperbolic space is not bounded on $L^p$ for $n<p<\infty$.
The organization of this article is as follows: in section 1, we mostly review some classical results concerning the notion of $p-$hyperbolicity. In section 2, we prove Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] and its corollaries.
About p-hyperbolicity
=====================
In this section we recall some notions concerning p-hyperbolicity that we will need in the sequel. References for this section are [@Coulhon-Saloff-Coste-Holopainen] and [@Goldstein-Troyanov]. We will assume that the manifold is smooth, so that local elliptic theory applies. In particular, we will make use of the local Sobolev injections, of the trace theorems and of Poincaré inequalities for bounded domains. For references on this, see [@Saloff-Coste1] and [@Taylor]. Let us fix $1< p<\infty$.
*We say that a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ is *p-hyperbolic* if for every non-empty, relatively compact open subset $U$ of $M$, there exists a constant $C_U$ such that*
$$\int_U |f|^p\leq C_U\int_M|\nabla f|^p,\,f\in C_0^\infty(M).$$
As in the case $p=2$, we have the following Proposition:
\[p-parabolicite\]
$(M,g)$ is p-hyperbolic if and only if there exists **some** non-empty, relatively compact open subset $U$ of $M$ and a constant $C_U$ such that
$$\int_U |f|^p\leq C_U\int_M|\nabla f|^p,\,f\in C_0^\infty(M).$$
We write the proof for the reader’s convenience.\
[*Proof:* ]{}It is enough to show that for every smooth connected open set $W$ containing $U$, there exists $C_W$ such that
$$\int_W |f|^p\leq C_W\int_M|\nabla f|^p,\,f\in C_0^\infty(M).$$ We will need the following Lemma:
\[trou spectral p-laplacien\]
For every relatively compact open sets $\Omega_1$, $\Omega_2$, such that $\Omega_1\subset\subset \Omega_2$ and such that $\Omega:=\Omega_2\setminus \overline{\Omega}_1$ is connected, there exists a constant $C_\Omega$ such that
$$\label{spectre p-laplacien}
||f||_p\leq C_\Omega||\nabla f||_p,\,\forall f\in C_{D-N}^\infty(\Omega),$$
where $C_{D-N}^\infty(\Omega)$ is the set of smooth functions on $\Omega$ taking value $0$ on $\partial \Omega_1$ (the index $D-N$ stands for “Dirichlet-Neumann").
Let us assume for a moment the result of the Lemma, and let us conclude the proof of Poposition (\[p-parabolicite\]). Let $V$ be a non-empty, open set such that $V\subset\subset U$ and such that $W\setminus V$ is connected, and let $\rho$ be a smooth function whose support is included in $U$, such that $\rho\equiv1$ on $V$. Then
$$||f||_{L^p(W)}\leq ||\rho f||_{L^p(W)}+||(1-\rho)f||_{L^p(W)}.$$ Since $||\rho f||_{L^p(W)}=||\rho f||_{L^p(U)}$, we have by hypothesis
$$||\rho f||_{L^p(W)}\leq C_U||\nabla(\rho f)||_p\leq C_U\left(||f\nabla\rho||_p+||\rho\nabla f||_p\right).$$ On an other end, $||\rho\nabla f||_p\leq ||\rho||_\infty||\nabla f||_p$, and by hypothesis, since the support of $\nabla \rho$ is contained in $U$,
$$||f\nabla\rho||_p\leq||\nabla\rho||_\infty ||f||_{L^p(U)}\leq C||\nabla f||_p.$$ It remains to treat the term $||(1-\rho)f||_{L^p(W)}$. We apply Lemma (\[trou spectral p-laplacien\]) with $\Omega=W\setminus V$, to obtain
$$||(1-\rho)f||_{L^p(W)}\leq C||\nabla\left((1-\rho)f\right)||_p\leq C\left(||\nabla(\rho f)||_p+||\rho||_\infty||\nabla f||_p\right),$$ and we bound as before $||\nabla(\rho f)||_p$ by $C||\nabla f||_p$.
$\Box$
*Proof of Lemma (\[trou spectral p-laplacien\]):* By contradiction, if there exists a sequence of functions $f_n\in C_{D-N}^\infty$ such that $||f_n||_{L^p}=1$, and $||\nabla f_n||_{L^p}\rightarrow 0$. Since $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$ is reflexive for $1<p<\infty$, up to the extraction of a subsequence we can assume that the sequence $(f_n)_n$ converges weakly to $f$ in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$. But we have the compact Sobolev injection $W^{1,p}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^p$, therefore $(f_n)_n$ converges strongly in $L^p$, and as a consequence converges strongly to $f$ in $W^{1,p}(\Omega)$. The function $f$ then satisfies $\nabla f=0$ in the weak sense, and this implies that $\nabla f=0$ strongly, hence $f$ is constant since $\Omega$ is connected. In addition, the trace theorem for $W^{1,p}$ shows that $f|_{\partial \Omega_1}=0$, and therefore $f$ is zero. This contradicts the fact that $||f||_p=1$.
$\Box$
We will also use another caracterisation of $p-$hyperbolicity. Let us define first:
*If $U$ is a non-empty, relatively compact open subset of $M$, we define its $p-$*capacity* by*
$$\hbox{Cap}_p(U)=\inf\left\{\int_{M}|\nabla u|^p : u\in C_0^\infty\hbox{ such that }u|_U\geq 1\right\}=\inf\left\{\int_{M}|\nabla u|^p : u\in C_0^\infty\hbox{ such that }u|_U\equiv1\right\}.$$
The last inequality in this definition follows from the fact that the “truncation" of a function $u$ up to height $1$ on $U$ decreases the energy $\int_M |\nabla u|^p$. For a detailed proof, see [@Goldstein-Troyanov], Corollary 7.5. With this definition, we have the following caracterisation of the $p-$hyperbolicity:
\[hyperbolicity and capacity\]
$M$ is $p-$hyperbolic if and only if the $p-$capacity of some (all) non-empty, relatively compact open set is non-zero.
For a proof, see [@Troyanov], Proposition 1.
\[volume hyperbolic\] [ *With the result of Theorem (\[hyperbolicity and capacity\]), it is easy to see that if $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic for some $1<p<\infty$, then $M$ has infinite volume.* ]{}
\[somme connexe p-hyperbolique\]
A Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ is $p-$hyperbolic if and only if one of its ends is $p-$hyperbolic.
[*Proof:* ]{}It is enough to find a non-empty, relatively compact open subset $\Omega$ of $M$, whose $p-$capacity is non-zero. We take $\Omega$ such that $M\setminus \Omega=M_1\setminus B_1\sqcup\ldots\sqcup M_k\setminus B_k$, the $M_i$ being the (closed) ends of $M$, and the $B_i$ being non-empty, relatively compact open subsets of $M_i$. Using the fact that the $p-$capacity of a non-empty, relatively compact open subset $U$ is equal to
$$\inf\left\{\int_{M\setminus U}|\nabla u|^p : u\in C_0^\infty\hbox{ such that }u|_U\equiv 1\right\},$$ we see that
$$\hbox{Cap}_p(\Omega)=\sum_{i=1}^k\hbox{Cap}_p^{M_i}(B_i).$$ By hypothesis, one of the $M_i$ is $p-$hyperbolic ($M_1$ for example), which implies
$$\hbox{Cap}^{M_1}_p(B_1)>0,$$ and therefore
$$\hbox{Cap}_p(\Omega)>0.$$
$\Box$
The main result of this section is the following link between $p-$hyperbolicity and Riesz transform:
\[laplacien non p-parabolique\]
Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold, which is $p-$hyperbolic for a certain $1<p<\infty$. We assume that the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$. Then
$$\Delta^{-1/2} : L^p\rightarrow L^p_{loc},$$ is a bounded operator. Conversely, if the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^{q}$, $q$ being the dual exponent of $p$, and if
$$\Delta^{-1/2} : L^p\rightarrow L^p_{loc},$$ is a bounded operator, then $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic.
[*Proof:* ]{}Recall that the domain $L^p$ of $\Delta^{1/2}$ is defined as the set of functions $h$ in $L^p$ such that $\frac{e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}h-h}{t}$ has a limit in $L^p$ when $t$ tends to $0$. We will first prove the following Lemma:
\[densite p-hyperbolique\]
For $1<p<\infty$, $C_0^\infty(M)$ is contained in the domain $L^p$ of $\Delta^{1/2}$, and $\Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty$ is dense in $L^p$. Furthermore, if $u\in C_0^\infty$, then
$$\Delta^{-1/2}\Delta^{1/2}u=u.$$
*Proof of Lemma (\[densite p-hyperbolique\]):* If $f\in C_0^\infty(M)$, we write
$$\Delta^{1/2}f=\Delta^{-1/2}\Delta f=\int_0^\infty e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}\Delta fdt,$$ and we separate the integral in $\int_0^1+\int_1^\infty=I_1+I_2$. In order to bound the $L^p$ norm of $I_1$, we use the fact that $\Delta f\in L^p$ and that $||e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}||_{p,p}\leq 1$, which yields
$$||I_1||_p\leq ||\Delta f||_p.$$ For $I_2$, we use the analyticity of $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$ on $L^p$, which implies that
$$\left|\left|\Delta e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}\right|\right|_{p,p}\leq \frac{C}{t^2}.$$ Consequently, we obtain
$$||I_2||_p\leq C||f||_p,$$ which gives that $\Delta^{1/2}f\in L^p$.\
Let us now show that $\Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty$ is dense in $L^p$. First, $(\Delta+1)C_0^\infty$ is dense in $L^p$: indeed, if $f\in L^q$ is orthogonal to $(\Delta+1)C_0^\infty$ (where $q$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$), then we have in the weak sense
$$(\Delta+1)f=0,$$ and this implies by a result of S.T. Yau (see Theorem 4.1 of [@Pigola-Rigoli-Setti]) that $f$ is constant, then that $f$ is zero since $M$ is of infinite volume by Remark (\[volume hyperbolic\]). So $(\Delta+1)C_0^\infty$ is dense in $L^p$. Then, $\Delta^{1/2}\left(\Delta+1\right)^{-1}$ is a bounded operator on $L^p$: to see this, we write
$$\Delta^{1/2}\left(\Delta+1\right)^{-1}=\int_0^\infty \Delta^{1/2}e^{-t\Delta}e^{-t}dt,$$ and we use the analyticity of $e^{-t\Delta}$ to say that
$$\left|\left|\Delta^{1/2}e^{-t\Delta}\right|\right|_{p,p}\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{t}},\,\forall t>0.$$ Now, we write
$$\Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty=\Delta^{1/2}\left(\Delta+1\right)^{-1}(\Delta+1)C_0^\infty,$$ and since $(\Delta+1)C_0^\infty$ is dense in $L^p$, and that $\Delta^{1/2}\left(\Delta+1\right)^{-1}$ is continuous on $L^p$, we have to see that the range of $\Delta^{1/2}\left(\Delta+1\right)^{-1}$ is dense in $L^p$. But $\left(\Delta+1\right)^{-1}L^p=\mathcal{D}_p(\Delta)$, the domain $L^p$ of the Laplacian. So we have to see that $\Delta^{1/2}\mathcal{D}_p(\Delta)$ is dense in $L^p$. But $\mathcal{D}_p(\Delta)$ contains $\Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty$ by the first part of the Lemma: indeed, if $g\in C_0^\infty$,
$$\Delta (\Delta^{1/2}g)=\Delta^{1/2}(\Delta g),$$ and this is in $L^p$ since $\Delta g\in L^p$. Therefore $\Delta^{1/2}\mathcal{D}_p(\Delta)$ contains
$$\Delta^{1/2}\Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty=\Delta C_0^\infty,$$ which is dense in $L^p$ again by Yau’s result.\
\
It remains to show that when $u\in C_0^\infty$, then
$$\Delta^{-1/2}\Delta^{1/2}u=u.$$ We write
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\Delta^{-1/2}\Delta^{1/2}u&=&\int_0^\infty e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}\Delta^{1/2} u\,dt\\\\
&=&\int_0^\infty-\frac{d}{dt}\left(e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}u\right)\,dt\\\\
&=&u-\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}u
\end{array}$$ By the spectral theorem, $\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}u$ converges to the projection of $u$ on the $L^2$ kernel of $\Delta$. But by Yau’s above-mentionned result and the fact that $M$ has infinite volume, the $L^2$ kernel of $\Delta$ is reduced to $\{0\}$, and therefore
$$\Delta^{-1/2}\Delta^{1/2}u=u.$$
$\Box$
Now, we come back to the proof of Proposition (\[laplacien non p-parabolique\]). We consider the first part of the Proposition. Let $\Omega$ be a non-empty, open, relatively compact set in $M$. The fact that the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^p$ is equivalent to the inequality
$$||\nabla u||_p\leq C||\Delta^{1/2}u||_p,\,\forall u\in C_0^\infty.$$ Since $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic, we also have the inequality
$$||u||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||\nabla u||_p,\,\forall u\in C_0^\infty.$$ Combining these two inequalities, we obtain
$$||u||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||\Delta^{1/2}u||_p,\,\forall u\in C_0^\infty.$$ Fix $u\in C_0^\infty$, and define $v=\Delta^{1/2}u$. Using the fact that since $u\in C_0^\infty$, by Lemma \[densite p-hyperbolique\]
$$\Delta^{-1/2}\Delta^{1/2}u=u,$$ we have that $v$ is in the $L^p$ domain of $\Delta^{-1/2}$, and moreover $\Delta^{-1/2}v=u$. We thus obtain
$$||\Delta^{-1/2}v||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||v||_p.$$ This is true for every $v\in \Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty$, but by Lemma \[densite p-hyperbolique\] $\Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty$ is dense in $L^p$, and thus we obtain that
$$||\Delta^{-1/2}v||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||v||_p,\,\forall v\in L^p,$$ which is the result of the first part.\
For the converse, we start with the assumption that there is a constant $C$ and a non-empty, open, relatively compact set $\Omega$ such that for every $v\in L^p$,
$$||\Delta^{-1/2}v||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C ||u||_p.$$ Apply this to $v:=\Delta^{1/2}u$ for $u\in C_0^\infty(M)$ (which is licit by Lemma \[densite p-hyperbolique\]), and using that $\Delta^{-1/2}v=u$ gives
$$||u||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||\Delta^{1/2}u||_p,\,\forall u\in C_0^\infty(M).$$ But it is well-known that the boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^q$ gives following the dual inequality: there is a constant $C$ such that
$$||\Delta^{1/2}u||_p\leq C||\nabla u||_p,\,\forall u\in C_0^\infty(M).$$ As a consequence, we get
$$||u||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||\nabla u||_p,\,\forall u\in C_0^\infty(M),$$ i.e. $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic.
$\Box$
To conclude this section, we prove an inequality, announced in the introduction, involving the hyperbolic dimension and the Sobolev dimension. First, recall that the definition:
The *hyperbolic dimension* $d_H$ of $M$ is defined as the supremum of the set of $p$ such that $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic.
Notice that (up to the author’s knowledge) it is not known in full generality that the set of $p$ such that $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic is an interval; of course, by Proposition \[laplacien non p-parabolique\], this is true if the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for $1<p<\infty$. Furthermore, by Corollary \[somme connexe p-hyperbolique\], if $M$ and $M_0$ are isometric outside a compact set, then
$$d_H(M_0)=d_H(M).$$
\[dimension hyperbolic\] Let $M$ satisfying $d_S>2$, and assume that the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in \left(\frac{d_S}{d_S-1},2\right]$. Then
$$d_H\geq d_S.$$ More precisely, $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic for every $2\leq p<d_S$.
[*Proof:* ]{}Denote $d=d_S$, and let $1<p<d$. By Varopoulos [@Varopoulos],
$$\Delta^{-1/2} : L^p\rightarrow L^{\frac{dp}{d-p}},$$ and in particular
$$\Delta^{-1/2} : L^p\rightarrow L^p_{loc}.$$ Let $\Omega$ be an non-empty, open, relatively compact set of $M$, then for every $u\in L^p$,
$$||\Delta^{-1/2}u||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C ||u||_p.$$ Applying this inequality to $u=\Delta^{1/2}v$ for $v\in C_0^\infty$ (this is licit since we have $\Delta^{1/2}C_0^\infty\subset L^p$ by Lemma \[densite p-hyperbolique\]) yields
$$||v||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||\Delta^{1/2}v||_p,\,\forall v\in C_0^\infty.$$ But it is well-knwon that the boundedness of the Riesz transform on $L^q$ implies the dual inequality
$$||\Delta^{1/2}v||_{q'}\leq C||\nabla v||_{q'},\,\forall v\in C_0^\infty,$$ where $q'$ is the dual exponent of $q$. By hypothesis, the Riesz transform is bounded on $L^{p'}$, so that, using the dual inequality for $q=p'$, we obtain
$$||v||_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C||\nabla v||_p\,\forall v\in C_0^\infty,$$ which is exactly saying that $M$ is $p-$hyperbolic.
$\Box$
Proof of the main results
=========================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] and its corollaries, announced in the introduction. We will extend the proof of Theorem (\[resultat Carron\]) in [@Carron4], to get rid of the condition $p<d_S$. For the convenience of the reader, we have divided the proof in several subsections. First, in subsection 1, we introduce several definitions and notations. In subsection 2, we recall the construction of [@Carron4]. In subsection 3, we prove Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] in the case of several ends. In subsection 4, we prove Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] in the case of one end. Finally, in subsection 5, we prove the corollaries of Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\].\
Definitions and notations
-------------------------
*Notation:* we will write $\mathfrak{s}(f)$ for the support of $f$.\
\
Let $K_1$ be a compact set with smooth boundary such that $M\setminus K_1$ is isometric to the complement of a compact set of $M_0$, and $K_2$, $K_3$ compact sets with smooth boundaries such that $K_1\subset K_2\subset K_3$ and such that $K_i$ is contained in the interior of $K_j$ for $i<j$.\
We define $\Omega:=M\setminus K_1$. Let $(\rho_0,\rho_1)$ be a partition of unity such that $\rho_1|_{K_1}\equiv1$, $\mathfrak{s}(\rho_0)\subset\Omega$ and $\mathfrak{s}(\rho_1)\subset K_2$. We also take $\varphi_0$ and $\varphi_1$ two smooth functions, such that $\mathfrak{s}(\varphi_0)\subset\Omega$, $\mathfrak{s}(\varphi_1)\subset K_3$ and such that $\varphi_i\rho_i=\rho_i$ for $i=1,2$. Furthermore, we assume that $\varphi_1 |_{K_2}\equiv 1$.\
We will denote by $A$ the closure of a relatively compact, smooth open subset containing $\mathfrak{s}(d\varphi_0)$. We can arrange so that the distance between $A$ and $\mathfrak{s}(\rho_0)$ is non-zero. Moreover, we can arrange so that $A$ is a disjoint union of connected “annuli" $A_i$, each annulus corresponding to an end of $M_0$.
About Carron’s proof of Theorem \[resultat Carron\]
---------------------------------------------------
The idea of G. Carron to prove Theorem \[resultat Carron\] is to build a parametrix for $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$. Then by the formula
$$\Delta^{-1/2}=\int_0^\infty e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}dt,$$ the parametrix for $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$ integrated in time yields a parametrix for $\Delta^{-1/2}$, and by differentiation of the Riesz transform $d\Delta^{-1/2}$. Therefore Carron’s proof is in two steps: first, the construction of a good parametrix for $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$, such that when integrated and differentiated, it will yield a parametrix bounded on $L^p$ for the Riesz transform. And secondly, one needs to prove that the error term between the parametrix and the Riesz transform is also bounded on $L^p$.\
\
Explicitely, Carron takes for the parametrix of $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$:
$$\mathfrak{E}(u)(s)=\varphi_0e^{-s\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0u+\varphi_1e^{-s\sqrt{\Delta_1}}\rho_1u,\,\forall u\in C_0^\infty(M),$$ where $\Delta_0$ is the Laplacian on $M_0$, and $\Delta_1$ is the Laplacian on $K_3$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Then we have the following formula:
$$e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}u=\mathfrak{E}(u,t)-G\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+\Delta\right)\mathfrak{E}(u),$$ where $G$ is the Green operator of $\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+\Delta\right)$ over ${\mathbb{R}}_+\times M$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions on the boundary $\{0\}\times M$. Indeed, at $t=0$, $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}u=\mathfrak{E}(u,t)=u$. The term $G\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+\Delta\right)\mathfrak{E}(u)$ is the error term in the parametrix of $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$. When integrated and differentiated, the above parametrix for $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$ yields a parametrix for the Riesz transform, which is explicitely
$$\mathfrak{R}:=\sum_{i=0}^1\varphi_id\Delta_i^{-1/2}\rho_i+(d\varphi_i)\Delta_i^{-1/2}\rho_i.$$ Let us explain why $\mathfrak{R}$ is a good parametrix for $p<d_S$, i.e. is bounded on $L^p$ if $p<d_S$. First, $d\Delta_0^{-1/2}$ is the Riesz transform on $M_0$, which is bounded by hypothesis. Also, $\varphi_1d\Delta_1^{-1/2}\rho_1$ is a pseudo-differential operator with compact support, and hence is bounded on $L^p$; $(d\varphi_0)\Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0$ is a operator with smooth kernel and compact support, hence is bounded on $L^p$. Finally, the operator $(d\varphi_0)\Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0$ is bounded on $L^p$ if $p<d_S$, which comes from the facts that $d\varphi_0$ is compactly supported and that for $p<d_S$,
$$\Delta_0^{-1/2} : L^p\rightarrow L^{\frac{np}{n-p}}.$$ The second part of Carron’s proof is to show that the error term when we approximate $d\Delta^{-1/2}$ by $\mathfrak{R}$ can be controled on $L^p$ if $p<d_S$.\
\
In order to improve Carron’s result, two things have to be done: first, to find a parametrix for the Riesz transform which is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\geq d_S$, and secondly, to improve the estimates of the error term in order to show that the error term is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\geq d_S$, and not only for $p<d_S$.
The case where $M$ has several ends
-----------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] in the case where $M$ has several ends. We first remark that the boundedness of the Riesz transform of $M$ on $L^p$ for $p\in [p_0,2]$ is a consequence of Carron’s work [@Carron4]. We will thus only prove boundedness in the range $[2,\min(d_H,p_1))$. We take the same parametrix for $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$ than in Carron [@Carron4]:
$$\mathfrak{E}(\sigma,u)=\varphi_0e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u+\varphi_1e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_1}}\rho_1 u.$$ The main observation is that when $p\in(p_0,\min(p_1,d_H))$, the corresponding parametrix for the Riesz transform $\mathfrak{R}=d\int_0^\infty \mathfrak{E}(\sigma,\cdot)\,d\sigma$ is bounded on $L^p$. Let us explain this now. We have seen in the previous paragraph that
$$\mathfrak{R}:=\sum_{i=0}^1\varphi_id\Delta_i^{-1/2}\rho_i+(d\varphi_i)\Delta_i^{-1/2}\rho_i,$$ and that under the hypothesis of Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\], the operators $\varphi_0d\Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0$, $\varphi_1d\Delta_1^{-1/2}\rho_1$ and $(d\varphi_1)\Delta_1^{-1/2}\rho_1$ are bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in (p_0,p_1)$. It remains the operator $(d\varphi_0)\Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0$. By the fact that $M_0$ satisfies the Sobolev inequality, $M_0$ is $2-$hyperbolic. Thus by the result of Proposition \[laplacien non p-parabolique\] and interpolation, $(d\varphi_1)\Delta_1^{-1/2}\rho_1$ is bounded on $L^p$ if $p\in [2,d_H)$. Therefore, $\mathfrak{R}$ is bounded for every $p\in(p_0,\min(p_1,d_H))$. All that remains to be done is to show that the corresponding error term is bounded on $L^p$ when $p\in(p_0,\min(p_1,d_H))$, and for this we need to improve the error estimates done in [@Carron4].\
\
Let $p\in(p_0,\min(p_1,d_H))$; we choose some fixed $q>\frac{d_S}{d_S-2}$ satisfying $p<q<\min(p_1,d_H)$. We will also denote $d:=d_S$. According to [@Carron4], the error term in the parametrix of the Riesz transform is $dg$, where
$$g=\int_0^\infty \int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times R_+\times M}G(\sigma,s,x,y)\left[\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\sigma^2}+\Delta\right) \mathfrak{E}(\cdot,u)(s,y)\right]d\sigma dsdy,$$ $G$ being the Green function of $\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}+\Delta\right)$ on $M\times {\mathbb{R}}_+$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions on $M\times\{0\}$. We let $$\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \sigma^2}+\Delta\right)\mathfrak{E}(\sigma,u)=f_0(\sigma,.)+f_1(\sigma,.),$$ where the functions $f_i$ are defined by
$$f_i(t,.)=(\Delta\varphi_i)\left(e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_i}}\rho_i u\right)-2\langle d\varphi_i,\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_i}}\rho_i u\rangle.$$ In [@Carron4], estimates on the $f_i$ are shown. However, since we do not assume $p<d_S$, the corresponding estimates for $f_0$ will not hold in our case. Instead, we will estimate a modified function $\tilde{f}_0$, that we define by
$$\tilde{f}_0(t,.)=\left[\sum_j\mathbf{1}_{A_j}(\Delta\varphi_0)\left(\psi(t)-\left(\psi(t)\right)_{A_j}\right)\right]-2\langle d\varphi_0,\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\rangle,$$ where $A=\sqcup_j A_j$, each $A_j$ being connected and smooth (see subsection 1 for the definition of $A$), and $\left(\psi(t)\right)_{A_j}$ denotes the average of $\psi$ on $A_j$. We first show estimates on $f_1$ and $\tilde{f}_0$:
\[estimees f\]
If $\alpha=d\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)>0$, then there exists a constant $C$ such that
$$\label{estimee f_0}
||\tilde{f}_0(t,.)||_1+||\tilde{f}_0(t,.)||_p\leq \frac{C}{(1+t)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p,\,\forall t>0.$$
and
$$\label{estimee f_1}
||f_1(t,.)||_1+||f_1(t,.)||_p\leq \frac{C}{(1+t)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p,\,\forall t>0.$$
*Proof of Lemma \[estimees f\].* We begin by $f_1$. In [@Carron4], it is shown that for some constant $\lambda>0$,
$$||f_1(t,.)||_1+||f_1(t,.)||_p\leq e^{-\lambda t}||u||_p,\,\forall t>0,$$ which of course implies
$$||f_1(t,.)||_1+||f_1(t,.)||_p\leq \frac{C}{(1+t)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p,\,\forall t>0.$$ Now we turn to $\tilde{f}_0$. Since $d\Delta_0^{-1/2}$ is bounded on $L^q(M_0)$, and $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}$ is analytic on $L^r$ for $1<r<\infty$ (see [@Stein] or [@Coulhon-Saloff-Varopoulos], this comes from the subordination identity), we have
$$||\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}||_{q,q}\leq \frac{C}{t},\,\forall t>0.$$ But
$$||e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}||_{p,q}\leq \frac{C}{t^{d\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)}}=\frac{C}{t^\alpha},\,\forall t>0,$$ where $\alpha=d\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)>0$. We get
$$||\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}||_{p,q}\leq ||\nabla e^{-\frac{t}{2}\sqrt{\Delta_0}}||_{q,q}||e^{-\frac{t}{2}\sqrt{\Delta_0}}||_{p,q}\leq \frac{C}{t^{1+\alpha}}.$$ We also have (cf [@Carron4])
$$||\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_i}}||_{L^p(U)\rightarrow L^q(F)}\leq C,\,\forall t\leq 1,$$ if $U$ is an open subset and $F$ a compact set at positive distance from $U$. Therefore we get
$$\label{gradient hors diagonale}
||\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}||_{L^p(U)\rightarrow L^q(F)}\leq \frac{C}{(1+t)^{1+\alpha}},\,\forall t>0.$$
Since for every $F$ compact, $L^q(F)\hookrightarrow L^1(F)$ and $L^q(F)\hookrightarrow L^p(F)$, and given that the support of $\rho_0$ and $A$ are disjoint, we obtain
$$||\langle d\varphi_0,\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\rangle||_{L^1}+||\langle d\varphi_0,\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\rangle||_{L^p}\leq \frac{C}{(1+t)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p,\,\forall t>0.$$ It remains the term $\left[\sum_j\mathbf{1}_{A_j}(\Delta\varphi_0)\left(\psi(t)-\left(\psi(t)\right)_{A_j}\right)\right]$. We have, by the Poincaré inequality $L^q$ on $A_j$:
$$||\psi(t)-\left(\psi(t)\right)_{A_j}||_{L^q(A_j)}\leq C||\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u||_{L^q(A_j)}\leq \frac{C}{(1+t)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p,\,\forall t>0.$$ Hence the estimates for $\tilde{f}_0$.
$\Box$
Now, we decompose $g$ into $g_1+g_2$, with
$$g_1(x)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+\times M}G(\sigma,s,x,y)\tilde{f}_0(s,y)d\sigma dsdy+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+\times M}G(\sigma,s,x,y)f_1(s,y)d\sigma dsdy,$$ and
$$g_2(x)=\sum_j\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+\times M}G(\sigma,s,x,y)\mathbf{1}_{A_j}(y)(\Delta\varphi_0)(y)\left(\psi(s)\right)_{A_j}))d\sigma dsdy.$$ We have, in an equivalent way,
$$g_1=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}(e^{-t\Delta}(\tilde{f}_0(s,.)+f_1(s,.))dt\right)drds,$$ and
$$g_2=\sum_j\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times {\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}e^{-t\Delta}(\mathbf{1}_{A_j}(\Delta\varphi_0)\left(\psi(s)\right)_{A_j})dt\right)drds.$$ In order to conclude the proof of Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] in the case of several ends, we have to show that $||dg_1||_p+||dg_2||_p\leq C||u||_p.$ This will be done in the next two Lemmas. Let us begin by
\[erreur1\]
There exists a constant $C$ such that for every $u\in L^p$,
$$||dg_1||_p\leq C||u||_p.$$
[*Proof:* ]{}According to Proposition 2.1 in [@Carron4], it is enough to show that $||g_1||_p+||\Delta g_1||_p\leq C||u||_p$. The term $||\Delta g_1||_p$ is the easiest: defining $h:=\tilde{f}_0+f_1$, we have
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\Delta g_1&=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+} e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}\Delta(e^{-t\Delta}h(s,.))dt\right) drds\\\\
&=&-\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+} e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}\frac{d}{dt}(e^{-t\Delta}h(s,.))dt\right) drds\\\\
&=&\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+} e^{-r^2}\left(h(s,.)-(e^{-\frac{s^2}{4r^2}\Delta}h(s,.))\right)drds.
\end{array}$$ Hence, by and ,
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
||\Delta g_1||_p&\leq& \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}||h(s,.)||_pdrds\\\\
&\leq& \frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\frac{C}{(1+s)^{1+\alpha}}drds\right) ||u||_p\\\\
&\leq& C||u||_p
\end{array}$$ For $||g_1||_p$, using
$$||e^{-t\Delta}||_{1,p}\leq \frac{C}{t^{\frac{d}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)}},$$ and , , we have
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
||g_1||_p&\leq& \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}||e^{-t\Delta}h(s,.)||_pdt\right)dsdr\\\\
&\leq& \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}\frac{C}{\max\left(1,t^{\frac{d}{2}(1-\frac{1}{p})}\right)(1+s)^{1+\alpha}}dt\right)dsdr\right)||u||_p\\\\
&\leq& C\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\frac{1}{\max\left(1,t^{\frac{d}{2}(1-\frac{1}{p})}\right)(1+2r\sqrt{t})^{\alpha}}dtdr\right)||u||_p
\end{array}$$ We seperate the integral in $\int_{t\leq r^{-2}}+\int_{t\geq r^{-2}}=I_1+I_2$. The integral $I_1$ is finite if and only if
$$(-2)\left(\frac{d}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)-1\right)<1,$$ which is equivalent to
$$p>\frac{d}{d-1}.$$ Since $p>p_0>\frac{d}{d-1}$, this is automatically satisfied. For $I_2$,
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
I_2&\leq&\int_0^\infty e^{-r^2}\left(\int_{r^{-2}}^\infty \frac{1}{t^{\frac{d}{2}(1-\frac{1}{p})}}\frac{1}{(r\sqrt{t})^\alpha}dt\right)dr\\\\
&\leq& \int_0^\infty e^{-r^2}\frac{1}{r^\alpha}\left(\int_{r^{-2}}^\infty\frac{1}{t^{\frac{d}{2}(1-\frac{1}{p})}}\frac{1}{(\sqrt{t})^\alpha}dt\right)dr
\end{array}$$ The integral in $t$ is finite if and only if
$$\frac{d}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)+\frac{\alpha}{2}>1,$$ and recalling that $\alpha=d\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)$, we find that it is equivalent to
$$q>\frac{d}{d-2},$$ which is satisfied by assumption. The integral in $r$ is then
$$\int_0^\infty e^{-r^{2}}\frac{1}{r^{\alpha-2\left(\frac{d}{2}(1-\frac{1}{p})+\frac{\alpha}{2}-1\right)}}dr,$$ which is finite if and only if
$$\alpha-d\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)-\alpha+2<1,$$ which is equivalent to
$$p>\frac{d}{d-1},$$ which is satisfied by assumption since $p>p_0>\frac{d}{d-1}$.
$\Box$
Now we turn to estimate $g_2$, which will conclude the proof of Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] in the case of several ends.
$$||dg_2||_p\leq C||u||_p.$$
[*Proof:* ]{}According to Proposition 2.1 in [@Carron4], it is enough to show that $||g_2||_p+||\Delta g_2||_p\leq C||u||_p$. We begin to show that $||g_2||_p\leq C||u||_p$. We have
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
g_2(x)&=&\sum_j\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}e^{-t\Delta}\left(\mathbf{1}_{A_j}(\Delta\varphi_0)\left(\psi(s)\right)_{A_j}\right)(x)dt\right)drds\\\\
&=&\sum_j\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}\left(\psi(s)\right)_{A_j}e^{-t\Delta}\left(\mathbf{1}_{A_j}\Delta\varphi_0\right)(x)dt\right)drds,
\end{array}$$ therefore
$$||g_2||_p\leq \sum_j\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_0^{\frac{s^2}{4r^2}}\left(\frac{1}{|A_j|}\int_{A_j}e^{-s\sqrt{\Delta_0}}|\rho_0 u|\right)||e^{-t\Delta}\chi||_pdt\right)drds,$$ where we have defined $\chi:=\Delta\varphi_0=\Delta(\varphi_0-1)$. Using the fact that $||e^{-t\Delta}||_{1,p}\leq \frac{C}{t^{\frac{d}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)}}$, the analyticity of $e^{-t\Delta}$ on $L^p$, and the fact that $\varphi_0-1$ is smooth with compact support,
$$||e^{-t\Delta}\chi||_p\leq \frac{C}{\max\left(1,t^{1+\frac{d}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)}\right)},\,\forall t>0.$$ Furthermore, we have for every $p>1$,
$$1+\frac{d}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)>1,$$ and consequently
$$\int_0^\infty ||e^{-t\Delta}\chi||_pdt<\infty.$$ So
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
||g_2||_p&\leq& C\sum_j\int_{{\mathbb{R}}_+\times{\mathbb{R}}_+}e^{-r^2}\left(\int_{A_j}e^{-s\sqrt{\Delta_0}}|\rho_0 u|\right)drds\\\\
&\leq& C\sum_j\int_{A_j}\left(\int_0^\infty e^{-s\sqrt{\Delta_0}}|\rho_0 u|ds\right) \\\\
&\leq& C\sum_j\int_{A_j} \Delta_0^{-1/2}|\rho_0 u|
\end{array}$$ According to Proposition (\[laplacien non p-parabolique\]), $\Delta_0^{1/2} : L^p\rightarrow L^p_{loc}\hookrightarrow L^1_{loc}$, which implies that
$$||g_2||_p\leq C||u||_p.$$ Let us turn now to $\Delta g_2$: as for $g_1$, we have
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
||g_2||_p&\leq& \sum_j\frac{4}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2_+}e^{-r^2}||\left(\psi(s)\right)_{A_j}(\Delta\varphi_0)||_pdrds\\\\
&\leq& C\sum_j\int_0^\infty|\left(\psi(s)\right)_{A_j}|ds,
\end{array}$$ and by the argument we have already used,
$$\sum_j\int_0^\infty|\left(\psi(s)\right)_{A_j}|ds\leq C||u||_p,$$ which concludes the proof.
$\Box$
The case where $M$ has one end
------------------------------
In this subsection, we prove Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] when $M$ has *only one end*. As we already explained, the parametrix $\mathfrak{R}$ for the Riesz transform constructed by Carron has a term which is not bounded on $L^p$ when $p>d_H$: more precisely, the term $(d\varphi)\Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0$ is not bounded on $L^p$ if $p>d_H$. Hence, we have to modify the parametrix. The main idea is the following: notice that since $M$ has only one end, $d\varphi$ is the supported in $A$ which is a *connected* annulus. Thanks to the $L^p$ Poincaré inequality in $A$, there is a constant $C$ such that
$$\left|\left|v-\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}v\right|\right|_{L^p(A)}\leq C||\nabla v||_p\,\forall v\in C^\infty(A).$$ Applying this to $\Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0 u$ for $u\in C_0^\infty(M)$, we get for $p\in (p_0,p_1)$
$$\left|\left| \Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0 u-\frac{1}{|A|}\int_A \Delta_0^{1/2}\rho_0 u\right|\right|_{L^p(A)}\leq C||\nabla \Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0 u||_p\leq C||u||_p,$$ where in the last inequality we used the fact that the Riesz transform on $M_0$ is bounded on $L^p$ if $p\in (p_0,p_1)$. This implies that the modified parametrix
$$\mathfrak{S}u=\sum_{i=0}^1\varphi_iT_i\rho_i u+(d\varphi_1)\Delta_1^{-1/2}\rho_1u+(d\varphi_0)\left(\Delta^{-1/2}\rho_0 u-\left(\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}\Delta_0^{-1/2}\rho_0u\right)\right),$$ where $T_i:=d\Delta_i$, is bounded on $L^p$ for every $p\in (p_0,p_1)$. The corresponding parametrix for $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$ is given by
$$\mathfrak{F}(\sigma,u)=\mathfrak{E}(\sigma,u)-(\varphi_0-1)\left(\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}e^{-\sigma \sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0u\right),$$ i.e.
$$\mathfrak{S}u=d\int_0^\infty \mathfrak{F}(\sigma,u) \,d\sigma.$$ The supplementary term that we have added to the parametrix of $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}$ is
$$-(\varphi_0-1)\left(\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}e^{-\sigma \sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0u\right),$$ which vanishes when $\sigma=0$, since $A$ and the support of $\rho_0$ are disjoint by hypothesis. So we have, as should be,
$$\mathfrak{F}(0,u)=u.$$ Notice also that since $\varphi_0-1$ is compactly supported, the integral with respect to $\sigma$ of this supplementary term is analogous to the term $G_3$ in the parametrix of $\Delta^{-1/2}$ constructed By Carron-Coulhon-Hassell in [@Carron-Coulhon-Hassell]: its kernel $k(x,y)$ is non-zero only if $x$ is in $K_3$ and $y$ is in $M\setminus K_1$.\
We thus have constructed a parametrix $\mathfrak{S}$ for the Riesz transform, which is bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in (p_0,p_1)$. As in the proof of Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] in the case where $M$ has several ends, it remains to show that the error term is also bounded on $L^p$.\
\
We will use the calculations made in the previous subsection. This time, we have (with $f_1$ defined as in the previous subsection)
$$\begin{array}{rcl}\left(-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \sigma^2}+\Delta\right)\mathfrak{F}(\sigma,u)&=&f_1(\sigma,.)+(\Delta\varphi_0)\left(e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}\rho_0 u\right)-2\langle d\varphi_0,\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\rangle\\\\
&&-(\Delta\varphi_0)\left(\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\right)-(\varphi_0-1)\left(\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}\Delta_0 e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\right).
\end{array}$$ Define as in the previous section
$$\tilde{f}_0(\sigma,.):=(\Delta\varphi_0)\left(e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta}}\rho_0 u-\left(\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\right)\right)-2\langle d\varphi_0,\nabla e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\rangle,$$ and also
$$\bar{f}_0(\sigma,.)=(\varphi_0-1)\left(\frac{1}{|A|}\int_{A}\Delta_0 e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\rho_0 u\right).$$ We have the following estimates on $f_1$, $\tilde{f}_0$ and $\bar{f}_0$:
\[estimee f 2\] If $\alpha=d\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)$, then for all $\sigma>0$,
$$||f_1(\sigma,\cdot)||_1+||f_1(\sigma,\cdot)||_p\leq \frac{C}{(1+\sigma)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p,$$
$$||\tilde{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_1+||\tilde{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_p\leq \frac{C}{(1+\sigma)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p,$$ and $$||\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_1+||\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_p\leq \frac{C}{(1+\sigma)^{1+\alpha}}||u||_p.$$
Once this Lemma is established, the estimate of the error term proceeds as in the proof of Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] in the case where $M$ has more than one end. All we have to do is thus to prove the above estimates.\
\
*Proof of Lemma \[estimee f 2\]:* We already proved the estimates on $f_1$ and $\tilde{f}_0$ in Lemma \[estimees f\]. It remains to treat $\bar{f}_0$. First, by analyticity of $e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}$,
$$\label{terme d'erreur analytique}
\left|\left|\Delta_0e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\right|\right|_{p,p}\leq \frac{C}{t^2},$$
and therefore, using the fact that $\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)$ has compact support independant of $u$,
$$||\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_{1,1}+||\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_{p,p}\leq \frac{C}{\sigma^{2}}.$$ The proof will be complete once we show that $\Delta_0 e^{-t\sqrt{\Delta_0}}$ is a bounded operator $L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^\infty(A)$ when $t\rightarrow 0$ (where $\delta$ is a strictly positive constant, and where $A_\delta$ is the set of points whose distance to $A$ is greater than $\delta$). For this, we use the subordination identity:
$$e^{-\sigma \sqrt{\Delta_0}}=\frac{\sigma}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{\sigma^2}{4t}}e^{-t\Delta_0}\frac{dt}{t^{3/2}},$$ so that
$$\label{terme d'erreur un bout}
\Delta_0 e^{-\sigma \sqrt{\Delta_0}}=-\frac{\sigma}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\int_0^\infty e^{-\frac{\sigma^2}{4t}}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}e^{-t\Delta_0}\right)\frac{dt}{t^{3/2}}.$$
According to [@Davies2], Corollary 5 (se also [@Saloff-Coste1], Theorem 5.2.15), the Sobolev inequality on $M_0$ implies
$$\label{estimee derivee temps 1}
\left|\frac{\partial p^0_t(x,y)}{\partial t}\right|\leq \frac{C}{t^{n+1}}e^{-c\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t}},\,\forall (x,y)\in M_0\times M_0,\,\forall t>0,$$
where $p^0_\sigma(x,y)$ is the heat kernel on $M_0$. So, if $\Omega$ is an open set and $F$ a compact set such that $d(F,\Omega)\geq\varepsilon>0$, then,
$$\label{estimee derivee temps 2}
\left|\frac{\partial p^0_t(x,y)}{\partial t}\right|\leq \frac{C}{t^{n+1}}\exp\left(-c\frac{\varepsilon^2}{t}\right),\,\forall t>0,\,\forall x\in F,\,\forall y\in\Omega.$$
The estimates and imply the existence of a constant (depending of the lower bound on the Ricci curvature of $M$ and of $\delta$) such that, if $t\leq 1$,
$$\label{estimee Lp L infty}
\left|\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial t}e^{-t\Delta_0}\right|\right|_{L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^\infty(A)}\leq C.$$
Indeed, denoting $k_t(x,y)=\frac{1}{t^{n+1}}\exp\left(-c\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t}\right)$, and $K_t$ the operator with kernel $k_t$, then
$$\label{estimee L1 Linfty}
K_t : L^1(\Omega)\rightarrow L^\infty(F)$$
is uniformly bounded when $t\rightarrow 0$: this comes from the fact that by ,
$$||K_t||_{ L^1(\Omega)\rightarrow L^\infty(F)}=\sup_{x\in F,\,y\in \Omega}k_t(x,y)\leq C,\,\forall t\leq 1.$$ Furthermore,
$$\label{estimee Linfty Linfty}
K_t : L^\infty(\Omega)\rightarrow L^\infty(F)$$
is uniformly bounded when $t\rightarrow 0$. To show this, we have to prove that
$$\sup_{x\in F}\int_\Omega k_t(x,y)\leq C,\,\hbox{for all }t\hbox{ small enough.}$$ But for $t\leq 1$ and $x\in F$, $y\in\Omega$, yields
$$\label{estimee derivee temps 3}
k_t(x,y)\leq C_1\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}\frac{d^2(x,y)}{t}\right).$$
We then use the fact that the volume of balls of radius $r$ is bounded by $e^{ar}$ for a certain constant $a$, since the Ricci curvature is bounded from below on $M$; therefore, we deduce that if $t$ is small enough so that for every $x\in F$, $y\in \Omega$,
$$\frac{c}{2}\frac{\varepsilon}{t}> a,$$ then by ,
$$\sup_{x\in F}\int_\Omega k_t(x,y)\leq C_2.$$ Finally, is obtained by interpolation from and from . Using in addition the analyticity of $e^{-t\Delta_0}$ and the fact that $e^{-\frac{1}{2}\Delta_0} : L^p\rightarrow L^\infty$, we obtain that
$$\left|\left|\frac{\partial }{\partial t}e^{-t\Delta_0}\right|\right|_{L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^\infty(A)}=\left|\left|\Delta_0 e^{-t\Delta_0}\right|\right|_{L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^\infty(A)}\leq \frac{C}{1+t},\,\forall t>0.$$ In particular,
$$\left|\left|\frac{\partial }{\partial t}e^{-t\Delta_0}\right|\right|_{L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^\infty(A)}\leq C,\,\forall t>0.$$ Using , we then obtain $$\left|\left| \Delta_0 e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\right|\right|_{L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^\infty(A)}\leq C,\,\forall \sigma>0,$$ and reminding of , we have
$$\left|\left| \Delta _0e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\right|\right|_{L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^p(A)}+\left|\left| \Delta _0e^{-\sigma\sqrt{\Delta_0}}\right|\right|_{L^p(M_0\setminus A_\delta)\rightarrow L^1(A)}\leq \frac{C}{(1+\sigma)^2},\,\forall \sigma>0.$$ This implies that $\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)$ is bounded as an operator on $L^p$ when $\sigma\to0$. Using the fact that the support of $\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)$ is compact and independant of $u$, we get
$$||\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_{1,1}+||\bar{f}_0(\sigma,\cdot)||_{p,p}\leq \frac{C}{(1+\sigma)^{1+\alpha}}.$$
$\Box$
Proof of the corollaries to Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\]
------------------------------------------------------------
In this final subsection, we give the proofs of Corollaries \[asymptotic conic\], \[Riesz Ricci positive hors d’un compact\], \[Lie group\] and \[Riesz non borne somme connexe p-hyperbolique\].\
\
*Proof of Corollary \[asymptotic conic\]:* Using the result of H.Q. Li [@Li1] and noticing that the conic manifold $M_0$ satisfies $d_S=$dim$(M_0)>2$ and that $p_0>d_S$, we can apply Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] to get that the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $2\leq p<p_0$. The boundedness on $L^p$ of the Riesz transform on $M$ for $1<p<2$ follows from Coulhon-Duong’s result [@Coulhon-Duong2] and the fact that $M$ satisfies a Sobolev inequality. Now, if the Riesz transform on $M$ were bounded on $L^p$ for $p\in (1,p_1)$ with $p_1$, then applying Theorem \[Riesz p-hyperbolique\] reversing the roles of $M_0$ and $M$, we would get that the Riesz transform on $M_0$ is bounded on $L^p$ for every $p\in (1,p_1)$, which is false by H.Q. Li’s result.
$\Box$
*Proof of the Corollary \[Riesz Ricci positive hors d’un compact\]:* The hypothesis on the volume of balls implies (see [@Carron4]) that for every compact set $K$ in $M$, for all $1\leq p\leq q\leq \infty$, and for every $t\geq1$,
$$\left|\left| e^{-t\Delta}\right|\right|_{L^p(K)\rightarrow L^q(M)}\leq \frac{C_K}{t^{\nu\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\right)}},$$ and the proof of Theorem (\[Riesz p-hyperbolique\]) applies.
$\Box$
*Proof of the Corollary \[Lie group\]:* It is known by [@Alexopoulos] that the Riesz transform on $M_0$ is bounded on $L^p$ for every $1<p<\infty$. The Sobolev inequality on a simply connected, nilpotent Lie group is proved in [@Coulhon-Saloff-Varopoulos], p.56. The boundedness on $L^p$ of the Riesz transform on $M$ for $1<p<2$ follows from Coulhon-Duong’s result [@Coulhon-Duong2] and the fact that $M$ satisfies a Sobolev inequality. Furthermore, the simple connectedness of $M_0$ implies that it has only one end. Therefore, we can apply Theorem (\[Riesz p-hyperbolique\]) to get the result for $2\leq p<\infty$.
$\Box$
*Proof of Corollary \[Riesz non borne somme connexe p-hyperbolique\]:* By interpolation, it is enough to prove that the Riesz transform on $M$ is not bounded on $L^p$ for $n<p<q$. We proceed by contradiction: let us assume that the Riesz transform on $M$ is bounded on $L^p$ for a certain $n<p<q$. Then, since $M$ is $q-$hyperbolic according to Corollary (\[somme connexe p-hyperbolique\]), by applying Theorem (\[Riesz p-hyperbolique\]) we find that the Riesz transform on $M\#M$ is bounded on $L^r$, for some $n<r<p$. But $M\#M=({\mathbb{R}}^n\#{\mathbb{R}}^n)\#(N\#N)$, and since $M\#M$ is also $q-$hyperbolic, Theorem (\[Riesz p-hyperbolique\]) implies that the Riesz transform on the disjoint union of ${\mathbb{R}}^n\#{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and of $N\#N$ is bounded on $L^s$, for some $n<s<r$. But we know, according to [@Carron-Coulhon-Hassell] that the Riesz transform on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\#{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is not bounded on $L^s$ if $s\geq n$; hence a contradiction.
$\Box$
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
This article is part of the PhD thesis of the author. The author would like to thank his advisor G. Carron, for inspiring discussions and support.
[^1]: Laboratoire de Mathématiques Jean Leray, Université de Nantes (FRANCE); email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**An asymptotic solution for the SHE equations describing the charge transport in semiconductors.**]{}\
[Salvatore Fabio Liotta]{}\
[Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica,]{} [Università di Catania ]{}\
[Viale A. Doria 6, 95125, Catania, Italy]{}
[**Abstract**]{} In this paper an asymptotic solution of the spherical harmonics equations describing the charge transport in semiconductors is found. This solution is compared with a numerical solution for bulk silicon device. We also indicate application of this solution to the construction of high field hydrodynamical models.\
[**Keywords**]{} Semiconductors, Boltzmann equation, Spherical harmonics expansion.\
Introduction.
=============
In the framework of charge transport in semiconductors, a technique widely used in order to find approximate solutions of the Boltzmann transport equation (BTE) is based on a spherical harmonics expansion (SHE) of the distribution function (Rahmat, White and Antoniadis, 1996; Vecchi and Rudan, 1998; Ventura, Gnudi and Baccarani, 1995; Liotta and Struchtrup, 2000). Recently an asymptotic solution of the SHE equations was found (Liotta and Majorana, 1999) in the case of a homogeneous (bulk) device with a simple parabolic band structure. Despite the very simple situation in which this solution was obtained, it has revealed to be very useful in order to develop new asymptotic hydrodynamical models describing the hot electron population in silicon devices (both in the homogeneous and non-homogeneous case). In particular see Anile and Mascali (2000) and Anile, Liotta and Mascali (2000), where this asymptotic solution was used in order to close the set of moment equations.\
The aim of this work is to show the possibility of finding a new asymptotic solution generalizing that derived in Liotta and Majorana (1999) to the case of a non-parabolic band structure (Kane model). this solution reduces to the old one when the non-parabolicity parameter goes to zero. The importance is due to the fact that the Kane equation fits better the real band structure in the high field regime. Therefore this solution can be very useful in order to develop improved high field hydrodynamical models which could describe better the hot electron population. This solution is also interesting by itself in the framework of SHE models.
Basic equations.
================
We consider the case of unipolar semiconductor devices in which the current is essentially due to electrons (but the results can be generalized to holes). The semiclassical description of the electron transport is based on the BTE (Markowich et al., 1990; Ferry, 1991; Cercignani, 1987), which writes $${ \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}} +{{\bf v}({{\bf k}})}\cdot \nabla_{{{\bf x}}} f -
\frac{{\mbox{\gotic \symbol{'145}}}}{\hbar} {{\bf E}}\cdot \nabla_{{{\bf k}}} f = Q(f) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\label{BTE}$$ here ${f {(t, {{\bf x}}, {{\bf k}})}}$ is the electron distribution function, generally depending on time $t$, position ${{\bf x}}$ and wave vector ${{\bf k}}$ (belonging to the first Brillouin zone $B$). ${\mbox{\gotic \symbol{'145}}}$ is the absolute value of the electron charge, $\hbar$ the reduced Planck constant, ${{\bf E}}$ the electric field. $\nabla_{{{\bf x}}}$ and $\nabla_{{{\bf k}}}$ denote the gradient with respect to ${{\bf x}}$ and ${{\bf k}}$ respectively. The group velocity ${{\bf v}({{\bf k}})}$ is determined by the conduction band structure: ${{\bf v}({{\bf k}})}= \frac{1}{\hbar} \nabla_{{{\bf k}}} {{\varepsilon}({{\bf k}})}$, where ${{\varepsilon}({{\bf k}})}$ is the electron energy which depends on the wave vector. $Q$ is the collision operator which in the non-degenerate case has the form $$Q(f) = {{\int}W({{\bf k}},{\tilde{{\bf k}}}) f(t,{{\bf x}},{\tilde{{\bf k}}}) \hspace{2pt} d {\tilde{{\bf k}}}}
- {f {(t, {{\bf x}}, {{\bf k}})}}{{\int}W({\tilde{{\bf k}}},{{\bf k}}) \hspace{2pt} d {\tilde{{\bf k}}}} \label{collop} {\hspace{1pt} ,}$$ $W({{\bf k}},{\tilde{{\bf k}}})$ representing the electron scattering rate from a state with wave vector ${\tilde{{\bf k}}}$ to one with wave vector ${{\bf k}}$.\
We will consider a stationary and homogeneous situation (bulk device), neglecting the Poisson equation and taking into account only a constant externally applied electric field, then it will be $f={f ({{\bf k}})}$. Moreover, we will suppose that the electric field is directed along the ${{\bf x}}$-axis so to have a cylindrical symmetry around this axis and represent the two-dimensional momentum space by means of the polar coordinates $k=|{{\bf k}}| \left(=\xi({\varepsilon})\right)$ and $\theta=\arccos{({{{\bf k}}\cdot {{\bf k}}_x}/{|{{\bf k}}||{{\bf k}}_x|})}$, where ${{\bf k}}_x$ is the projection of ${{\bf k}}$ along $x$. Therefore the distribution function can be expanded in Legendre polynomials of the angle $\theta$ (Rahamat et al., 1996; Liotta and Struchtrup, 2000) $${f ({{\bf k}})}= \sum_{n} f_{n}({\varepsilon}) P_{n}(\cos{\theta})
\label{svp1} {\hspace{1pt} ,}$$ where $P_{n}$ is the $n$th order Legendre polynomial. This expansion will be computationally viable only if few spherical harmonics are enough to accurately represent the momentum space distribution. We will assume that the first two terms of the previous expression give a good approximation $${f ({{\bf k}})}\simeq {f_{0}({\varepsilon})}+{f_{1}({\varepsilon})}\cos{\theta} \label{svp2} {\hspace{1pt} .}$$ The lowest order harmonic coefficient furnishes information about the isotropic part of the distribution function and ${{\int}f_{0} \hspace{2pt} d {{\bf k}}}$ yields the electron concentration. The first order harmonic coefficient describes the asymmetry of the distribution function in the direction of the applied electric field, and ${{\int}f_{1} \cos{\theta} {{\bf v}({{\bf k}})}\hspace{2pt} d {{\bf k}}}/
{{\int}f_{0} \hspace{2pt} d {{\bf k}}}$ gives the hydrodynamical velocity of the electron gas.\
We will assume a spherically symmetric band structure of the Kane form (Ferry, 1991, Jacoboni and Lugli, 1989; Tomizawa, 1993) $$\gamma({\varepsilon}) {:=}{\varepsilon}(1 + \alpha {\varepsilon}) = \frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2 {m^{*}}} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\label{Kane}$$ where ${m^{*}}$ is the electron effective mass and $\alpha$ the constant non-parabolicity parameter. By putting $\alpha=0$ one obtains the usual parabolic band approximation. With this choice we can assume for the first Brillouin zone $B \equiv { {\mbox{\rams \symbol{'122}}}^{3}}$ and we have $ {{\bf v}({{\bf k}})}= \frac{\hbar {{\bf k}}}{{m^{*}}(2 \alpha {\varepsilon}+1)}$.\
As regards collisions, we will take into account the interaction between electrons and non-polar optical phonons and that between electrons and acoustical phonons, the latter in the elastic approximation, valid when the thermal energy is much greater than that of the phonon involved in the scattering. We consider the electron scatterings with ionized impurities to be negligible, [*i.e.*]{} we assume the doping density to be low. Then the transition rate of the collision operator reads (Jacoboni and Lugli, 1989; Tomizawa, 1993) $$W({{\bf k}},{\tilde{{\bf k}}}) = {{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}\left[{{\it n}_{op}}~{\hspace{1pt} \delta ({\varepsilon}- \tilde{{\varepsilon}} - {\hbar \omega_{op}}) }+({{\it n}_{op}}+1)~{\hspace{1pt} \delta ({\varepsilon}- \tilde{{\varepsilon}} + {\hbar \omega_{op}}) }\right] + {{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{ac}}{\hspace{1pt} \delta ({\varepsilon}- \tilde{{\varepsilon}}) }\label{scatt} {\hspace{1pt} ,}$$ where ${\varepsilon}={{\varepsilon}({{\bf k}})}$, $\tilde{{\varepsilon}}={{\varepsilon}({\tilde{{\bf k}}})}$, ${{\it n}_{op}}= \left(\exp{\left(\frac{{\hbar \omega_{op}}}{{k_{B}}{T_{L}}}\right)} -1 \right)^{-1}$ is the thermal equilibrium optical phonon number and ${{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}$ and ${{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{ac}}$ are respectively the non-polar optical and acoustical kernel coefficients (constant at a first approximation). ${\hbar \omega_{op}}$ is the optical phonon energy, ${k_{B}}$ the Boltzmann constant and ${T_{L}}$ the lattice temperature. These choices are appropriate for silicon devices.\
The SHE equations are easily obtained by inserting the expansion into the BTE and balancing the terms of the same order in $P_{n}(\cos{\theta})$. To generate a closed set of equations, all coefficients of order higher than the first are set to be zero, see Rahmat et al. (1996) (a closure inspired by the Grad moment method, see Grad, 1958).\
But for the aims of this paper it is preferable to perform a change of variables and write down a set of two coupled equations in the unknowns $$\begin{aligned}
N({\varepsilon}) = \sigma({\varepsilon}) f_{0}({\varepsilon}) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\label{N} \\
P({\varepsilon}) = \frac{8}{3} \pi \frac{\sqrt{{m^{*}}}}{\hbar^3}
\gamma({\varepsilon}) f_{1}({\varepsilon}) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\label{P}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\sigma(\tilde{{\varepsilon}})} {:=}{{\int_{\scriptstyle {\mbox{\iams \symbol{'122}}}^{3}}}{\hspace{1pt} \delta ({{\varepsilon}({{\bf k}})}- \tilde{{\varepsilon}}) }\hspace{2pt} d {{\bf k}}} = \nonumber \\
4 \sqrt{2} \pi \left( \frac{\sqrt{{m^{*}}}}{\hbar}
\right)^{3} H(\tilde{{\varepsilon}}) (\gamma(\tilde{{\varepsilon}}))^{\frac{1}{2}}~
\gamma'(\tilde{{\varepsilon}}) \label{dos}$$ is the density of states . $H({\varepsilon})$ is the Heaviside step function and $\gamma' ({\varepsilon}) \equiv
{ \frac{d \hspace{1pt} \gamma}{d \hspace{1pt} {\varepsilon}}} = (1 + 2 \alpha {\varepsilon})$. So doing, the expansion writes $${f ({{\bf k}})}\simeq \frac{N({\varepsilon})}{\sigma({\varepsilon})} +
\left(\frac{8}{3} \pi \frac{\sqrt{{m^{*}}}}{\hbar^3} \gamma({\varepsilon})\right)^{-1}
P({\varepsilon}) \cos{\theta} \label{svp3} {\hspace{1pt} .}$$ These new variables have also a direct physical interpretation: $${\int_{0}^{+ \infty} N({\varepsilon}) \hspace{2pt} d{\varepsilon}} = {{\int_{\scriptstyle {\mbox{\iams \symbol{'122}}}^{3}}}f_{0}({\varepsilon}) \hspace{2pt} d {{\bf k}}}~~~,~~~{\int_{0}^{+ \infty} P({\varepsilon}) \hspace{2pt} d{\varepsilon}} = {{\int_{\scriptstyle {\mbox{\iams \symbol{'122}}}^{3}}}v({\varepsilon}) f_{1}({\varepsilon}) \hspace{2pt} d {{\bf k}}} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\label{signf}$$ ($ v({\varepsilon}) =|{\bf v}_x|$) and are very suitable for our problem.\
With these choices the equations of our SHE model, in the stationary homogeneous case, write: $$\begin{aligned}
-{\mbox{\gotic \symbol{'145}}}E { \frac{d \hspace{1pt} P}{d \hspace{1pt} {\varepsilon}}} = G_{1}(N) \label{eqdim1}\\
-{\mbox{\gotic \symbol{'145}}}E { \frac{d \hspace{1pt} (g({\varepsilon}) N)}{d \hspace{1pt} {\varepsilon}}} +{\mbox{\gotic \symbol{'145}}}E h({\varepsilon}) N = G_{2}(P) \label{eqdim2} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
G_{1}(N) &=& {{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}\sigma({\varepsilon})
\left[({{\it n}_{op}}+1) N({\varepsilon}+{\hbar \omega_{op}}) + {{\it n}_{op}}N({\varepsilon}-{\hbar \omega_{op}})\right] - \nonumber \\
& &{{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}\left[{{\it n}_{op}}\sigma({\varepsilon}+{\hbar \omega_{op}}) -({{\it n}_{op}}+1)\sigma({\varepsilon}-{\hbar \omega_{op}})\right] N({\varepsilon}) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\nonumber \\
G_{2}(P) &=&
-\left[{{\it n}_{op}}{{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}\sigma({\varepsilon}+{\hbar \omega_{op}}) + ({{\it n}_{op}}+1) {{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}\sigma({\varepsilon}-{\hbar \omega_{op}})+ {{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{ac}}\sigma({\varepsilon}) \right]
P({\varepsilon}) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and $$g({\varepsilon}) {:=}\frac{2}{3} \frac{\gamma({\varepsilon})}{{m^{*}}(\gamma'({\varepsilon}))^2} ~~,~~
h({\varepsilon}) {:=}\frac{1}{{m^{*}}\gamma'({\varepsilon}) } - \frac{4}{3} \frac{\alpha}{{m^{*}}}
\frac{\gamma({\varepsilon})}{(\gamma'({\varepsilon}))^3} {\hspace{1pt} .}$$ We would like to underline that equations - can be obtained directly from the BTE by using a new alternative procedure. It consists in multiplying both sides of equation respectively by ${\hspace{1pt} \delta ({{\varepsilon}({{\bf k}})}- \tilde{{\varepsilon}}) }$ and by ${{\bf v}({{\bf k}})}{\hspace{1pt} \delta ({{\varepsilon}({{\bf k}})}- \tilde{{\varepsilon}}) }$ and then formally integrating with respect to ${{\bf k}}$ over the whole space ${ {\mbox{\rams \symbol{'122}}}^{3}}$. Some suitable closure relations are needed: in particular by assuming that $f$ depends on ${{\bf k}}$ only through the variable ${\varepsilon}$ one obtains equations - in the general non-homogeneous, non-stationary case (Liotta and Majorana, 1999; Majorana, 1998). This method is similar to the method of frequency dependent moments of radiation hydrodynamics (Thorne, 1981).
Dimensionless equations and physical parameters.
================================================
It is useful to introduce dimensionless variables: let $$t_{*} {:=}\left[ 4 \sqrt{2} \pi
\left( \frac{\sqrt{ {m^{*}}} }{\hbar} \right)^{3} \sqrt{{{k_{B}}{T_{L}}}} {{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}{{\it n}_{op}}\right]^{-1} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
\ell_{*} {:=}\left({\frac{{{k_{B}}{T_{L}}}}{{m^{*}}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} t_{*} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
{\varepsilon}_{*} {:=}{{k_{B}}{T_{L}}}{\hspace{1pt} ,}$$ $$w {:=}\frac{{\varepsilon}}{{\varepsilon}_{*}} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
n(w) {:=}u_{*} \ell_{*}^{3} N({\varepsilon}) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
p(w) {:=}u_{*} \ell_{*}^{2} t_{*} P({\varepsilon}) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad$$ $$\lambda {:=}\frac{{\hbar \omega_{op}}}{{{k_{B}}{T_{L}}}} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
a {:=}\frac{{{\it n}_{op}}+ 1 }{{{\it n}_{op}}} = e^{\lambda} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
\kappa {:=}\frac{{{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{ac}}}{{{\it n}_{op}}{{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
\zeta {:=}{\mbox{\gotic \symbol{'145}}}E \frac{\ell_{*}}{u_{*}} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\quad
\beta {:=}\alpha~{\varepsilon}_{*} {\hspace{1pt} .}$$ Moreover in the following we put $\chi (w) {:=}w(1+\beta w)$ and $\chi'(w) \equiv
{ \frac{d \hspace{1pt} \chi}{d \hspace{1pt} w}} = ( 1 + 2 \beta w)$. By using these new variables, equations - become $$\begin{aligned}
-\zeta { \frac{d \hspace{1pt} p}{d \hspace{1pt} w}} = \mu(w)
\left[a n(w+\lambda) + n(w-\lambda) \right]
- \left[\mu(w+\lambda) + a \mu(w-\lambda)\right] n(w) \label{eqadim1} \\
\zeta \left[-{ \frac{d \hspace{1pt} (r(w)n)}{d \hspace{1pt} w}} +q(w)n \right] =
-\left[\mu(w+\lambda) +a \mu(w-\lambda) +\kappa \mu(w) \right] p(w) \label{eqadim2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(w) & {:=}& H(w) \left[\chi(w)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}} \chi'(w) \nonumber \\
r(w) & {:=}& \frac{2}{3} \frac{\chi(w)}{\left[\chi'(w)\right]^2} \nonumber \\
q(w) & {:=}& \frac{1}{\chi'(w)} - \frac{4}{3} \beta \frac{\chi(w)}{\left[\chi'(w)\right]^3} {\hspace{1pt} .}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We associate the following conditions to equations - $$\begin{aligned}
& & n(0) = 0 ~(\Rightarrow p(0) = 0) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\qquad \lim_{w {\rightarrow}+ \infty} p(w) = 0 \nonumber
\\
& & n(w) \geq 0 ~~\forall~w \geq 0 {\hspace{1pt} ,}\qquad \int_{0}^{+\infty} n(w) \, dw >
0 ~~and ~~< + \infty {\hspace{1pt} .}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since equations - are linear and homogeneous, if a solution $(n(w), p(w))$, satisfying the above conditions exists, then, for every $c > 0$, also $(c \hspace{1pt} n(w), c \hspace{1pt} p(w))$ is a solution.\
The appropriate values of the physical parameters, in the case of a silicon device, are given in table I, were $m_{e}$ denotes the electron rest mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
$ {m^{*}}= 0.32 \, m_{e}$ $ {T_{L}}= 300 $ K ${\hbar \omega_{op}}= 0.063$ eV
\[7pt\] $ {\displaystyle}{{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{op}}= \frac{\left( D_{t} K \right)^{2}}{8 \pi^{2} \rho \omega_{op}} $ $ D_{t} K = 11.4 $ eV $^{-1}$ $\rho = 2330$ Kg m$^{-3}$
\[15pt\] $ {\displaystyle}{{\hspace{1pt} \mbox{\bellap K}}_{ac}}= \frac{{{k_{B}}{T_{L}}}}{4 \pi^{2} \hbar v_{0}^{2} \rho} \Xi_{d}^{2} $ $\Xi_{d} = 9$ eV $v_{0} = 9040$ m sec$^{-1}$.
\[15pt\] $ \alpha = 0.5 \, eV^{-1}$ $ \mbox{ } $ $ \mbox{ } $
\[7pt\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
[ Values of the physical parameters used in this paper. ]{}
Using these parameters, we get $\lambda \simeq 2.437$, $\kappa \simeq
5.986$ and $\beta \simeq 0.012926$.
Asymptotic equations.
=====================
Now we want to show that it is possible to find an approximate solution of the equations - valid for high values of the electron energy.\
It is useful to introduce a new variable $\psi(w)$ defined by $$n(w) = \mu(w) \psi(w) \label{psidef} {\hspace{1pt} .}$$ Equations - become $$\begin{aligned}
-\zeta { \frac{d \hspace{1pt} p}{d \hspace{1pt} w}} &=& \mu(w)
\left[a \mu(w+\lambda) \psi(w+\lambda)+ \mu(w-\lambda) \psi(w-\lambda) \right]
- \nonumber \\
& & \mu(w) \left[\mu(w+\lambda) + a \mu(w-\lambda)\right] \psi(w)
\label{eqoas1} \\
\frac{2}{3} \zeta \frac{\left[ \chi(w)\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\chi'(w)}
{ \frac{d \hspace{1pt} \psi}{d \hspace{1pt} w}} &=&
-\left[\mu(w+\lambda) +a \mu(w-\lambda) +\kappa \mu(w) \right] p(w)
\label{eqoas2} {\hspace{1pt} .}\end{aligned}$$ Because we look for an asymptotic form of the equations - for large values of the energy $w$, we expand the coefficients of the equations up to the zeroth order in $\lambda$: $\mu(w \pm \lambda) \simeq
\mu(w)$. In this way we obtain a new set of equations $$\begin{aligned}
-\zeta { \frac{d \hspace{1pt} p_{A}}{d \hspace{1pt} w}} &=& \mu^{2}(w)
\left[a \psi_{A}(w+\lambda) + \psi_{A}(w-\lambda) -(a+1)\psi_{A}(w) \right]
\label{eqas1} \\
p_{A}(w) &=& \frac{2}{3} \zeta \frac{\left[\chi(w)\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}
{\chi'(w) \mu(w) \left[1+a+\kappa\right]} { \frac{d \hspace{1pt} \psi_{A}}{d \hspace{1pt} w}}
\label{eqas2} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $A$ label the new unknowns. Substituting into , it follows $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{2}{3} \frac{\zeta^2}{(1+a+\kappa)}
\left[ \frac{\chi(w)}{\left[\chi'(w)\right]^2} \psi_{A}'' +
\left(\frac{1}{\chi'(w)} -\frac{4 \beta \chi(w)}
{\left[\chi'(w)\right]^3}\right)\psi_{A}'\right] = \nonumber \\
\chi(w) \left[\chi'(w)\right]^{2}
\left(a \psi_{A} \left(w+\lambda \right)
+ \psi_{A} \left(w-\lambda \right) -
(a+1) \psi_{A} \left( w \right) \right) \label{eqas3} {\hspace{1pt} ,}\end{aligned}$$ where the primes denote derivatives with respect to $w$.
Approximate solution.
=====================
In order to find an approximate solution of equation we expand the coefficients up to the first order in the non-parabolicity parameter $\beta$. $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{2}{3} \frac{\zeta^2}{(1+a+\kappa)}
\left[ \left(w-3 \beta w^2 \right) \psi_{A}'' +
\left(1-6 \beta w\right) \psi_{A}'\right] = \nonumber \\
\left(w+5\beta w^2 \right)
\left(a \psi_{A} \left(w+\lambda \right)
+ \psi_{A} \left(w-\lambda \right) -
(a+1) \psi_{A} \left( w \right) \right) \label{eqas4} {\hspace{1pt} .}\end{aligned}$$ This choice is justified by the smallness of $\beta$ and by the Kane equation itself, which is of the first order in the non-parabolicity parameter.\
We will search for solutions of equation having the form $$\psi_{A}(w) = e^{f(w)}~~{{\hspace{1pt} ,}}~~with~~
f(w) {:=}\eta_{0} w +\eta_{1} \beta w^2 {\hspace{1pt} ,}\label{sol1}$$ where $\eta_{0}$ and $\eta_{1}$ are functions of the applied electric force $\zeta$.\
It is useful to observe that $f(w \pm \lambda) =
f(w) + f(\pm\lambda) \pm 2\eta_{1} \beta \lambda w$. Expanding the following quantities up to the first order in $\beta$ : $$\begin{aligned}
e^{\pm 2 \eta_{1} \beta \lambda w} &\simeq&
1 \pm 2 \eta_{1} \beta \lambda w {\hspace{1pt} ,}\nonumber \\
e^{f(\pm\lambda)} &\simeq& e^{\pm \eta_{0} \lambda}
\left(1+\eta_{1} \lambda^{2} \beta \right) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ substituting into and retaining only terms up to first order in $\beta$, we obtain, after dropping the common factor $e^{f(w)}$, the equation $$\begin{aligned}
& &- \frac{2}{3} \frac{\zeta^2}{(1+a+\kappa)}
\left[ \eta_{0} + \left(\eta_{0}^{2} + 4 \beta \eta_{1} -
6 \beta \eta_{0}\right)w +\left(-3\beta \eta_{0}^{2} +
4 \beta \eta_{0} \eta_{1} \right) w^2 \right] = \nonumber \\
& &~~~~ \left[ \left(a~e^{\eta_{0} \lambda} + e^{-\eta_{0} \lambda}\right)
\left(1+\beta \eta_{1} \lambda^2\right) -(a+1)\right]w + \nonumber \\
& &~~~~ \left[a~e^{\eta_{0} \lambda}
\left(2 \eta_{1} \beta \lambda +5 \beta \right)
+ e^{-\eta_{0} \lambda}\left(-2 \eta_{1} \beta \lambda +5 \beta \right)
-5\beta(a+1)\right]w^2 {\hspace{1pt} .}\label{tra}\end{aligned}$$ If we divide both sides of equation by $w^2$, and neglect the terms in $\frac{1}{w^2}$, but not those in $\frac{1}{w}$ (in some sense we are serching for a “[*weakly asymptotic*]{}” solution), we obtain the following system of two transcendent equations in the unknowns $\eta_{0}$ and $\eta_{1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \hspace{-12mm} - \frac{2}{3} \frac{\zeta^2}{(1+a+\kappa)}
\left(\eta_{0}^{2} - 6 \beta \eta_{0} + 4 \beta \eta_{1} \right) =
\left(a~e^{\eta_{0} \lambda} + e^{-\eta_{0} \lambda}\right)
\left(1+\beta \eta_{1} \lambda^2\right) -(a+1) \label{tra1} \\
& & \hspace{-12mm} - \frac{2}{3} \frac{\zeta^2}{(1+a+\kappa)}
\left(4 \eta_{0} \eta_{1} -3 \eta_{0}^{2}\right) =
a~e^{\eta_{0} \lambda}
\left(5+ 2 \eta_{1} \lambda \right)
+ e^{-\eta_{0} \lambda}\left(5 - 2 \eta_{1} \lambda \right)
-5(a+1) {\hspace{1pt} ,}\label{tra2}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equation we have dropped the common factor $\beta$. If we are able to solve the previous system, it is possible to obtain $\eta{_0}$ and $\eta{_1}$ as functions of the applied electric force $\zeta$, and then $\psi_{A}(w)$. Moreover, by using equation , one can find $p_{A}(w)$.\
Henceforth we will indicate as [*asymptotic solution of the SHE equations*]{} the expressions of $n_{A}$ anp $p_{A}$ which can be obtained by means of the approximate solution of - which have been found.
Discussion of the solution and comparison with numerical results.
=================================================================
An analytical solution of the equations - has turned out to be impossible. Therefore we have limited ourselves to a graphical and numerical analysis. Given a value of the applied electric force $\zeta$, the requirement that the functions be integrable in $[0,+\infty[$ tells us that both $\eta_{0}$ and $\eta_{1}$ have to assume negative values. In fact, we found a negative solution of the system - in the domain $[-1,0] \times [-1,0]$ of the $(\eta_{0},\eta_{1})$ plane, for all the values of the electric field in the explored range. We used a simple MapleV algorithm in order to find the solutions. In table II we give some of the values we found.
$E$ (V/cm) $ ~~~\eta_{0}$ $~~~\eta_{1}$
--------------------- ------------------ -----------------
$0.0$ $ -1.0 $ $ ~~0.0$
$1.0 \times 10^{2}$ $ -0.9999636274$ $-0.0001493648$
$1.0 \times 10^{3}$ $ -0.9963693066$ $-0.0148712049$
$5.0 \times 10^{3}$ $ -0.9136708716$ $-0.3294754506$
$1.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ -0.7162321385$ $-0.8333494338$
$3.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ -0.2511364699$ $-0.5681222515$
$5.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ -0.1270766899$ $-0.2772663271$
$7.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ -0.0780599266$ $-0.1591756496$
$1.0 \times 10^{5}$ $ -0.0452815087$ $-0.0850850173$
[ Some values of $\eta_{0}$ and $\eta_{1}$ as functions of the electric field. ]{}
In figures 1, 2 and 3, we compare the asymptotic solution $(n_{A},p_{A})$ and the numerical solution $(n_{N},p_{N})$ of equations -, the latter obtained by a suitable numerical technique (Liotta and Majorana, 1999), for some values of the applied electric field.
As is possible to see, the agreement between the numerical and asymptotic solutions is good in all the energy range, despite the obtained asymptotic solution should be good only for high enough energy values (the agreement is obviously very good in this region). We want to observe that for low values of the electric field ($| {{\bf E}}| \leq 10^3$ V/cm), instead of formula , we use the following expression for $p_{A}$: $$p_{A}(w) =\frac{1}{\mu(w+\lambda) +a \mu(w-\lambda) + \kappa \mu(w)}
\frac{2}{3} \zeta \frac{\left[\chi(w)\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}
{\chi'(w)} { \frac{d \hspace{1pt} \psi_{A}}{d \hspace{1pt} w}}
\label{eqas2mod} {\hspace{1pt} .}$$ This choice is not coherent with the expansion, but allows a better agreement with the numerical solution and puts in evidence a discontinuity in the derivatives at the point $w=\lambda$ (in dimensional variables ${\varepsilon}= {\hbar \omega_{op}}$) due to the term $\mu(w-\lambda)$, that is zero for $0 \leq w \leq \lambda$. This term is also present in the original set of equations -. Then, such discontinuity is also expected in the solutions.\
As a measure of the difference between the numerical and asymptotic solution we can also compute $V_{as}=\int p_{A} d {\varepsilon}/ \int n_{A} d {\varepsilon}$ and $V_{num}=\int p_{N} d {\varepsilon}/ \int n_{N} d {\varepsilon}$, which give, in dimensional units, the electron hydrodynamical velocity. In table III we compare the values we found.
$E$ (V/cm) $ ~~~V_{as} (m/sec)$ $~~~V_{num} (m/sec)$
--------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
$1.0 \times 10^{2}$ $ 1.4879 \times 10^{3}$ $1.4537 \times 10^{3}$
$1.0 \times 10^{3}$ $ 1.4831 \times 10^{4}$ $1.3858 \times 10^{4}$
$5.0 \times 10^{3}$ $ 7.0223 \times 10^{4}$ $5.1060 \times 10^{4}$
$1.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ 6.0652 \times 10^{4}$ $7.3611 \times 10^{4}$
$3.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ 9.8325 \times 10^{4}$ $9.7714 \times 10^{4}$
$5.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ 1.0106 \times 10^{5}$ $9.9872 \times 10^{4}$
$7.0 \times 10^{4}$ $ 9.5124 \times 10^{4}$ $9.8395 \times 10^{4}$
$1.0 \times 10^{5}$ $ 8.2528 \times 10^{4}$ $9.5101 \times 10^{4}$
[ Comparison between the electron hydrodynamical velocities calculated by using respectively the asymptotic and numerical solutions. ]{}
The behaviour of the hydrodynamical velocity is the typical one when the Kane equation is used (see Tomizawa, 1993, p. 100, fig. 3.11). We do not consider higher values of the electric field because in this case also the Kane equation becomes inadequate to describe the conduction band, and a full band structure should be used (Vecchi and Rudan, 1998).
Conclusions and acknowledgments.
================================
We have shown that it is possible to find an “[*asymptotic solution*]{}” of the SHE equation - in which the dependence on the applied electric field is given implicitly through the system of transcendent equations -. The solution of the system - can be obtained by using standard numerical techniques. The agreement with the numerical solution is good in all the explored range of applied electric fields.\
If we put $\beta=0$, we recover the parabolic band case and the asymptotic solution reduces to the asymptotic one already found by Liotta and Majorana (1999) (L-M solution). The L-M solution was used by Anile and Mascali (2000) to obtain a two fluid hydrodynamical model, where the electron population is splitted in two sub-populations: low-energy and high-energy electrons, separated by a threshold energy. In order to close the moment equations relatively to the hot electrons they used a distribution function whose form is directly suggested by the L-M solution, whereas relatively to cold electrons a a standard maximum-entropy distribution function is utilized. A detailed study of the resulting high-energy hydrodynamical model is given in Anile, Liotta and Mascali (2000). Some works about the extension of this model to the case of Kane band, using the asymptotic solution found in this paper, are in progress. A better description of the hot electron population is expected.\
The author acknowledges support from Italian CNR (Prog. N.96.03855.CT01), from TMR (Progr. n. ERBFMRXCT970157), from Italian MURST (Prot. n. 9801169828-005) and from “[*Convenzione quadro Università di Catania-ST Microelectronics*]{}”.\
The author wish also to thank prof. A. M. Anile, prof. A. Majorana and dr. G. Mascali for useful discussions and precious suggestions.
[50]{}
Anile, A. M., Liotta, S. F. and Mascali G. (2000), [ *High field fluid dynamical models for the transport of charge carriers in semiconductors*]{}, submitted
Anile, A. M. and Mascali, G. (2000), [*Theoretical foundations for tail electron hydrodynamical models in semiconductors*]{}, to be published on Appl. Math. Lett.
Cercignani, C. (1987), [*The Boltzmann equation and its applications*]{}, Applied Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 67, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ferry, D. K. (1991), [*Semiconductors*]{}, Macmillan Publ. Comp, New York.
Grad, H. (1958), [*Principles of the kinetic theory of gases*]{}, in: S. Flügge (ed.) Handbuch der Physik, Springer-Verlag, Vol. 12, pp. 205-294.
Jacoboni, C. and Lugli, P. (1989), [*The Monte Carlo method for semiconductor device simulation*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Liotta, S. F. and Majorana, A. (1999), [*A novel approach to spherical harmonics expansion for electron transport in semiconductors*]{}, available at this URL :\
[*http://babbage.sissa.it/abs/cond-mat/0003456*]{}
Liotta, S. F. and Struchtrup, H (2000), [*Moment equations for electrons in semiconductors: comparison of spherical harmonics and full moments*]{}, Solid State Electronics, Vol. 44, pp. 95-103.
Majorana, A. (1998), [*Spherical-Harmonics type expansion for the Boltzmann equation in semiconductor devices*]{}, Le Matematiche, Vol. LIII, pp. 331-344.
Markowich, P. A., Ringhofer, C. A. and Schmeiser, C. (1990), [*Semiconductor equations*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Wien.
Rahmat, K., White, J. and Antoniadis, D. A. (1996), [*Simulation of Semiconductor Devices Using a Galerkin/Spherical Harmonic Expansion Approach to Solving the Coupled Poisson-Boltzmann System*]{}, IEEE Trans. Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 15, pp. 1181-96.
Thorne, K. S. (1981), [*Relativistic radiative transfer: moment formalism*]{}, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., Vol. 194, pp. 439-473.
Tomizawa, K. (1993), [*Numerical simulation of sub micron semiconductor devices*]{}, Artech House, Boston.
Vecchi, M. C. and Rudan, M. (1998), [ *Modeling electron and hole transport with full-band structure effects by means of the spherical-harmonics expansion of the BTE* ]{}, IEEE Trans. Elec. Dev., Vol. 45 , pp. 230-238.
Ventura, D., Gnudi, A. and Baccarani, G. (1995), [*A Deterministic Approach to Solution of the BTE in Semiconductors*]{}, Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 18, pp. 1-33.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Zoltán Nagy\
Theory Division, CERN\
CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\
E-mail:
- |
Davison E. Soper\
Institute of Theoretical Science\
University of Oregon\
Eugene, OR 97403-5203, USA\
E-mail:
title: 'Parton showers with quantum interference: leading color, spin averaged'
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
In Ref. [@NSshower], we presented a formalism for a mathematical representation of a parton shower that incorporates interference in both spin and color. In this paper, we analyze this formalism in the approximation that we average over parton spins at each step and keep only the leading contributions in an expansion in powers of $1/N_{\mathrm{c}}^2$, where $N_{\mathrm{c}}= 3$ is the number of colors.[^1] Our interest is to elucidate the structure of the full shower formulation of Ref. [@NSshower] by examining what happens when the spin-averaged and leading color approximations are imposed. We also anticipate that the approximate shower may be of use in implementing successively better approximations to the full shower including spin and color.
Our main focus is on the splitting functions that would be used to generate the shower in the spin averaged approximation (which is a customary approximation in current parton shower event generators). In our formalism, there are two sorts of splitting functions. The direct splitting functions correspond to the squared amplitude for a parton $l$ to split into daughter partons that, in our notation, carry labels $l$ and $m+1$, where $m+1$ is the total number of final state partons after the splitting. In this paper, we use the spin dependent splitting functions from Ref. [@NSshower] and simply average over the spins of the mother parton and sum over the spins of the daughter partons. We analyze some of the important properties of these functions. We also need interference splitting functions. These correspond to the interference between the amplitude for a parton $l$ to split into partons with labels $l$ and $m+1$ and the amplitude for another parton $k$ to split into partons with labels $k$ and $m+1$. These functions generate leading singularities when parton $m+1$ is a soft gluon. We improve the specifications of Ref. [@NSshower] for this by defining a useful form for certain weight functions $A_{lk}$ and $A_{kl}$ that were assigned the default values 1/2 in Ref. [@NSshower]. We will see that with the improved form for $A_{ij}$, the total splitting probabilities acquire useful properties in the soft gluon limit.
We will see that when we make the spin-averaged and leading color approximations, the parton shower formalism of Ref. [@NSshower] amounts to something quite similar to standard parton shower event generators. One significant point in common is that the splitting functions are positive. One difference with some standard event generators is that an angular ordering approximation is not needed because the coherence effects that lead to angular ordering are built into the formalism from the beginning, both for initial state and final state splittings. This coherence feature is a natural consequence of a dipole based shower, as in the final state showers of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ariadne</span> [@Ariadne] and the $k_T$ option of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia</span> [@SjostrandSkands] or the showers [@Schumann; @Weinzierl] based on the Catani-Seymour dipole splitting formalism [@CataniSeymour]. Additionally, our formalism differs from others in its splitting functions and its momentum mappings.
Direct spin-averaged splitting functions {#sec:directSFs}
========================================
We begin with the splitting functions that correspond to the amplitude for a parton to split times the complex conjugate amplitude for that same parton to split. We follow the notation of Ref. [@NSshower]. Before the splitting, there are partons that carry the labels $\{{\mathrm{a}},{\mathrm{b}},1,\dots,m\}$, where ${\mathrm{a}}$ and ${\mathrm{b}}$ are the labels of the initial state partons. The momenta and flavors of these partons are denoted by $\{p,f\}_m = \{p_{\mathrm{a}},f_{\mathrm{a}};\dots;p_m,f_m\}$. The flavors are $\{{\rm g}, {\rm u}, \bar {\rm u}, {\rm d}, \dots\}$, with the initial state flavors $f_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $f_{\mathrm{b}}$ denoting the flavors coming out of the hard interaction and thus the opposite of the flavors entering the hard interaction. We let $l$ be the label of the parton that splits. After the splitting, there are $m+1$ final state partons. The momenta and flavors of the partons are $\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}$. We use the label $l$ for one of the daughter partons and the label $m+1$ for the other daughter parton.[^2] The partons that do not split keep their labels. However, they donate some of their momenta to the daughter partons so that the daughter partons can be on shell. Thus $\hat p_i \ne p_i$ in general for a spectator parton. The momenta and flavors after the splitting, $\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1}$, are determined by the momenta and flavors before the splitting, $\{p,f\}_m$ and variables $\{\zeta_{\rm p},\zeta_{\rm f}\}$ that describe the splitting.[^3] A certain mapping $$\label{eq:Rldef}
\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1} = R_l(\{p,f\}_m, \{\zeta_{\rm p},\zeta_{\rm f}\})
$$ defined in Ref. [@NSshower] gives the relation.
The splitting functions in Ref. [@NSshower] are based on spin dependent splitting amplitudes $v_l$. One starts with the amplitude $\ket{{M}(\{p, f\}_{m})}$ to have $m$ partons. The amplitude is a vector in spin$\otimes$color space. After splitting parton $l$, we have a new amplitude $\ket{{M}_l(\{p, f\}_{m+1})}$ of the form illustrated in Fig. \[fig:qqgFSsplit\] $$\label{eq:splittingamplitudestructure}
\ket{{M}_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1})} =
t^\dagger_l(f_l \to \hat f_l + \hat f_{m+1})\,
V^\dagger_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1})\, \ket{{M}(\{p, f\}_{m})}
\;\;.
$$ Here $t^\dagger_l$ is an operator on the color space that simply inserts the daughter partons with the correct color structure. The factor $V^\dagger_l$ is a function the momenta and flavors and is an operator on the spin space. It leaves the spins of the partons other than parton $l$ undisturbed and multiplies by a function $v_l$ that depends on the mother spin and the daughter spins: $$\label{eq:Vtov}
\bra{\{\hat s\}_{m+1}}
V^\dagger_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1})\ket{\{s\}_m}
=
\left(\prod_{j\notin\{l,m+1\}} \delta_{\hat s_j,s_j}\right)
v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)
\;\;.
$$ Thus the splitting is defined by the splitting amplitudes $v_l$, which are derived from the QCD vertices.
We can illustrate this for the case of a final state $q \to q + {\rm g}$ splitting, for which we define $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:qqgFSamplitude}
v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},&\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l) =
\\ &
\sqrt{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}\,
\varepsilon_\mu(\hat p_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1};\hat Q)^*\,
\frac{
\overline U({\hat p_l,\hat s_l})\gamma^\mu
[\s{\hat p}_l + \s{\hat p}_{m+1} + m(f_l)] \s{n_l} U({p_l,s_l})}
{[(\hat p_l + \hat p_{m+1})^2 - m^2(f_l)]\,2p_l\!\cdot\! n_l}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ There are spinors for the initial and final quarks. There is a polarization vector for the daughter gluon, defined in timelike axial gauge so that $\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \varepsilon = \hat Q \cdot \varepsilon = 0$. Here $\hat Q$ is the total momentum of the final state partons, which is the same before and after the splitting. There is a vertex $\gamma^\mu$ for the $qq{\rm g}$ interaction. There is a propagator for the off shell quark with momentum $\hat p_l + \hat p_{m+1}$. So far, this is exact. Finally, there is an approximation that applies when the splitting is nearly collinear or soft. We approximate $\hat p_l + \hat p_{m+1}$ by $p_l$ in the hard interaction and insert a projection $\s{n}_l/2 p_l\cdot n_l$ onto the “good” components of the Dirac field. This projection uses a lightlike vector $n_l$ that lies in the plane of $\hat Q$ and $p_l$, $$\label{eq:nldef}
n_l = Q
-\frac{Q^2}
{Q\!\cdot\! p_l
+ \sqrt{(Q\!\cdot\! p_l)^2 - Q^2\, m^2(f_l)}}\
p_l
\;\;.
$$
With one exception, the direct splitting functions in Ref. [@NSshower] are products of a splitting amplitude, $v_l$, times a complex conjugate splitting amplitude, $v_l^*$, $$v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)\
v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1}',\hat s_{l}',s_l')^*
\;\;.
$$ The calculation of $\ket{{M}_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1})}$ times $\bra{{M}_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1})}$ using $v_l \times v^*_l$ is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:qqgsplitsq\]. In this calculation, in general, we have to keep track of two spin indices, $s$ and $s'$ for each parton in order to describe quantum interference in the spin space. However, in this paper we make an approximation. We set $s' = s$ for each parton, sum over the daughter parton spins and average over the mother parton spins. Thus we use a splitting function[^4] $$\overline W_{ll} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\hat s_l,\hat s_{m+1}, s_l}
|v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)|^2
$$ for any flavor combination allowed with our conventions for assigning the labels $l$ and $m+1$ except for a final state ${\rm g} \to {\rm g} + {\rm g}$ splitting, for which we do something slightly different because the two gluons are identical. We make manifest the definition of which flavor combinations are allowed by defining $$\label{eq:Sldef}
S_l(\{\hat f\}_{m+1}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1/2\;, & l \in \{1,\dots,m\},\ \hat f_l = \hat f_{m+1} = {\rm g} \\
1\;, & l \in \{1,\dots,m\},\ \hat f_l \ne {\rm g}, \hat f_{m+1} = {\rm g} \\
0\;, & l \in \{1,\dots,m\},\ \hat f_l = {\rm g}, \hat f_{m+1} \ne {\rm g} \\
1\;, & l \in \{1,\dots,m\},\ \hat f_l = q, \hat f_{m+1} = \bar q \\
0\;, & l \in \{1,\dots,m\},\ \hat f_l = \bar q, \hat f_{m+1} = q \\
1\;, & l \in \{{\mathrm{a}},{\mathrm{b}}\}
\end{array}
\right.
\;\;.
$$ This is 1 for the allowed combinations, 0 otherwise, with a statistical factor 1/2 for a final state ${\rm g} \to {\rm g} + {\rm g}$ splitting. The complete definition of $\overline W_{ll}$ is then $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:barwlldef}
\overline W_{ll} ={}&
S_l(\{\hat f\}_{m+1})\
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\hat s_l,\hat s_{m+1}, s_l}
\bigg\{
|v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)|^2
\\ & +
\theta(l \in \{1,\dots,m\},\hat f_l = \hat f_m = {\rm g})\
\\&\times
\Big[
|v_{2,l}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)|^2
-
|v_{3,l}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)|^2\,
\Big]\bigg\}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ The second term applies for a final state ${\rm g} \to {\rm g} + {\rm g}$ splitting and is arranged to keep the total splitting probability the same but associate the leading soft gluon singularity with gluon $m+1$ rather than gluon $l$. The functions $v_{2,l}$ and $v_{3,l}$ are defined in Sec. \[sec:gggFS\].
The form of the splitting amplitude $v_l$ depends on the type of partons that are involved. However, there is a common result in the limit $\hat p_{m+1} \to 0$ whenever parton $m+1$ is a gluon. In this limit, $v_l$ is given by the eikonal approximation, $$v_l^{\rm eikonal}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)
= \sqrt{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}\, \delta_{\hat s_l,s_l}\,
\frac{
\varepsilon(\hat p_{m+1}, \hat s_{m+1};Q)^*
\!\cdot\! \hat p_l}
{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l}
\;\;.
$$ The soft gluon limit of $\overline W_{ll}$ is then $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:wlleikonal}
\overline W_{ll}^{\, \rm eikonal} = {}&
4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}\
\frac{
\hat p_l\cdot D(\hat p_{m+1};\hat Q) \cdot \hat p_l}
{(\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l)^2}\
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $D_{\mu\nu}$ is the sum over $\hat s_{m+1}$ of $\varepsilon_\mu \varepsilon_\nu^*$, $$\label{eq:Dmunu}
D_{\mu\nu}(\hat p_{{m+1}},\hat Q) =
- g_{\mu\nu}
+ \frac{\hat p_{{m+1}}^\mu \hat Q^\nu + \hat Q^\mu \hat p_{{m+1}}^\nu}
{\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot \hat Q}
- \frac{\hat Q^2 \hat p_{{m+1}}^\mu \hat p_{{m+1}}^\nu}{(\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot \hat Q)^2}
\;\;.
$$ The function $\overline W_{ll}$ and its approximate form $\overline W_{ll}^{\rm eikonal}$ give the dependence of the splitting operator on momentum and spin for a given set of parton flavors. The partons also carry color. In Ref. [@NSshower] there is a separate factor that gives the color dependence. This factor is an operator on the color space that we can call $t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_l$, where $t^{\dagger}_l$ is the operator in Eq. (\[eq:splittingamplitudestructure\]), which inserts the proper color matrix into the amplitude, and $t^{}_l$ inserts the proper color matrix into the complex conjugate amplitude.[^5] So far, we do not make any approximations with respect to color. In Sec. \[sec:color\], we will make the approximation of keeping only the leading color conributions.
We now turn to a more detailed discussion of $\overline W_{ll}$ for particular cases.
Final state $q \to q + {\rm g}$ splitting {#sec:qqgFS}
-----------------------------------------
Let us look at $\overline W_{ll}$ for a final state $q \to q + {\rm g}$ splitting, $$\begin{split}
\overline W_{ll} ={}& \frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{2(p_l\cdot n_l)^2}\,
\frac{1}{(2\,\hat p_l\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}})^2}\
D_{\mu\nu}(\hat p_{{m+1}},\hat Q)
\\&\times
\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}\left[
(\s{\hat p}_l + m)\gamma^\mu (\s{\hat p}_l + \s{\hat p}_{{m+1}}+ m)\s{n}_l
(\s{p}_l + m)\s{n}_l(\s{\hat p}_l + \s{\hat p}_{{m+1}}+ m)\gamma^\nu
\right]
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $m = m(f_l)$ is the quark mass, the lightlike vector $n_l$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:nldef\]), and $D_{\mu\nu}$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:Dmunu\]). It will be convenient to examine the dimensionless function $$\label{eq:Fdef}
F \equiv \frac{\hat p_l\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}}{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}\
\overline W_{ll}
\;\;.
$$ The limiting behavior of $F$ as the gluon $m+1$ becomes soft, $\hat p_{m+1} \to 0$, is simple. Then the eikonal approximation applies and we obtain from Eq. (\[eq:wlleikonal\]) $$\label{eq:Feikonal}
F_{\rm eikonal} =
\frac{\hat p_l \cdot D(\hat p_{{m+1}},\hat Q) \cdot \hat p_l}
{\hat p_l\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}}\
\;\;.
$$ The full behavior of $F$ is more complicated, $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:qqgFSsubtracted}
F ={}&
[1 + h(y,a_l,b_l)]\,F_{\rm eikonal}
+ \frac{\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot n_l}{p_l\cdot n_l}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $$\begin{split}
h(y,a_l,b_l) ={}& \frac{1 + y + \lambda r_l}{1 + r_l}
+ \frac{2 a_l y}{\lambda r_l ( 1 + r_l)}
-1
\;\;,
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:hdefs}
y = {}& \frac{2 \hat p_l\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}}{2p_l\cdot \hat Q}
\;\;,
\\
a_l ={}& \frac{\hat Q^2}{2p_l\cdot \hat Q}
\;\;,
\\
b_l ={}& \frac{m^2}{2p_l\cdot \hat Q}
\;\;,
\\
r_l ={}& \sqrt{1 - 4 a_l b_l}
\;\;,
\\
\lambda = {}&
\frac{\sqrt{(1+y)^2 - 4 a_l (y + b_l)}}{r_l}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ The eikonal approximation to $F$ will turn out to be significant in our analysis when we incorporate the effect of soft-gluon interference graphs. We will find that it is of some importance for the numerical good behavior of the splitting functions including interference that $$\label{eq:qqgFSpositivity}
F - F_{\rm eikonal} \ge 0
\;\;.
$$ To see that this property holds we note first that ${\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot n_l}/{p_l\cdot n_l}$ is non-negative. Remarkably, $h(y,a_l,b_l) \ge 0$ also. To prove this, we first note that $$h(y,a_l,0) = \frac{(\lambda - 1 + y)^2 + 4 y}{4\lambda}\
\;\;,
$$ so that $h(y,a_l,0) \ge 0$. Then we show that $h(y,a_l,b_l) - h(y,a_l,0) \ge 0$ by simply making plots of this function. This establishes the positivity property Eq. (\[eq:qqgFSpositivity\]).
We now examine $F$ further under the assumption that $m=0$. We write $F$ as a function of the dimensionless virtuality variable $y$, and a momentum fraction[^6] $$\label{eq:zFSdef}
z = \frac{\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot n_l}{(\hat p_{{m+1}}+ \hat p_l)\cdot n_l}
\;\;.
$$ It is also convenient to use an auxiliary momentum fraction variable $$\label{eq:xdefFS}
x = \frac{\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot \hat Q}{(\hat p_{{m+1}}+ \hat p_l)\cdot \hat Q}
= \frac{\lambda}{1+y}\ z +
\frac{2 a_l y}{(1+y)(1+y+\lambda)}
\;\;,
$$ where, for $m=0$, $\lambda = \sqrt{(1+y)^2 - 4 a_l y}$. Using these variables, $$\label{eq:FeikFS}
F_{\rm eikonal} = 2\ \frac{1-x}{x}
-\frac{2 a_l y}{x^2 (1+y)^2}
\;\;,
$$ and $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:qqgFSmzero}
F ={}&
\left[1 + \frac{(\lambda - 1 + y)^2 + 4 y}{4\lambda}\right]
F_{\rm eikonal}
+ \frac{1}{2}\ z [1 + y + \lambda]
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ As $y \to 0$, $F$ must turn into the Altarelli-Parisi function for this splitting, $$F_{\rm AP}(z) = \frac{1 + (1-z)^2}{z}
\;\;.
$$ Indeed, the derivation given above is one way to derive the Altarelli-Parisi function. We illustrate how $F(z,y,a_l,b_l)$ at $b_l = 0$ approaches $F_{\rm AP}(z)$ in Fig. \[fig:qqgFSplot\].
Initial state $q \to q + {\rm g}$ splitting {#sec:qqgIS}
-------------------------------------------
Here we consider an initial state $q \to q + \mathrm g$ splitting, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:qqgISsplit\]. For notational convenience, we let it be parton “a” that splits, so $l = {\mathrm{a}}$. We allow both parton “a” and parton “b” to have masses, $m_{\mathrm{a}}\equiv m(f_{\mathrm{a}})$ and $m_{\mathrm{b}}\equiv m(f_{\mathrm{b}})$. One could, of course, choose these masses to be zero. Parton $m+1$ is a (massless) gluon. The shower evolution for initial state particles runs backwards in physical time. Parton “a”, which carries momentum $p_{\mathrm{a}}$ into the hard interaction, splits into the final state gluon with momentum $p_{{m+1}}$ and an initial state parton that carries momentum $\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}$ into the splitting. For a nearly collinear splitting, $p_{\mathrm{a}}\approx \hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{{m+1}}$. In physical time, it is the initial state parton with momentum $\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}$ that splits.
Following Ref. [@NSshower], we define the kinematics using lightlike vectors $p_{\mathrm{A}}$ and $p_{\mathrm{B}}$ that are lightlike approximations to the momenta of hadrons A and B, respectively, with $2p_{\mathrm{A}}\cdot p_{\mathrm{B}}= s$. The momenta of the partons that enter the hard scattering, $p_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $p_{\mathrm{b}}$, are defined using momentum fractions $\eta_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $\eta_{\mathrm{b}}$. After the splitting, the momentum fractions are $\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $\hat \eta_{\mathrm{b}}$. Because parton “a” splits, $\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}\ne \eta_{\mathrm{a}}$. However, with our kinematics, the momentum fraction of parton “b” remains unchanged: $\hat \eta_{\mathrm{b}}= \eta_{\mathrm{b}}$. The initial state parton momenta are defined to be $$\begin{split}
p_{\mathrm{a}}={}& \eta_{\mathrm{a}}p_{\mathrm{A}}+ \frac{m^2_{\mathrm{a}}}{\eta_{\mathrm{a}}s}\, p_{\mathrm{B}}\;\;,
\\
p_{\mathrm{b}}={}& \eta_{\mathrm{b}}p_{\mathrm{B}}+ \frac{m^2_{\mathrm{b}}}{\eta_{\mathrm{b}}s}\, p_{\mathrm{A}}\;\;,
\\
\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}={}& \hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}p_{\mathrm{A}}+ \frac{m^2_{\mathrm{a}}}{\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}s}\, p_{\mathrm{B}}\;\;.
\\
\end{split}$$ The momentum of the final state spectator partons changes in order to make some momentum available to allow both $p_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}$ to be on shell with zero transverse momenta. We denote the total momentum of the final state partons before the splitting by $Q = p_{\mathrm{a}}+ p_{\mathrm{b}}$ and after the splitting by $\hat Q = \hat p_{\mathrm{a}}+ p_{\mathrm{b}}$. In the splitting function, we make use of a lightlike vector $n_{\mathrm{a}}$ in the plane of $p_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $Q$. With a convenient choice of normalization, $n_{\mathrm{a}}= p_{\mathrm{B}}$.
In the following formulas, it will be convenient to define $P_{\mathrm{a}}= \hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{{m+1}}$.
Using the definition Eq. (\[eq:barwlldef\]) with the splitting amplitudes $v_{\mathrm{a}}$ from Table 1 of Ref. [@NSshower], we write the spin averaged splitting function as $$\begin{split}
\overline W_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{a}}} ={}& \frac{4\pi \alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}{2(p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot p_{\mathrm{B}})^2}\,
\frac{1}{(2\,\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}})^2}\
D_{\mu\nu}(\hat p_{{m+1}},\hat Q)
\\&\times
\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}\left[
(\s{\hat p}_{\mathrm{a}}+ m_{\mathrm{a}})\gamma^\mu (\s{P}_{\mathrm{a}}+ m_{\mathrm{a}})\s{n}_{\mathrm{a}}(\s{p}_{\mathrm{a}}+ m_{\mathrm{a}})\s{n}_{\mathrm{a}}(\s{P}_{\mathrm{a}}+ m_{\mathrm{a}})\gamma^\nu
\right]
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $D_{\mu\nu}$ is given in Eq. (\[eq:Dmunu\]).
The spin averaged splitting function can be simplified. Let us adopt the notation $$\begin{split}
\Phi_a = \frac{m_{\mathrm{a}}^2}{\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}\eta_{\mathrm{b}}s}
\;\;,
\hskip 2 cm
\Phi_b = \frac{m_{\mathrm{b}}^2}{\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}\eta_{\mathrm{b}}s}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Then the result can conveniently be displayed in terms of the dimensionless function $$\label{eq:FdefISqqg}
F \equiv \frac{\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}}{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}\
\overline W_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{a}}}
\;\;.
$$ The result is $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:qqgISsplit}
F ={}&
F_{\rm eikonal}
+
\frac{\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot p_{\mathrm{B}}}{p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot p_{\mathrm{B}}}
+
\frac{\Phi_{\mathrm{a}}\Phi_{\mathrm{b}}\,
(\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}- \eta_{\mathrm{a}})^2}
{(1 - \Phi_{\mathrm{a}}\Phi_{\mathrm{b}})\,\eta_{\mathrm{a}}^2 }\,
F_{\rm eikonal}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here the first term is the simple eikonal approximation for soft gluon emission, $$\label{eq:FeikonalIS}
F_{\rm eikonal} =
\frac{\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot D(\hat p_{{m+1}},\hat Q) \cdot \hat p_{\mathrm{a}}}
{\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}}
\;\;.
$$ The second term is present in the case of massless or massive quarks and is manifestly positive. The third term is present only if $m_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{b}}$ are both non-zero. It is likewise manifestly positive as long as $\Phi_{\mathrm{a}}\Phi_{\mathrm{b}}< 1$. Thus, as for the final state splitting analyzed in the previous section, $$F - F_{\rm eikonal} \ge 0
\;\;.
$$ Let us now specialize to $m_{\mathrm{a}}= m_{\mathrm{b}}= 0$ and examine the behavior of $F$ in more detail. We define a virtuality variable $$y = \frac{\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot \hat p_{\mathrm{a}}}{\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot p_{\mathrm{b}}}
$$ and a variable representing the momentum fraction of the daughter gluon $$z = \frac{\hat p_{{m+1}}\cdot (p_{\mathrm{b}}- \hat p_{{m+1}})}
{\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot (p_{\mathrm{b}}- \hat p_{{m+1}})}
\;\;.
$$ We can write $z$ in a different form by using the kinematic relation that is used to define the momentum mapping ${\cal R}_{\mathrm{a}}$, $(p_{\mathrm{a}}+ p_{\mathrm{b}})^2 = (\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}+ p_{\mathrm{b}}- \hat p_{{m+1}})^2$, which is equivalent to $$\label{eq:ISkinematic}
\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}=
(P_{\mathrm{a}}- p_{\mathrm{a}})\cdot p_{\mathrm{b}}\;\;.
$$ This relation gives $$\label{eq:zISdef}
z = \frac{x-y}{1-y}
\;\;,
$$ where $$x = 1 - \frac{\eta_{\mathrm{a}}}{\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}}
\;\;.
$$ Note that $z$ and $x$ are equivalent when $y = 0$ but $z$ varies in the range $0 < z < 1$. The inverse relation is $$x = z + y (1-z)
\;\;.
$$ A simple calculation gives $$F = F_{\rm eikonal} + \frac{x}{1-x} - y\;\;,
$$ where $$F_{\rm eikonal} = \frac{2}{x}- \frac{2y}{x^2}
\;\;.
$$ As expected, $(1-x) F = (\eta_{\mathrm{a}}/\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}) F$ approaches the Altarelli-Parisi splitting function, $[1 + (1-z)^2]/z$ as $y \to 0$. The approach to the limit is depicted in Fig. \[fig:qqgISplot\].
Final state ${\rm g} \to {\rm g} + {\rm g}$ splitting {#sec:gggFS}
-----------------------------------------------------
Next we consider a final state $\mathrm g \to \mathrm g \mathrm g$ splitting, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gggFSsplit\]. According Ref. [@NSshower], the splitting amplitude is built from the ggg vertex, $$\label{eq:vgg}
v^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(p_a, p_b, p_c)
= v_1^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(p_a, p_b, p_c)
+ v_2^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(p_a, p_b, p_c)
+ v_3^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(p_a, p_b, p_c)
\;\;,
$$ where $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:vgg123}
v_1^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(p_a, p_b, p_c)
={}& g^{\alpha\beta} (p_a - p_b)^\gamma
\;\;,
\\
v_2^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(p_a, p_b, p_c)
={}& g^{\beta\gamma} (p_b - p_c)^\alpha
\;\;,
\\
v_3^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(p_a, p_b, p_c)
={}& g^{\gamma\alpha} (p_c - p_a)^\beta
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We use $v^{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ to define the splitting amplitude $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:VggF}
v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},&\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)
\\ & =
\frac{\sqrt{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}}{2 \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l}\,
\varepsilon_{\alpha}(\hat p_{m+1}, \hat s_{m+1};\hat Q)^*
\varepsilon_{\beta}(\hat p_{l}, \hat s_l;\hat Q)^*
\varepsilon^{\nu}(p_{l}, s_l;\hat Q)
\\&\quad\times
v^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(\hat p_{m+1},\hat p_l,-\hat p_{m+1}-\hat p_l)\,
D_{\gamma\nu}(\hat p_l + \hat p_{m+1};n_l)
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We have the ggg vertex, polarization vectors for the external particles, and a propagator $D/(2 \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l)$ for the off-shell gluon. The numerator $D_{\gamma\nu}(\hat p_l + \hat p_{m+1};n_l)$ projects on to the physical polarization states for the off-shell gluon, $$\label{eq:Dmunulightlike}
D_{\mu\nu}(P,n_l) =
- g_{\mu\nu}
+ \frac{P^\mu n_l^\nu + n_l^\mu P^\nu}
{\hat P\cdot n_l}
\;\;.
$$ Here $n_l$ is a lightlike vector in the plane of $p_l$ and $\hat Q$, defined as in Eq. (\[eq:nldef\]). Then $n_l^\gamma D_{\gamma\nu} = 0$.
Following Ref. [@NSshower], we define the spin averaged splitting function using Eq. (\[eq:barwlldef\]), $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:wlldef}
\overline W_{ll}={}&
\frac{1}{2}
\Bigg( \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\hat s_l,\hat s_{m+1}, s_l}\Bigg)
\bigg\{
\big|v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)\big|^2
\\ & +
|v_{2,l}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)|^2
-
|v_{3,l}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)|^2\,
\bigg\}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $v_{2,l}$ and $v_{3,l}$ are defined as in Eq. (\[eq:VggF\]), but with $v_2^{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ or $v_3^{\alpha \beta \gamma}$, respectively, replacing the full ggg vertex $v^{\alpha \beta \gamma}$. Note first of all the prefactor 1/2, which is a statistical factor for having two identical final state particles in a ${\rm g} \to {\rm g} + {\rm g}$ splitting. This is the factor $S_l$ in Eq. (\[eq:barwlldef\]). Then we add $|v_{2,l}|^2 - |v_{3,l}|^2$. This does not change the result when we add this function to the same function with the roles of the two daughter gluons interchanged. With this modification, there is a singularity when daughter gluon $m+1$ becomes soft but not when daughter gluon $l$ becomes soft.
One can evaluate $\overline W_{ll}$ as given in Eq. (\[eq:wlldef\]) by using $$\sum_{s}
\varepsilon_{\mu}(k, s;\hat Q)^*
\varepsilon_{\nu}(k, s;\hat Q)
= D_{\mu\nu}(k,\hat Q)
\;\;,
$$ where $D_{\mu\nu}(k,\hat Q)$ is defined in Eq. (\[eq:Dmunu\]). One might expect a complicated result, but $\overline W_{ll}$ is actually quite simple. As in previous subsections, we display the result in terms of the dimensionless function $$\label{eq:FdefFSggg}
F \equiv \frac{\hat p_l\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}}{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}\
\overline W_{ll}
\;\;.
$$ The result is $$\label{FgggFS}
F =
F_{\rm eikonal}
+\frac{(-k_{\perp}^{2})[1 + (1-\Delta)^2]}
{4\,\hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}\,
\;\;.
$$ Here $F_{\rm eikonal}$ is the standard eikonal function given in Eq. (\[eq:Feikonal\]) and $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:kperpdef}
k_{\perp}^\mu ={}& D(p_{l},\hat Q)^\mu_{\ \nu}\ \hat p_{m+1}^\nu
\;\;,
\\
\Delta ={}& \frac{\hat Q^{2}\,\hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}
{\hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!\hat Q\,\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\!\hat Q}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Since $k_\perp$, the part of $\hat p_{m+1}$ orthogonal to $p_l$ and $\hat Q$, is spacelike, we again find $$F - F_{\rm eikonal} \ge 0
\;\;.
$$ We can evaluate $F$ as a function of the variables $y$ and $z$ and the parameter $a_l$, defined as for a final state quark splitting in Eqs. (\[eq:hdefs\]) and (\[eq:zFSdef\]). We find $$F = F_{\rm eikonal} + \frac{1 + (1-\Delta)^2}{2}\ z (1-z)
\;\;.
$$ Here $F_{\rm eikonal}$ was given in terms of $z$ and $y$ in Eq. (\[eq:FeikFS\]) and $$\begin{split}
\Delta ={}& \frac{2 a_l y}{x(1-x)(1+y)^2}
\;\;,
\end{split}$$ where the auxiliary momentum fraction $x$ was given in terms of $z$ and $y$ in Eq. (\[eq:xdefFS\]).
For $y \to 0$, $F$ becomes $$F \to f(z) \equiv \frac{2(1-z)}{z} + z(1-z)
\;\;.
$$ The standard Altarelli-Parisi function, $$f_{\rm AP}(z) = 2\left[
\frac{1-z}{z} + \frac{z}{1-z} + z(1-z)
\right]
\;\;,
$$ is $f(z) + f(1-z)$. Recall from Eq. (\[eq:wlldef\]) that we broke the symmetry in a ${\rm g} \to {\rm g} + {\rm g}$ splitting in such a way that there is a leading singularity for gluon $m+1$ becomming soft but not for gluon $l$ becoming soft. We could have accomplished the same end by using the full ggg vertex but multiplying the splitting function by $\theta(z<1/2)$. Had we done that, the small $y$ limit of $F$ would have been $f(z) = f_{\rm AP}(z)\, \theta(z<1/2)$. This would also give $f(z) + f(1-z) = f_{\rm AP}(z)$.
The full function $F(z,y,a_l)$ approaches $f(z)$ as $y \to 0$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gggFSplot\].
Initial state ${\rm g} \to {\rm g} + {\rm g}$ splitting {#sec:gggIS}
-------------------------------------------------------
We now consider an initial state $\mathrm g \to \mathrm g \mathrm g$ splitting, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:gggISsplit\]. According Ref. [@NSshower], the splitting amplitude is again built from the ggg vertex, $v^{\alpha \beta \gamma}$, Eq. (\[eq:vgg\]). We use $v^{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ to define the splitting amplitude for the splitting of one of the initial state partons, say parton “a,” $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:VggI}
v_{\mathrm{a}}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},&\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)
\\&=
-
\frac{\sqrt{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}}{2 \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_{\mathrm{a}}}\,
\varepsilon_{\alpha}(\hat p_{m+1}, \hat s_{m+1};\hat Q)^*
\varepsilon_{\beta}(\hat p_{{\mathrm{a}}},\hat s_{\mathrm{a}}; \hat Q)
\varepsilon^{\nu}(p_{{\mathrm{a}}}, s_{\mathrm{a}}; \hat Q)^*
\\&\quad\times
v^{\alpha \beta \gamma}(\hat p_{m+1}, -\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}, \hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{m+1})\,
D_{\gamma\nu}(\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{m+1};n_{\mathrm{a}})
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We have the ggg vertex, polarization vectors for the external particles, and a propagator $D/(2 \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_{\mathrm{a}})$ for the off-shell gluon. The numerator $D_{\gamma\nu}(\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{m+1};n_{\mathrm{a}})$ projects on to the physical polarization states for the off-shell gluon. It is defined using Eq. (\[eq:Dmunulightlike\]), with the lightlike vector $n_{\mathrm{a}}= p_{\mathrm{B}}$. Following Ref. [@NSshower], we use Eq. (\[eq:barwlldef\]) to define the spin averaged splitting function from the square of $v_{\mathrm{a}}$, $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:wlldefgggIS}
\overline W_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{a}}}(\{\hat f,\hat p\}_{m+1})={}&
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\hat s_{\mathrm{a}},\hat s_{m+1}, s_{\mathrm{a}}}\
\big|v_{\mathrm{a}}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{{\mathrm{a}}},s_{\mathrm{a}})\big|^2
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Remarkably, $\overline W_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{a}}}$ is rather simple. As in previous subsections, we display the result in terms of the dimensionless function $$\label{eq:FdefISggg}
F \equiv \frac{\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\cdot \hat p_{{m+1}}}{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}\
\overline W_{{\mathrm{a}}{\mathrm{a}}}
\;\;.
$$ The result is $$\begin{split}
\label{Fgini}
F ={}& F_{\rm eikonal}
+\frac{- k_{\perp}^{2}}{\hat p_{{\mathrm{a}}}\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}\,
\left[\left(\frac{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\!n_{{\mathrm{a}}}}
{(\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{m+1})\!\cdot\!n_{{\mathrm{a}}}}\right)^{2}
+\frac{\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}\!\cdot\!n_{\mathrm{a}}\ \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\!\hat Q
+ \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\!n_{{\mathrm{a}}}\ \hat p_{{\mathrm{a}}}\!\cdot\!\hat Q
}
{(\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{m+1})\!\cdot\!n_{{\mathrm{a}}}\ \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\!\hat Q}
\right]
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $F_{\rm eikonal}$ is the eikonal function, Eq. (\[eq:FeikonalIS\]), and $k_{\perp}^\mu = D(p_{{\mathrm{a}}},\hat Q)^\mu_{\ \nu}\ \hat p_{m+1}^\nu$ as in Eq. (\[eq:kperpdef\]). Examination of Eq. (\[Fgini\]) shows that, as in the previous cases, $$F - F_{\rm eikonal} \ge 0
\;\;.
$$ To see this, one needs to know that splitting kinematics ensures that $(\hat p_{\mathrm{a}}- \hat p_{m+1})\!\cdot\!n_{{\mathrm{a}}} > 0$. We note that the splitting kinematics allows non-zero parton masses, although the gluon that splits here is massless.
Let us look at this assuming massless partons and using the splitting variables $y$, $z$ and $x = z + y (1-z)$ defined in Sec. (\[sec:qqgIS\]). A straightforward calculation gives $$F = \frac{2}{x} - \frac{2y}{x^2}
+{2 (1-y) z}
\left[
\left(\frac{(1-y)z}{1 - (1-y)z}\right)^2
+ \frac{2 z (1-y) + y}{z(1-z)(1-y)^2 + y}
\right]
\;\;.
$$ As expected, $(1-x) F = (\eta_{\mathrm{a}}/\hat \eta_{\mathrm{a}}) F$ approaches the Altarelli-Parisi splitting function, $2z/(1-z) + 2(1-z)/z + 2 z(1-z)$ as $y \to 0$. The approach to the limit is depicted in Fig. \[fig:gggISplot\].
Other cases {#sec:OtherDirect}
-----------
We have covered the cases of quark or gluon splittings in which a daughter gluon enters the final state. There is also the possibility of an antiquark splitting replacing a quark spitting, but, because of charge conjugation invariance, these are essentially the same as the quark splitting cases. There are also cases in which no daughter gluon enters the final state: final state and initial state $\mathrm g \to q + \bar q$ and initial state $q \to q + \mathrm g$ and $\bar q \to \bar q + \mathrm g$ in which the gluon enters the hard scattering and the quark or antiquark enters the final state. The spin averaged splitting functions for these cases are manifestly positive. In these cases, there is no leading singularity when a final state daughter parton becomes soft, so we do not need to consider soft gluon singularities. We list the results for these cases in Appendix \[app:OtherSplittings\].
Interference diagrams {#sec:interference}
=====================
We have analyzed the spin averaged splitting functions $\overline W_{ll}$, which correspond to the squared amplitude for a parton $l$ to split into daughter partons with labels $l$ and $m+1$. Now we need to consider interference diagrams, such as the diagram illustrated in Fig. \[fig:interference\]. In the amplitude, parton $l$ can change into a daughter parton with label $l$ by emitting a gluon with label $m+1$. In the complex conjugate amplitude, parton $k$ can change into a daughter parton with label $k$ by emitting a gluon with label $m+1$. If we were to temporarily ignore questions about how to define the kinematics and were to use the splitting amplitudes $v_l$ and $v_k$ for this, the corresponding contribution to the splitting function would be $$v_l(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)\,
\delta_{\hat s_k,s_k}\
v_k(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1}',\hat s_{k}',s_k')^*\,
\delta_{\hat s_l',s_l'}
\;\;.
$$ This function is singular when gluon $m+1$ is soft, $\hat p_{m+1} \to 0$. However it does not have a leading singularity when gluon $m+1$ is collinear with parton $l$ or parton $k$. For this reason, we can use a simple eikonal approximation to the splitting amplitude, $$v_l^{\rm soft}(\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1},\hat s_{m+1},\hat s_{l},s_l)
= \sqrt{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}\, \delta_{\hat s_l,s_l}\,
\frac{
\varepsilon(\hat p_{m+1}, \hat s_{m+1};Q)^*
\!\cdot\! \hat p_l}
{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l}
\;\;,
$$ if parton $m+1$ is a gluon, with $v_l^{\rm soft} = 0$ otherwise.
Making the eikonal approximation, the splitting function is $$\label{eq:softapprox0}
W_{lk} =
v_l^{\rm soft} (v_k^{\rm soft})^*\
\delta_{\hat s_l',s_l'}\ \delta_{\hat s_k,s_k}
\;\;.
$$ This function gives the dependence of the splitting operator on momentum and spin. In Ref. [@NSshower] there is a separate factor that gives the color dependence. This factor is an operator on the color space that we can call $t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k$, where $t^{\dagger}_l$ is the operator in Eq. (\[eq:splittingamplitudestructure\]) that inserts the proper color matrix into line $l$ in the amplitude and $t^{}_k$ inserts the proper color matrix into line $k$ in the complex conjugate amplitude.[^7] We do not yet make any approximations with respect to color. In Sec. \[sec:color\], we will make the approximation of keeping only the leading color conributions.
There is an ambiguity with the prescription (\[eq:softapprox0\]). The functions in $W_{lk}$ are defined in terms of daughter parton momenta and flavors, $\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1}$. However, we want to define $\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1}$ from the momenta and flavors $\{p,f\}_{m}$ before the splitting together with the splitting variables $\{\zeta_{\rm p}, \zeta_{\rm f}\}$. We need to specify what relation to use. One way is to use the kinematic functions that we use for the splitting of parton $l$ into a daughter parton $l$ and the gluon $m+1$, $
\{\hat p, \hat f\}_{m+1} = R_l(\{p,f\}_m, \{\zeta_{\rm p},\zeta_{\rm f}\}).
$ With this mapping, we define a function $W^{(l)}_{lk}$ of the $\{p,f\}_{m}$ and the splitting variables. Alternatively, we could use the kinematic functions, $R_k$, that we use for the splitting of parton $k$ into a daughter parton $k$ and the gluon $m+1$. With this momentum mapping, we define a function $W^{(k)}_{lk}$ of the $\{p,f\}_{m}$ and the splitting variables. Instead of using one or the other of these possibilities, we average over them. We use $W^{(l)}_{lk}$ with weight $A_{lk}$ and $W^{(k)}_{lk}$ with weight $A_{kl}$. In Ref. [@NSshower], we let the weight functions take the default value $A_{lk} = A_{kl} = 1/2$. This choice is certainly conceptually simple. However, we can obtain spin-summed splitting functions that have nicer properties if we define the weights as certain functions $A_{lk}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1})$ and $A_{kl}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1})$ of the momenta. It is simplest to specify the functional forms of the weight functions using the momenta $\{\hat p\}_{m+1}$ after splitting. The momenta after splitting are to be determined by the mapping ${\cal R}_l$ for $A_{lk}$ and by the mapping ${\cal R}_k$ for $A_{kl}$.[^8] The weight functions are non-negative and obey $A_{lk}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1}) + A_{kl}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1}) = 1$ at fixed momenta $\{\hat p\}_{m+1}$. The relation $A_{lk} + A_{kl} \approx 1$ then holds at fixed $\{p,f\}_{m}$ and splitting variables. This approximate relation becomes exact in the limit of an infinitely soft splitting, for which the mappings ${\cal R}_l$ and ${\cal R}_k$ become identical.
With the choice of momentum mappings determined by $A_{lk}$ and $A_{kl}$, the net splitting function, including the color factor, summed over the two graphs arising from interference of soft gluons emitted from partons $l$ and $k$, is $$\begin{split}
& \left[
A_{lk} W^{(l)}_{lk}
+
A_{kl} W^{(k)}_{lk}
\right] \, t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k
+
\left[
A_{kl} W^{(k)}_{kl}
+
A_{lk} W^{(l)}_{kl}
\right] \, t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l
=
\\&\qquad
A_{lk}
\left[
W^{(l)}_{lk}\, t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k
+
W^{(l)}_{kl}\, t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l
\right]\
+
A_{kl}
\left[
W^{(k)}_{lk}\, t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k
+
W^{(k)}_{kl}\, t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l
\right]
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We will see in the following section that we obtain spin-summed splitting functions that have nice properties if we define $A_{lk}$ as a ratio, $$\label{eq:Alkdef}
A_{lk}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1})
= \frac{B_{lk}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1})}
{B_{lk}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1})
+B_{kl}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1})}
\;\;,
$$ where $$\label{eq:Blkdef}
B_{lk}(\{\hat p\}_{m+1}) =
\frac{\hat p_{m+1} \!\cdot\! \hat p_k}{\hat p_{m+1} \!\cdot\! \hat p_l}\
\hat p_l \!\cdot\! D(\hat p_{m+1},\hat Q) \!\cdot\! \hat p_l
\;\;.
$$ Here $D(\hat p_{m+1}, \hat Q)$ is the transverse projection tensor defined in Eq. (\[eq:Dmunu\]).
Spin-averaged interference graph splitting functions {#sec:interferenceSFs}
====================================================
The part of the soft splitting function representing $l$-$k$ interference that is associated with the kinematic mapping ${\cal R}_l$ is $$A_{lk}
\left[
W^{(l)}_{lk}\, t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k
+
W^{(l)}_{kl}\, t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l
\right]
\;\;.
$$ We now make the approximation of setting $s' = s$ for each parton, summing over the daughter parton spins, and averaging over the mother parton spins. The sum over spins of $W^{(l)}_{lk}$ is the same as the sum over spins of $W^{(l)}_{kl}$. Thus the spin averaged splitting function, including the color factor, becomes[^9] $$\frac{1}{2}
\left[t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k + t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l\right]\,
\overline W_{lk}
\;\;,
$$ where $$\overline W_{lk} = \frac{1}{4}\sum_{ s_l,\hat s_l,s_k,\hat s_k,\hat s_{m+1}}
A_{lk}
\left[
W^{(l)}_{lk}
+
W^{(l)}_{kl}
\right]_{\{s'\} = \{s\}}
\;\;.
$$ Here we have used the notation $\{s'\} = \{s\}$ to indicate the instruction to set $s'_l = s_l$, $\hat s'_l = \hat s_l$, $s'_k = s_k$, $\hat s'_k = \hat s_k$, and $\hat s'_{m+1} = \hat s_{m+1}$. The structure of $\overline W_{lk}$ is quite simple, $$\begin{split}
\overline W_{lk} = {}&
4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}\ 2 A_{lk}\
\frac{
\hat p_l\cdot D(\hat p_{m+1};\hat Q) \cdot \hat p_k}
{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l\ \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_k}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We can associate $\overline W_{lk}$ with the splitting of parton $l$, since it uses the kinematic mapping ${\cal R}_l$. Then we are led to consider the relation of $\overline W_{lk}$ to the direct splitting function $\overline W_{ll}$. Now, the color factor that multiplies $\overline W_{ll}$ is $t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_l$. However, as discussed in Ref. [@NSshower], the invariance of the matrix element under color rotations implies that $$t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_l
= -\sum_{k \ne l}
\frac{1}{2}
\left[t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k + t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l\right]
\;\;.
$$ Thus we can combine the direct and interference graphs to give $$\label{eq:colorandspin}
\left(
-\frac{1}{2}
\left[t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k + t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l\right]
\right)\
\left[\overline W_{ll} - \overline W_{lk}
\right]
\;\;.
$$ We will see in Sec. \[sec:color\] that the color factor here is very simple in the leading color limit, essentially amounting to multiplying by $C_{\rm F}$ or zero. We are thus motivated to investigate the coefficient of this color operator, $\overline W_{ll} -\overline W_{lk}$.
It is useful to break $\overline W_{ll} - \overline W_{lk}$ into two pieces, $$\overline W_{ll}
-
\overline W_{lk}
=
(\overline W_{ll}
-
\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal})
+
(
\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal}
-
\overline W_{lk})
\;\;.
$$ Here, we recall from Eq. (\[eq:wlleikonal\]), $$\begin{split}
\overline W_{ll}^{\rm eikonal} = {}&
4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}\
\frac{
\hat p_l\cdot D(\hat p_{m+1};\hat Q) \cdot \hat p_l}
{(\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l)^2}\
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We have investigated $(\overline W_{ll} - \overline W_{ll}^{\rm eikonal})$ in Sec. \[sec:directSFs\] and found that $$\overline W_{ll}
-
\overline W_{ll}^{\rm eikonal}
\ge 0
\;\;.
$$ Thus we should consider $\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal} - \overline W_{lk}$. We have $$\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal}
-
\overline W_{lk}
=
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l}\
\left\{
\frac{
\hat p_l\cdot D(\hat p_{m+1};\hat Q) \cdot \hat p_l}
{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_l}
- 2 A_{lk}\
\frac{
\hat p_l\cdot D(\hat p_{m+1};\hat Q) \cdot \hat p_k}
{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \hat p_k}
\right\}
\;\;.
$$ We can simplify this if we use the definitions (\[eq:Alkdef\]) of $A_{lk}$ and (\[eq:Blkdef\]) of $B_{lk}$, $$\begin{split}
\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal}
&-
\overline W_{lk} =
\\ &
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l}\
\frac{1}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}
\bigg\{
\frac{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l}\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_l}
-2 A_{lk}\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_k}
\bigg\}
\\
={}&
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot p_l}\
\frac{1}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}
\bigg\{
B_{lk}
-2 A_{lk}\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_k}
\bigg\}
\\
={}&
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l}\
\frac{A_{lk}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\bigg\{
B_{lk} + B_{kl}
-2\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_k}
\bigg\}
\\
={}&
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l}\
\frac{A_{lk}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\bigg\{
\frac{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot p_k}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot p_l}\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_l}
+
\frac{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot p_l}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot p_k}\
{\hat p_k \cdot D \cdot \hat p_k}
\\ &\qquad
-2\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_k}
\bigg\}
\\
={}&
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l}\
\frac{A_{lk}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\frac{1}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l\ \hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\big\{
(\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k)^2\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_l}
\\ &\quad
+
(\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l)^2\
{\hat p_k \cdot D \cdot \hat p_k}
-2\
(\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k)(\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l)\
{\hat p_l \cdot D \cdot \hat p_k}
\big\}
\\
={}&
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l}\
\frac{A_{lk}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\frac{1}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l\ \hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\\&\quad\times
(\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k\ \hat p_l
- \hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l\ \hat p_k)
\cdot D \cdot
(\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k\ \hat p_l
- \hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l\ \hat p_k)
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We can simplify this further by noting that the vector $\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k\ \hat p_l - \hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l\ \hat p_k$ is orthogonal to $\hat p_{m+1}$, so that only the term $-g^{\mu\nu}$ in $D^{\mu\nu}$ contributes. Thus $$\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal}
-
\overline W_{lk} =
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l}\
\frac{A_{lk}}{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\frac{-(\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k\ \hat p_l
- \hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l\ \hat p_k)^2}
{\hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_l\ \hat p_{m+1} \cdot \hat p_k}\
\;\;.
$$ Since the vector $\hat p_{m+1} \cdot p_k\ p_l - \hat p_{m+1} \cdot p_l\ p_k$ is orthogonal to the lightlike vector $\hat p_{m+1}$, it is either lightlike or spacelike. Furthermore, $A_{lk} \ge 0$. Thus $$\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal}
-
\overline W_{lk} \ge 0
\;\;.
$$ Thus both parts of our splitting function, $\overline W_{ll} - \overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal}$ and $\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal} - \overline W_{lk}$, are non-negative. This means that we can use these functions as probabilities in constructing a parton shower Monte Carlo program without needing separate weight functions. We discuss this further in Sec. \[sec:EvolutionEquation\].
The analysis so far has allowed partons $l$ and $k$ to have non-zero masses. Let us now consider the case of massless partons, $\hat p_l^2 = \hat p_k^2 = 0$. The massless result can be understood in more detail if we write it in terms of three-vectors in the frame in which $\vec Q = 0$. We define $\vec u_k$, $\vec u_l$, and $\vec u_{m+1}$ to be unit three-vectors in the directions of the space parts of $\hat p_l$, $\hat p_k$, and $\hat p_{m+1}$ respectively. Then $$\label{eq:softdistfromg}
\overline W_{ll}^{\rm eikonal}
-
\overline W_{lk} =
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}\ 2\hat Q^2}
{(\hat Q\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1})^2\ (1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l)}\
g(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k)
\;\;,
$$ where $$\label{eq:gdef}
g(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k) =
\frac{
(1 + \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l)
(1 - \vec u_{l}\!\cdot\! \vec u_k)
}
{
(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l)
(1 + \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_k)
+
(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_k)
(1 + \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l)
}
\;.
$$ We can make some comments about this. First, the splitting probability is singular when the angle between $\vec u_{m+1}$ and $\vec u_l$ approaches zero, $(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l) \to 0$. This is the standard collinear singularity, seen in the soft limit. Second, when $(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l) \ll (1 - \vec u_{k}\cdot \vec u_l) \ll 1$, $\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal} - \overline W_{lk}$ behaves like $1/(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l)$. If we integrate over the angle of $\vec u_{m+1}$ with a lower cutoff on the angle between $\vec u_{m+1}$ and $\vec u_{l}$, the integral is logarithmically sensitive to the cutoff. Third, when $(1 - \vec u_{k}\cdot \vec u_l) \ll (1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l) \ll 1$, $\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal} - \overline W_{lk}$ behaves like $1/(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l)^2$. If we were to put an upper cutoff on the angular integration, there would be no logarithmic sensitivity to this cutoff. Thus, only the angle ordered region $(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l) \lesssim (1 - \vec u_{k}\cdot \vec u_l)$ is important in the integral over angles. There is a smooth decrease in the splitting probability when the angle between $\vec u_{m+1}$ and $\vec u_l$ becomes greater than the angle between $\vec u_{k}$ and $\vec u_l$. There is no sharp cutoff.
We illustrate this in Fig. \[fig:softplot\]. We take the polar angles of $\vec u_{m+1}$ to be $\theta,\phi$ where $\vec u_{l}$ is along the $\theta = 0$ axis. We choose $\vec u_k$ to have polar angles $\theta_k = 0.1$ and $\phi_k = 0$. Then we plot $g(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k)$ versus $\theta_x = \theta \cos \phi$ and $\theta_y = \theta \sin \phi$. Since $\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal} - \overline W_{lk} \propto g(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k)/(1 - \vec u_{m+1} \cdot\vec u_l)$, the main feature of $\overline W_{ll}^{\,\rm eikonal} - \overline W_{lk}$ is a singularity at $\theta_x = \theta_y = 0$. We see that the factor $g$ that multiplies the singular factor is a smooth function with a gentle peak between $\vec u_l$ and $\vec u_k$. This peak above $g=1$ represents constructive interference. When $\vec u_{m+1}$ moves outside the “angle ordered” region $(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l) < (1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_k)$, the factor $g$ drops below 1 and decreases to zero, representing destructive interference. We notice in Fig. \[fig:softplot\] that there is an enhancement of soft gluon radiation in the region between the directions of parton $l$ and parton $k$. This enhancement is known as the string effect and has been observed experimentally [@stringeffect].
The leading color limit {#sec:color}
=======================
We have studied the spin-averaged splitting function $[\overline W_{ll} - \overline W_{lk}]$. Here $\overline W_{ll}$ describes the square of the graph for emission of a gluon from parton $l$. There are also interference graphs between emitting the gluon from parton $l$ and emitting the same gluon from parton $k$. The function $\overline W_{lk}$ describes the part of the interference graphs that we group with parton $l$. These functions give the momentum dependence. They multiply a color operator as given in Eq. (\[eq:colorandspin\]), $$\label{eq:color0}
-\frac{1}{2}
\left[t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k + t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l\right]
\;\;.
$$ We have so far not made any approximations with respect to color. Let us now take the leading color approximation. To do that, recall from Ref. [@NSshower] that we use color states based on color string configurations. For instance, we could have a state $[4,5,2,3,1]$ in which 4 labels a quark, 1 labels an antiquark, and 5, 2, and 3 label gluons that connect, in that order, to a color string between the quark and antiquark. One can also have a closed string such as $(4,5,2,3,1)$ in which all of the partons are gluons. A color basis state can also consist of more than one color string connecting the partons. In general, the amplitude can have one color state $\ket{c}$ and the complex conjugate amplitude can have a color state $\bra{c'}$ with $c' \ne c$. However, in the leading color approximation we can only have $c' = c$. Additionally, in the leading color approximation we have $$- t_l^\dagger \otimes t_k^{} =
- t_k^\dagger \otimes t_l^{} =
-\frac{1}{2}
\left[t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k + t^{\dagger}_k \otimes t^{}_l\right]
\sim
C_{\rm F}\, a_{lk}^\dagger \otimes a_{lk}^{}
\;\;.
$$ Here $a_{lk}^\dagger$ represents the operator that inserts gluon $m+1$ between partons $l$ and $k$ on the color string if these partons are adjacent to each other on the same color string, that is, if partons $l$ and $k$ are color connected. When $a_{lk}^\dagger$ is applied to a state $\ket{c}$ in which $l$ and $k$ are not color connected, we define $a_{lk}^\dagger \ket{c} = 0$.[^10] For the complex conjugate amplitude, $\bra{c}\, a_{lk}$ again gives a state with the soft gluon inserted between partons $l$ and $k$. Thus, starting with a color state $\ket{c}$ in the amplitude and $\bra{c}$ in the complex conjugate amplitude, we get zero if partons $l$ and $k$ are not color connected and we get a new color state with the soft gluon inserted between $l$ and $k$ if $l$ and $k$ are color connected. The bookkeeping on color connections is a standard part of parton shower event generators. The momentum dependent numerical factor $[\overline W_{ll} - \overline W_{lk}]$ is multiplied by a color factor $C_{\rm F}$.
This analysis has covered the case in which parton $m+1$ is a gluon, so that there are interference graphs arising from this gluon being emitted from parton $l$ in the amplitude and from parton $k$ in the complex conjugate amplitude (or the other way around). There are also graphs for which parton $m+1$ is a quark or antiquark, as described in Sec. \[sec:OtherDirect\]. In these cases, we have just the splitting function $\overline W_{ll}$, which multiplies the color operator $t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_l$. This operator is very simple in the leading color limit.
Consider first the case of an initial state splitting in which $f_l = q$ and $\{\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{{\rm g}, q\}$, where $q$ is a quark flavor ($\mathrm{u}$, $\bar{\rm u}$, $\mathrm{d}$, …). In physical time, this is a splitting ${\rm g} \to q + \bar q$, while in shower time it is a splitting $q \to {\rm g} + q$. As discussed in Sec. 7.3 of Ref. [@NSshower], $$t_l^\dagger \otimes t_l
=
C_{\rm F}\, a_{\rm g}^\dagger(l) \otimes a_{\rm g}(l)
\;\;.
$$ Here $a_{\rm g}^\dagger(l)$ represents the operator that inserts the gluon at the end of the string terminated by quark $l$ before the splitting and terminated by quark $m+1$ after the splitting.[^11] Similarly, in the case of an initial state splitting in which $f_l = \bar q$ and $\{\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{{\rm g}, \bar q\}$, we have the same result, where now $a_{\rm g}^\dagger(l)$ represents the operator that inserts the gluon at the end of the string terminated by antiquark $l$ before the splitting and terminated by antiquark $m+1$ after the splitting.
Consider next the case of an initial state splitting in which $f_l = {\rm g}$ and $\{\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{\bar q, q\}$. In physical time, this is a splitting $q \to q+{\rm g}$, while in shower time it is a splitting ${\rm g} \to q + \bar q$. As discussed in Sec. 7.3 of Ref. [@NSshower], in the leading color limit, $$\label{eq:gqqbarsplitcolor}
t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_l \sim T_{\rm R} \
a^\dagger_q(l) \otimes a_q(l)
\;\;,
$$ where $T_{\rm R} = 1/2$ and $a^\dagger_q(l)$ splits the color string at the point at which gluon $l$ attaches, creating new string ends corresponding to the quark and the antiquark. The same analysis applies for an initial state splitting with $f_l = {\rm g}$ and $\{\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{q, \bar q\}$ and for a final state ${\rm g} \to q + \bar q$ splitting, for which $\{\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{q, \bar q\}$.
Evolution equation {#sec:EvolutionEquation}
==================
We now have the information that we need to present the formulas from Ref. [@NSshower] for parton shower evolution specialized to the spin averaged, leading color approximation. In the general case, we had basis states $\sket{\{p,f,s',c',s,c\}_{m}}$ with two color configurations $\{c\}_m$ and $\{c'\}_m$, representing the color state in the amplitude and the color state in the complex conjugate amplitude, respectively, and two spin color configurations $\{s\}_m$ and $\{s'\}_m$. In this paper, we have averaged over spins, so that we can describe the evolution of the states without referring to spin at all. We also use the leading color approximation, so that we always work with states with $\{c\}_m = \{c'\}_m$. Thus our description is vastly simplified and we can work with basis states $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$.
As in Ref. [@NSshower], we use the logarithm of the virtuality of a splitting as the evolution variable, so that a splitting of parton $l$ is assigned to a shower time $t = T_l(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})$, $$\label{eq:showertime}
T_l(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}) =
\log\left(\frac{Q_0^2}{|(\hat p_l +(-1)^{\delta_{l,{\mathrm{a}}} + \delta_{l,{\mathrm{b}}}}
\hat p_{m+1})^2 - m^2(f_l)|}\right)
\;\;,
$$ where $f_l = \hat f_l + \hat f_{m+1}$ and $Q_0^2$ is the starting virtuality scale. Shower evolution is based on the probability that, at shower time $t$, a state $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$ that had not already split now splits to make a new state $\big|\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}\big)$ with one more parton. This probability is represented as a matrix element of a splitting operator ${\cal H}^{(0)}_{{\mathrm{I}}}(t)$, which is similar to the splitting operator ${\cal H}_{{\mathrm{I}}}(t)$ of Ref. [@NSshower] except that the spin averaged, leading color approximations (“(0)”) have been applied. Then ${\cal H}^{(0)}_{{\mathrm{I}}}(t)$ operates on states $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$ instead of the states of the full theory. We write $$\label{eq:HSpinlessLeadingColor}
\begin{split}
\big(\{\hat p,\hat f,{}&\hat c\}_{m+1}\big|
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(t)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\\={}&
\sum_{l}
(m+1)\,
\frac
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(b)\,\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat b)\,
\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}\,
\frac{
f_{\hat a/A}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{\hat b/B}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
{f_{a/A}(\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{b/B}(\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
\\
&\times
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}_{l}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}\,
\delta\!\left(
t - T_l(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})\right)\,
\\
&\times
\biggl\{
\theta(\hat f_{m+1} = \mathrm{g})\
\sum_{\substack{k\\ k\ne l}}\
\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{lk}\ket{\{c\}_m}\,
\Phi_{lk}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\\
&\quad+
\theta(\hat f_{m+1} \ne \mathrm{g})\,\theta(\hat f_{l} = \mathrm{g})\
\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{\mathrm{g}}(l)\ket{\{c\}_m}\,
\Phi_{ll}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\\
&\quad+
\theta(\hat f_{m+1} \ne \mathrm{g})\,\theta(f_{l} = \mathrm{g})\
\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{q}(l)\ket{\{c\}_m}\,
\Phi_{ll}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\biggr\}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ The first line on the right hand side of this formula contains factors copied directly from Ref. [@NSshower]. There is a sum over the index $l$ of the parton that splits. Then there is a ratio of parton distribution functions. This ratio is 1 for a final state splitting but different from 1 for an initial state splitting. The next line concerns the relation of the variables $\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}$ and $t$ to the variables $\{p,f\}_m$. For the flavors, this factor vanishes unless there is a QCD vertex for $f_l \to \hat f_l + \hat f_{m+1}$ and it vanishes unless $\hat f_j = f_j$ for the other partons. For an allowed relationship between $\{\hat f\}_{m+1}$ and $\{f\}_m$, the flavor factor is 1. There is a similar factor for the momenta. Given the momenta $\{p\}_m$, the momenta $\{\hat p\}_{m+1}$ must lie on a certain three dimensional surface specified by the momentum mapping ${\cal R}_l$ defined in Ref. [@NSshower]. The function $\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}_{l}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}$ contains a delta function on this surface. There is also a delta function that defines the shower time $t$. Thus if we integrate $\big(\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}\big| {\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(t) \sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$ over $t$ and the momenta $\{\hat p\}_{m+1}$, we are really integrating over three variables that describe the splitting of parton $l$.
The final factor in Eq. (\[eq:HSpinlessLeadingColor\]) contains three terms. Our main interest is in the first term, for $\hat f_{m+1} = {\rm g}$. There is a sum over the index $k$ of other partons in the process. These are the partons that might be connected with parton $l$ in an interference diagram. The remaining factors are rather complicated in the general case described in Ref. [@NSshower], but are quite simple in the spin averaged, leading color approximation. The factor $\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{lk}\ket{\{c\}_m}$ embodies the color considerations described in Sec. \[sec:color\]. It equals 1 provided two conditions hold. First, partons $l$ and $k$ must be color connected in the initial color state $\{c\}_{m}$. Second, the new color state $\{\hat c\}_{m+1}$ must be the same as $\{c\}_{m}$ with the gluon with label $m+1$ inserted between partons $l$ and $k$. If either of these conditions fails, this factor vanishes. The remaining factor is the splitting function $$\Phi_{lk} \equiv C_{\rm F}\,[\overline W_{ll} - \overline W_{lk}]
\;\;.
$$ We have seen explicitly what this factor is, and have noted that $\Phi_{lk}$ is positive.
The next term in the braces in Eq. (\[eq:HSpinlessLeadingColor\]) applies to an initial state splitting in which $\hat f_l = {\rm g}$ and $\{f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\}$ is either $\{q,q\}$ or $\{\bar q,\bar q\}$. The color factor $\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{\mathrm{g}}(l)\ket{\{c\}_m}$ is 1 if the new color state $\{\hat c\}_{m+1}$ is the same as $\{c\}_{m}$ with the end of the string at quark or antiquark $l$ now terminated at quark or antiquark $m+1$ and the new the gluon with label $l$ inserted just next to the end of the string. Otherwise, this factor vanishes. The corresponding splitting function is $$\Phi_{ll} \equiv C_{\rm F}\,\overline W_{ll}
\;\;.
$$ The final term in the braces in Eq. (\[eq:HSpinlessLeadingColor\]) applies to an initial state splitting in which $f_l = {\rm g}$ and $\{\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\}$ is either $\{q,\bar q\}$ or $\{\bar q,q\}$. The color factor $\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{\mathrm{q}}(l)\ket{\{c\}_m}$ is 1 if the color state $\{\hat c\}_{m+1}$ is related to $\{c\}_{m}$ by cutting the color string on which parton $l$ (a gluon) lies into two strings, terminating at the new quark and antiquark. Otherwise, this factor vanishes. The corresponding splitting function is $$\Phi_{ll} \equiv T_{\rm R}\,\overline W_{ll}
\;\;.
$$ We have now specified the probability that a state $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$ splits. The probability that this state does [*not*]{} split between shower times $t$ and $t'$ is $$\Delta^{(0)}(t,t';\{p,f,c\}_{m}) =
\exp\left(-\int_{t'}^{t} d\tau\
\sbra{1}{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\mathrm{I}}(\tau)
\sket{\{p,f,c\}_m}\right)
\;\;.
\label{eq:Deltadef}
$$ Here $\sbra{1}{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\mathrm{I}}(\tau)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_m}$ is the inclusive probability for the state $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$ to split at time $\tau$, $$\label{eq:inclusivesplit}
\sbra{1}{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\mathrm{I}}(\tau)
\sket{\{p,f,c\}_m}
=
\frac{1}{(m+1)!}
\int \big[d\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}\big]\
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}}
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(t)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\;\;.
$$ To get the inclusive splitting probability, we have integrated over the momenta $\{\hat p\}_{m+1}$ after the splitting and summed over the flavors and colors, using the integration measure in Eq, (3.15) of Ref. [@NSshower], supplemented by a sum over color states.[^12]
With these ingredients, we can describe shower evolution using the evolution equation (14.1) from Ref. [@NSshower]. The evolution from a shower time $t'$ to a final time $t_{\rm f}$ at which showering is terminated is given by an operator ${\cal U}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},t')$ that obeys[^13] $$\label{eq:evolutionbis}
{\cal U}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},t') = {\cal N}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},t')
+ \int_{t'}^{t_{\rm f}}\! d\tau\
{\cal U}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},\tau)\,
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{{\mathrm{I}}}(\tau)
\,{\cal N}^{(0)}(\tau,t')
\;\;.$$ Here ${\cal N}^{(0)}(t',t)$ is a no-splitting operator defined by $${\cal N}^{(0)}(t',t)
\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}} =
\Delta^{(0)}(t',t;\{p,f,c\}_{m})
\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\;\;.
\label{eq:Neigenvalue0}
$$ If we apply this to a state $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$ that exists at shower time $t'$, we have $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:evolutiondetail}
{\cal U}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},t')\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}} ={}&
\Delta^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},t';\{p,f,c\}_{m})\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\\
& +
\int_{t'}^{t_{\rm f}}\! d\tau\
\frac{1}{(m+1)!}
\int \big[d\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}\big]\
{\cal U}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},\tau)\,
\sket{\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}}
\\&\quad \times
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}}
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(\tau)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\,\Delta^{(0)}(\tau,t';\{p,f,c\}_{m})
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ The first term gives the probability that the state does not split before shower time $t_{\rm f}$. The main evolution is represented by the second term. There is an integration over the shower time $\tau$ of the next splitting and over the splitting parameters. In an implementation of this equation, the integration would be performed by Monte Carlo integration. That is, we would choose $\tau$ and $\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}$ with some probability density $\rho$ that contains delta functions that restrict $\tau$ and $\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}$ to the allowed surface defined by the Eq. (\[eq:showertime\]) for $\tau$ and the momentum mapping ${\cal R}_l$. Then we multiply by a weight $w$ defined by $$\frac{1}{(m+1)!}\ {\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}}
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(\tau)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\,\Delta^{(0)}(\tau,t';\{p,f,c\}_{m})}
= w \times \rho
\;\;.
$$ In the present case, the integrand has two welcome features. First, it is positive. Second, using the definition of $\Delta^{(0)}$, $$\begin{split}
\frac{1}{(m+1)!}&
\int_{t'}^{\infty}\! d\tau
\int\! \big[d\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}\big]
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}}
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(\tau)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\,\Delta^{(0)}(\tau,t';\{p,f,c\}_{m})
\\ &
= 1
\;.
\end{split}$$ Thus the function $$\rho =
\frac{\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}}
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(\tau)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\,\Delta^{(0)}(\tau,t';\{p,f,c\}_{m})}{(m+1)!}
$$ is positive and properly normalized to be a probability density. Using standard methods from shower Monte Carlo algorithms [@EarlyPythia; @Gottschalk; @Pythia; @Herwig], we can choose points with this probability density. Then $w=1$. With a probability $\Delta^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},t';\{p,f,c\}_{m})$, the point selected will be in the range $t_{\rm f} < \tau < \infty$. In this case, there is no splitting and we simply keep the state $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$. This corresponds to the no splitting term in Eq. (\[eq:evolutiondetail\]). If $\tau < t_{\rm f}$, the state splits to $\{\hat p,\hat f,\hat c\}_{m+1}$. Then, according to Eq. (\[eq:evolutiondetail\]), we should apply ${\cal U}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},\tau)$ to this state, repeating the process. Thus the evolution proceeds by what is known as a Markov chain.
The starting point for evolution is a state that is a mixture of the basis states $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}$ for $m=2$, assuming that we start with a $2 \to 2$ hard process, $$\label{eq:evolutionstart}
\sket{\rho^{(0)}(0)} = \frac{1}{2!}
\int \big[d\{p,f,c\}_{2}\big]\
\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{2}}
\sbrax{\{p,f,c\}_{2}}\sket{\rho^{(0)}(0)}
\;\;.
$$ Here $\sbrax{\{p,f,c\}_{2}}\sket{\rho^{(0)}(0)}$ is obtained from the $2 \to 2$ matrix element summed over spins,[^14] $$\label{eq:rhodef1}
\sbrax{\{p,f,c\}_{2}}\sket{\rho^{(0)}(0)} =
\frac{f_{a/A}(\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{b/B}(\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
{4n_{\mathrm{c}}(a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(b)\,2\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}p_{\mathrm{A}}\!\cdot\!p_{\mathrm{B}}}\,
\sum_{\{s\}_2}
\big|\brax{\{s,c\}_{2}}\ket{{M}(\{p,f\}_{2})}\big|^2
\;\;.
$$ To implement Eq. (\[eq:evolutionstart\]), one would choose points $\{p,f,c\}_2$ by Monte Carlo methods. This gives the starting point for the shower evolution. The state $\sket{\rho^{(0)}(0)} $ then evolves into a state $$\sket{\rho^{(0)}(t_{\rm f})} = {\cal U}^{(0)}(t_{\rm f},0)\sket{\rho^{(0)}(0)}
$$ at the shower time $t_{\rm f}$ at which we choose to terminate shower evolution. At this point, as described in Ref. [@NSshower], the desired cross section is obtained by applying a hadronization model to the component states $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{N}}$ in $\sket{\rho^{(0)}(t_{\rm f})}$, producing a hadronic state ${\cal U}^{\rm had}(\infty,t_{\rm f})\sket{\rho^{(0)}(t_{\rm f})}$. Then the desired cross section $\sigma[F_{\rm h}]$ results from applying the measurement function $F_{\rm h}$ to the hadronic states produced. Thus $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:hadronization}
\sigma^{(0)}[F_{\rm h}] ={}&
\sbra{F_{\rm h}}{\cal U}^{\rm had}(\infty,t_{\rm f})
\sket{\rho^{(0)}(t_{\rm f})}
\\
={}&
\sum_N
\frac{1}{N!}
\int \big[d\{p,f,c\}_{N}\big]\
\sbra{F_{\rm h}}{\cal U}^{\rm had}(\infty,t_{\rm f})
\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{N}}
\sbrax{\{p,f,c\}_{N}}
\sket{\rho^{(0)}(t_{\rm f})}
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Just as in the parton shower evolution, the integration in Eq. (\[eq:hadronization\]) can be implemented by simply taking the states $\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{N}}$ generated by the shower evolution and passing them to a Monte Carlo implementation of a hadronization model. Then application of the measurement function is acheived by, for instance, putting the events into desired bins according to the momenta of the resulting hadrons.
Other approaches
================
In this section, we sketch the relation of the shower evolution of this paper to some other approaches to the description of parton showers. For the shake of the simplicity we work only with massless partons in this section but it is still allowed for the non-QCD particles to have non-zero masses.
Dipole shower
-------------
One possibility for organizing the gluon radiation in a (spin averaged, leading color) parton shower is to use the same functions that are used for organizing the subtractions in a next-to-leading order perturbative calculation. In particular, the dipole subtraction scheme of Catani and Seymour [@CataniSeymour] is an attractive possibility [@Ringberg] that has been developed as the basis for parton shower programs by Schumann and Krauss [@Schumann] and by Dinsdale, Ternick and Weinzierl [@Weinzierl].
To see how this can work, consider the case that the emitted parton $m+1$ is a gluon, so that the splitting operator is given by the main term in Eq. , $$\label{eq:Hpair}
\begin{split}
\big(\{\hat p,\hat f,{}&\hat c\}_{m+1}\big|
{\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(t)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\\={}&
\sum_{l}
\sum_{\substack{k\\ k\ne l}}\
(m+1)\,
\frac
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(b)\,\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat b)\,
\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}\,
\frac{
f_{\hat a/A}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{\hat b/B}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
{f_{a/A}(\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{b/B}(\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
\\
&\times
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}_{l}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}\,
\delta\!\left(
t - T_l(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\right)\,
\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{lk}\ket{\{c\}_m}
\\
&\times
\Phi_{lk}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ The term $l,k$ generates gluons predominately soft or collinear with parton $l$. That is because $\Phi_{lk}$ is singular when $\hat p_{m+1}$ is soft or collinear with $\hat p_l$ but finite when $\hat p_{m+1}$ is collinear with $\hat p_k$. Each term is defined with its own phase space mapping ${\cal P}_{l}$ and evolution parameter $t$. Now we can use the momentum mappings ${\cal P}^{\rm cs}_{lk}$ of Catani and Seymour. These obey $$\begin{split}
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}^{\rm cs}_{lk}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}
\sim{}& \sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}_{l}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}
\;\;\;\text{when}\;\; \hat p_{m+1} \to \lambda \hat p_{l}
\\
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}^{\rm cs}_{lk}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}
\sim{}& \sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}_{l}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}
\\\sim{}&
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}_{k}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}
\;\;\;\text{when}\;\; \hat p_{m+1} \to 0\;\;.
\end{split}$$ We can also use the splitting functions $\Phi^{\rm cs}_{lk}$ of Catani and Seymour. These substitutions give $$\label{eq:HpairCS}
\begin{split}
\big(\{\hat p,\hat f,{}&\hat c\}_{m+1}\big|
{\cal H}^{\rm cs}_{\rm I}(t)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\\={}&
\sum_{l}
\sum_{\substack{k\\ k\ne l}}\
(m+1)\,
\frac
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(b)\,\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat b)\,
\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}\,
\frac{
f_{\hat a/A}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{\hat b/B}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
{f_{a/A}(\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{b/B}(\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
\\
&\times
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}^{\rm cs}_{lk}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}\,
\delta\!\left(
t - T_l(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\right)\,
\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{lk}\ket{\{c\}_m}
\\
&\times
\Phi_{lk}^{\rm cs}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ The splitting operator ${\cal H}^{\rm cs}_{\rm I}(t)$ matches ${\cal H}^{(0)}_{\rm I}(t)$ in the collinear and soft limits.
We see that the structure of shower generation using the Catani-Seymour functions is quite similar to that of this paper. It is of interest to compare the splitting functions in the soft limit, $\hat p_{m+1} \to 0$. Using the definitions in Ref. [@CataniSeymour], we have $$\label{eq:softdistfromgCS}
\Phi_{lk}^{\rm cs}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}) \sim
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}\,C_{\rm F}\,2\hat Q^2}
{(\hat Q\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1})^2\ (1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l)}\
g^{\rm cs}(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k;E_l/E_k)
\;\;,
$$ for $\hat p_{m+1} \to 0$, where $$\label{eq:gcsdef}
g^{\rm cs}(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k;E_l/E_k) =
\frac{
(1 - \vec u_{l}\!\cdot\! \vec u_k)
}
{
(E_l/E_k)(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l)
+
(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_k)
}
\;.
$$ Here $E_l$ and $E_k$ are the energies of partons $l$ and $k$, respectively, in the rest frame of $\hat Q$, the total momentum of the final state partons. Thus $E_l/E_k = \hat p_l\cdot \hat Q/\hat p_k\cdot \hat Q$. This function is similar in form to the function $g$ of this paper, plotted in Fig. \[fig:softplot\], but it depends on the ratio $E_l/E_k$. We plot it in Fig. \[fig:csplots\] for $E_l/E_k = 3$ and $E_l/E_k = 1/3$. We see that the Catani-Seymour functions assign little soft radiation to the more energetic of partons $l$ and $k$. More soft radiation is assigned to the less energetic parton of $l$ and $k$, with quite a lot of the radiation going in approximately the direction of the more energetic parton.
The the final state shower in the latest version (version 8.1) of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia</span> [@SjostrandSkands; @Pythia] is essentially a dipole shower as described above. In particular, the splitting function describing gluon emission in the soft limit $\hat p_{m+1} \to 0$ is that in Eq. (\[eq:softdistfromgCS\]) with the same function $g$ as given in Eq. (\[eq:gcsdef\]).
Antenna shower
--------------
In the method of this paper and in a dipole shower following the Catani-Seymour scheme, the creation of a new gluon is attributed to the splitting of one of the previously existing partons. This requires that for the interference graph between the amplitude for emitting the gluon from parton $l$ and the amplitude for emitting the gluon from parton $k$, one assigns a certain fraction $A$ of the graph to the splitting of parton $l$ and a fraction $1 - A$ to the splitting of parton $k$. In an antenna shower, one treats the pair of color connected partons, $l,k$ as a unit. The $l,k$ dipole constitutes an antenna that radiates the daughter gluon.[^15] The pioneering development along these lines is the final state shower of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ariadne</span>[@Ariadne]. More recent examples include those in Refs. [@antenna; @Vincia]. There is a corresponding subtraction scheme for next-to-leading order calculations, antenna subtraction [@antennasubtract].
To define an antenna shower, we choose a momentum mapping ${\cal P}_{lk}^{\rm ant}$ with the properties previously defined and with the symmetry property $${\cal P}_{lk}^{\rm ant} = {\cal P}_{kl}^{\rm ant}
\;\;.
$$ We also redefine the shower evolution variable to be symmetric under $l \leftrightarrow k$ interchange. For instance, we could take $$t =
\log\left(\frac{Q_0^2}
{2\min[\hat p_l\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1},\,\hat p_k\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}]}\right)
\;\;.
$$ Then we can rewrite the sum over $l$ and $k$ as a sum over pairs $l,k$, with each pair counted once, giving $$\label{eq:HpairAnt}
\begin{split}
\big(\{\hat p,\hat f,{}&\hat c\}_{m+1}\big|
{\cal H}^{\rm ant}_{\rm I}(t)\sket{\{p,f,c\}_{m}}
\\={}&
\sum_{\substack{l,k\\ {\rm pairs}}}\
(m+1)\,
\frac
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(b)\,\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}
{n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat a) n_{\mathrm{c}}(\hat b)\,
\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}}\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}}}\,
\frac{
f_{\hat a/A}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{\hat b/B}(\hat \eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
{f_{a/A}(\eta_{{\mathrm{a}}},\mu^{2}_{F})
f_{b/B}(\eta_{{\mathrm{b}}},\mu^{2}_{F})}
\\
&\times
\sbra{\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}}{\cal P}^{\rm ant}_{lk}\sket{\{p,f\}_m}\,
\delta\!\left(
t - \log\left(\frac{Q_0^2}
{2\min[\hat p_l\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1},\,\hat p_k\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}]}\right)
\right)
\\
&\times
\bra{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}} a^\dagger_{lk}\ket{\{c\}_m}\
\Phi_{lk}^{\rm ant}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1})
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ Here $\Phi_{lk}^{\rm ant}$ can be $$\Phi_{lk}^{\rm ant} = \Phi_{lk} + \Phi_{kl}
$$ or any function that matches it in the soft and collinear limits.
In the soft limit, $\hat p_{m+1} \to 0$, $\Phi_{lk}^{\rm ant}$ approaches the soft limit of the sum $\Phi_{lk} + \Phi_{kl}$, which is $$\label{eq:softdistfromant}
\Phi_{lk}^{\rm ant}(\{\hat p,\hat f\}_{m+1}) \sim
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}\,C_{\rm F}\,2\hat Q^2}
{(\hat Q\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1})^2}\
\frac{(1 - \vec u_l\!\cdot\!\vec u_k)}
{(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l)(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_k)}
\;\;.
$$ There is no function $g$ here. The function $g$ in the previous subsections arises from separating this into two terms, one that remains finite when $(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_k) \to 0$ and the other that remains finite when $(1 - \vec u_{m+1}\!\cdot\! \vec u_l) \to 0$.
Angular ordering approximation
------------------------------
With massless kinematics, the distribution of soft radiation that is kinematically of the form for a splitting of parton $l$ is proportional to $g(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k)/(1-\vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l)$, as given in Eq. (\[eq:softdistfromg\]). From the plot of $g$ in Fig. \[fig:softplot\], we see that the soft gluon radiation from partons $l$ and $k$ is approximately confined to a cone between $\vec p_l$ and $\vec p_k$. This is called “angular ordering.” There is also an angular ordering approximation [@angleorder] that is sometimes used for parton showers and, in particular, lies at the heart of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig</span> [@Herwig]. With this approximation, the function $g$ in Fig. \[fig:softplot\] is approximated by the function plotted in Fig. \[fig:angularordering\], $$\label{eq:gaodef}
g_{\rm a.o.}(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k) =
\theta(\vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l > \vec u_k\cdot \vec u_l)
\;\;.
$$ We see that in the angular region between the two hard parton directions ($\theta_x \approx 0.5, \theta_y \approx 0$ in the figures), the angular distribution of the soft radiation determined by the exact function $g$ is about twice as large as that determined by $g_{\rm a.o.}$. In other angular regions $g$ gives less soft radiation than $g_{\rm a.o.}$. The angular ordering approximation has the good feature that it gets the total amount of soft radiation right, $$\label{eq:angorderintegral}
\int d\Omega_{m+1}\
\frac{g(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k)
- g_{\rm a.o.}(\vec u_{m+1},\vec u_l,\vec u_k)}
{1 - \vec u_{m+1}\cdot \vec u_l}
= 0
\;\;.
$$ This result follows from the original construction of Refs. [@angleorder]. We note, however, that the original construction involved only an integration over the azimuthal angle $\phi$, while Eq. (\[eq:angorderintegral\]) requires an integral over both $\theta$ and $\phi$. We have also checked Eq. (\[eq:angorderintegral\]) by numerical integration.
One should note that the theta function in $g_{\rm a.o.}$ restricts the emission angle of a soft gluon to be smaller than the angle between $\vec u_k$ and $\vec u_l$, where $k$ is a parton that is color connected to parton $l$. If parton $l$ is a quark, then there is only one choice for $k$. However, if parton $l$ is a gluon, then there are two color connected partons. Then there are two contributions with separate angle restrictions.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In Ref. [@NSshower], we presented evolution equations that represent a leading order parton shower including quantum interference, spin, and color. We did not, however, present a way to implement the integrations implied by these equations in a fashion that would be practical for more than a few partons. The idea behind the evolution equations was to make just one approximation: that the virtualities in successive splittings are strongly ordered.
Typical Monte Carlo event generators, such as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia</span> [@Pythia], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ariadne</span> [@Ariadne], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Herwig</span> [@Herwig], and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sherpa</span> [@Sherpa], make additional approximations. In particular, they typically average over parton spins and take the leading term in an expansion in $1/N_{\mathrm{c}}^2$, where $N_{\mathrm{c}}= 3$ is the number of colors. Our aim in this paper has been to work out how the general formalism could work as a practical calculation if we make the further approximations of averaging over parton spins[^16] and of keeping only the leading order in $1/N_{\mathrm{c}}^2$. We do, however, keep some aspects of quantum interference in that the interference graphs between the emission of a soft gluon from parton $l$ and the emission of the soft gluon from another parton $k$ are accounted for.
The result is an algorithm that is similar to what is done in widely used parton shower event generators in that the calculation can be implemented as a Markov chain, as described in Sec. \[sec:EvolutionEquation\]. The form of the evolution is perhaps most similar to that in the dipole showers of Refs. [@Schumann] and [@Weinzierl] and is also similar to the $k_\perp$ version of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pythia</span> [@SjostrandSkands]. One can think of the basic object that splits as not one parton, but two partons, $l$ and $k$, that are next to each other along a color string. This basic object is often referred to as a color dipole. When we incorporate the joint splitting of partons $l$ and $k$, there is a contribution to the splitting probability that corresponds to the square of the amplitude for parton $l$ to split. There is another contribution to the splitting probability that corresponds to the square of the amplitude for parton $k$ to split. Then there are two contributions that correspond to the interference of these amplitudes. We reorganize the four terms into two terms. One is kinematically of the form for a splitting of parton $l$, while the other is kinematically of the form for a splitting of parton $k$. This is rather similar to the structure of the dipole subtraction scheme for next-to-leading order calculations proposed by Catani and Seymour [@CataniSeymour], which has been implemented for parton showers in two recent papers [@Schumann; @Weinzierl].
There are differences between the shower formulation used here and that in, say, the dipole showers of Refs. [@Schumann] and [@Weinzierl]. The splitting functions are different. In particular, we have separate formulations for the interference graphs (based on the simple eikonal approximation) and for the direct graphs, for which our splitting functions are quite directly read off from the Feynman graphs with a minimal approximation applied where an off-shell mother parton attaches to a hard scattering amplitude. The momentum mapping functions, which were presented in Ref. [@NSshower], are also different. They are similar to the Catani-Seymour momentum mappings in that they are systematically defined, invertible mappings, but they have the advantage that the form of the mapping depends on the parton index $l$ but not on the index $k$ of the partner parton.
We have seen that the leading color, spin averaged shower of this paper has a structure similar to that implemented in standard parton shower event generators. In particular, this simple shower can be implemented using a Markov chain. The full shower formalism of Ref. [@NSshower] is more general than the simple shower in that parton spin and color correlations are included. We anticipate that the full formalism will be more difficult than the simple version to implement in a practical fashion. However, we anticipate that one can use the simple shower as a basis for a systematically improvable approximation to the full shower. The idea would be to start with the simple shower and provide parameters that remove the approximations gradually, so that the result is still approximate but the approximation is systematically improvable as computer resources allow. We expect to return to this subject in future papers.
The remaining splitting functions {#app:OtherSplittings}
=================================
In this section we record the spin averaged splitting functions $\overline W_{ll}$ for the cases in which $\hat f_{m+1}\ne {\rm g}$, which were not covered in the main body of the paper. We use the general definition (\[eq:barwlldef\]) of $\overline W_{ll}$ together with the formulas from Ref. [@NSshower] for the splitting amplitudes $v_l$.
We first consider a final state splitting with $\{f_l,\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{{\rm g},q,\bar q\}$ where $q$ is a quark flavor and $\bar q$ is the corresponding antiflavor. A straightforward calculation gives $$\overline W_{ll}(\{\hat f,\hat p\}_{m+1}) =
\frac{8\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{(\hat p_{l}+\hat p_{m+1})^{2}}
\left(1+
\frac{2\ \hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!D(p_{l},\hat Q)\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}
{(\hat p_{l}+\hat p_{m+1})^{2}}
\right)\;\;.
$$ For an initial state splitting with $\{f_l,\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{{\rm g},q,\bar q\}$, we find $$\overline W_{ll}(\{\hat f,\hat p\}_{m+1}) =
\frac{8\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{(\hat p_{l}-\hat p_{m+1})^{2}}
\left(-1+
\left(\frac{\hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!n_{l}}
{(\hat p_{l}-\hat p_{m+1})\!\cdot\!n_{l}}\right)^{2}
\frac{2\ \hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\!D(p_{l},\hat Q)\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}
{(\hat p_{l}-\hat p_{m+1})^{2}}
\right)\;\;.
$$ Here $n_l = p_{\mathrm{B}}$ for $l = {\mathrm{a}}$ and $n_l = p_{\mathrm{A}}$ for $l = {\mathrm{b}}$. The same result holds for an initial state splitting with $\{f_l,\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{{\rm g},\bar q,q\}$.
We consider next an initial state splitting with $\{f_l,\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{q, {\rm g},q\}$. A straightforward calculation gives $$\overline w_{ll}(\{\hat f,\hat p\}_{m+1}) =
\frac{4\pi{\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}}}{\hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}
\left(
\frac{\hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!n_{l}}{p_{l}\!\cdot\!n_{l}}
- \frac{(\hat p_{l} - \hat p_{m+1})\!\cdot\!n_{l}}{p_{l}\!\cdot\!n_{l}}\,
\frac{\hat p_{m+1}\!\cdot\!D(\hat p_{l}, \hat Q)\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}
{\hat p_{l}\!\cdot\!\hat p_{m+1}}
\right)\;\;.
$$ Again, $n_{\mathrm{a}}= p_{\mathrm{B}}$ and $n_{\mathrm{b}}= p_{\mathrm{A}}$. The same result holds for an initial state splitting with $\{f_l,\hat f_l,\hat f_{m+1}\} = \{\bar q, {\rm g},\bar q\}$.
This completes the analysis of $\overline W_{ll}$ for cases in which $\hat f_{m+1}\ne {\rm g}$.
[99]{}
Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, [*Parton showers with quantum interference*]{}, JHEP [**0709**]{} (2007) 114 \[arXiv:0706.0017 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. Lönnblad, [*ARIADNE version 4: A program for simulation of QCD cascades implementing the color dipole model*]{}, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**71**]{} (1992) 15. T. Sjöstrand and P. Z. Skands, [*Transverse-momentum-ordered showers and interleaved multiple interactions*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**39**]{} (2005) 129 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0408302\]. S. Schumann and F. Krauss, [*A parton shower algorithm based on Catani-Seymour dipole factorisation*]{}, arXiv:0709.1027 \[hep-ph\]. M. Dinsdale, M. Ternick and S. Weinzierl, [*Parton showers from the dipole formalism*]{}, arXiv:0709.1026 \[hep-ph\]. S. Catani and M. H. Seymour, [*A general algorithm for calculating jet cross sections in NLO QCD*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**485**]{} (1997) 291 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**510**]{} (1998) 503 \] \[arXiv:hep-ph/9605323\]. R. Akers [*et al.*]{} \[OPAL Collaboration\], [*Investigation of the string effect using final state photons*]{}, Z. Phys. C [**68**]{} (1995) 531. T. Sjöstrand, [*A Model for initial state parton showers*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**157**]{} (1985) 321. T. D. Gottschalk, [*Backwards evolved initial state parton showers*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**277**]{} (1986) 700 . T. Sjöstrand, [*High-energy physics event generation with PYTHIA 5.7 and JETSET 7.4*]{}, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**82**]{} (1994) 74; T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P. Skands, [*PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual*]{}, JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 026 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0603175\]; T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, [*“A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1*]{}, arXiv:0710.3820 \[hep-ph\]. G. Marchesini, B. R. Webber, G. Abbiendi, I. G. Knowles, M. H. Seymour and L. Stanco, [*HERWIG: A Monte Carlo event generator for simulating hadron emission reactions with interfering gluons*]{}, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**67**]{} (1992) 465 ; S. Gieseke [*et al.*]{}, [*Herwig++ 2.0 release note*]{}, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0609306\]. Z. Nagy and D. E. Soper, “A new parton shower algorithm: Shower evolution, matching at leading and next-to-leading order level,” in [*New trends in HERA physics 2005, Proceedings of the Ringberg Workshop*]{}, G. Grindhammer, W. Ochs, B. A. Kniehl and G. Kramer, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2006) arXiv:hep-ph/0601021. D. A. Kosower, [*Antenna factorization of gauge-theory amplitudes*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998) 5410 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9710213\]; [*Antenna factorization in strongly-ordered limits*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 045016 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0311272\]. W. T. Giele, D. A. Kosower and P. Z. Skands, “A simple shower and matching algorithm,” arXiv:0707.3652 \[hep-ph\]. A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and E. W. N. Glover, [*Antenna subtraction at NNLO*]{}, JHEP [**0509**]{} (2005) 056 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0505111\]. G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, [*Simulation Of QCD jets including soft gluon interference*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**238**]{} (1984) 1; R. K. Ellis, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, [*Soft radiation in parton parton scattering*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**286**]{} (1987) 643 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**294**]{} (1987) 1180\]. T. Gleisberg, S. Hoche, F. Krauss, A. Schalicke, S. Schumann and J. C. Winter, [*SHERPA 1.alpha, a proof-of-concept version*]{}, JHEP [**0402**]{} (2004) 056 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0311263\]; F. Krauss, A. Schalicke, S. Schumann and G. Soff, [*Simulating W / Z + jets production at the Tevatron*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 114009 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0409106\]; A. Schalicke and F. Krauss, [*Implementing the ME+PS merging algorithm*]{}, JHEP [**0507**]{} (2005) 018 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503281\].
[^1]: More precisely, we average over the spins of incoming partons at each step and sum over the spins of the outgoing partons.
[^2]: For a final state $q \to q {\rm g}$ splitting, we use $m+1$ for the label of the gluon. For a final state ${\rm g} \to q\,\bar q$ splitting, we use $m+1$ for the label of the $\bar q$.
[^3]: When a gluon splits, $\zeta_{\rm f}$ determines whether the daughters are a $({\rm g},{\rm g})$ pair, a $({\rm u},\bar {\rm u})$ pair, [*etc*]{}. In Ref. [@NSshower], we defined the splitting variables $\zeta_{\rm p}$ in a rather abstract way, but one could imagine using for $\zeta_{\rm p}$ the virtuality of the daughter parton pair, a momentum fraction, and an azimuthal angle.
[^4]: The function $\overline W_{ll}$ here is the same as $\overline w_{ll}$ in Ref. [@NSshower].
[^5]: In Ref. [@NSshower], we write $t^\dagger_l(f_l \to f_l + {\rm g})$ for the operator that we here call just $t^\dagger_l$ and we denote the operator $t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_l$ by ${\cal G}(l,l)$.
[^6]: Note that there are many different ways to define a momentum fraction variable. The value of the splitting function for a given choice of daughter parton momenta does not depend on the momentum fraction variable that one uses to label these momenta. We have taken a simple definition of $z$ in order to display results in a graph.
[^7]: In Ref. [@NSshower], we write $t^\dagger_l(f_l \to f_l + {\rm g})$ for the operator that we here call just $t^\dagger_l$ and we denote the operator $t^{\dagger}_l \otimes t^{}_k$ by ${\cal G}(l,k)$.
[^8]: This is expressed most precisely using the operator language of Eq. (8.26) of Ref. [@NSshower].
[^9]: The function $\overline W_{lk}$ here equals the product $2 A_{lk}\overline w_{lk}$ of functions in Ref. [@NSshower].
[^10]: We here adapt the notation of Ref. [@NSshower], where we had gluon insertion operators $a_+^\dagger(l)$ and $a_-^\dagger(l)$ that insert the gluon to the right or the left of parton $l$, respectively. If partons $l$ and $k$ are color connected, we have $a_{lk}^\dagger \ket{c} = a_+^\dagger(l) \ket{c}$ or $a_{lk}^\dagger \ket{c} = a_-^\dagger(l) \ket{c}$, depending on whether parton $k$ was to the right or left of parton $l$ along the string.
[^11]: This operator is denoted $a_{+}^\dagger(l)$ in Ref. [@NSshower].
[^12]: According to Eq. (3.15) of Ref. [@NSshower], there is an extra normalization factor $\brax{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}}\ket{\{\hat c\}_{m+1}}$ in Eq. (\[eq:inclusivesplit\]). With our choice of the normalization of color states, this factor is not exactly 1, but it is 1 in the leading color limit.
[^13]: In Ref. [@NSshower], $[{\cal H}_{{\mathrm{I}}}(\tau) - {\cal V}_{{\mathrm{S}}}(\tau)]$ appears in place of ${\cal H}_{{\mathrm{I}}}^{(0)}(\tau)$ here. With the leading color approximation, ${\cal V}_{{\mathrm{S}}}(\tau) = 0$.
[^14]: As explained in Ref. [@NSshower], we should most properly project out the component of $\ket{{M}(\{p,f\}_{2})}$ that is proportional to a color basis state $\ket{\{c\}_{2}}$ by using a dual basis state $\dualL\bra{\{c\}_{2}}$, but in the leading color limit there is no distinction between the dual basis states and the ordinary basis states.
[^15]: One ought to call this a dipole shower, but then one would need a new name for the kind of shower described in the previous subsection.
[^16]: More precisely, we average over the spins of a parton before it splits and sum over the spins of daughter partons.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the possibility to generate tremendous light-field enhancements within shallow nano-trenches made in a high index dielectric material, because of resonant behaviours reminiscent of what we get with sub-wavelength plasmonic cavities. The high quality factors are explained through a modal analysis and can be tuned with appropriate design rules. The thin dielectric void gratings here simulated could be a relevant alternative to plasmon-based devices for chemical sensing, or could be used as efficient wavelength-selective photo-absorbers by taking weakly absorbing materials.'
author:
- Jérôme Le Perchec
title: 'On the giant enhancement of light in plasmonic or all-dielectric gratings comprising nano-voids'
---
Managing light at sub-wavelength scales by means of guiding, confinement, and amplification, is of central interest for numerous concrete applications (bio-sensors, advanced photo-detectors, telecommunication, micro displays) and should remain the object of an intense research activity in the future. To overcome the diffraction limit, coupling of light with electromagnetic (EM) modes showing a high effective index may offer new and different propagation properties. Plasmonics is one of the well-known branch which explores this coupling with nanostructured metallic surfaces, especially aiming at light concentration in small volumes [@Gramotnev; @Schuller; @Kazemi]. Moreover, the latter surfaces can play the concomitant role of electrodes if needed. In parallel, all-dielectric (all–photonic) structures based on high optical index materials have become an ever-increasing field of study since the last decade [@Almeida; @Karagodsky; @Jahani] showing very interesting properties as well. They have to be distinguished from classical photonic crystals. An important point is they are free of the dissipation losses that are inherent to surface plasmon-polariton (SPP) waves, provided we meet some technological fabrication challenges (the sidewall roughness of dielectric waveguides should be minimized for instance [@Kita]). Also, by mixing plasmon modes and high index materials, some trade-off is enabled to design more robust or efficient optical devices like hybrid waveguides [@Oulton; @Alam] or resonators [@Yang], compact photo-absorbers [@leperchec09; @Cui] (oftenly inspired from antennas), or versatile transmission optical filters [@LePerchec11] compatible with large scale microelectronics silicon processes. Actually (and it can be understood from a mathematical point of view), some resonant behaviours obtained for structures made in a negative permittivity material (metals, or ionic crystal in the reststrahlen band) can also similarly hold by taking a highly positive dielectric permittivity, although EM modes and excitation mechanisms are not the same[@Jahani; @Li; @Devilez]. Consequently, depending on wanted specifications (spectral bandwidth, incidence angle sensitivity), high-index-contrast architectures may constitute solutions possibly better than plasmonic ones. In this paper, we exemplify this statement by numerically and analytically showing the light concentration within strongly sub-wavelength and *weakly deep* rectangular trenches made in a dielectric material, and highly resembling the metallic nano-resonators reported in [@LePerchec08; @Polyakov]. Controlling hot spots on predefined architectures is of special importance for chemical sensing (fluorescence enhancement or Raman spectroscopy), all the more that transparent substrates would avoid parasitic re-absorption of the useful emitted signal [@Liu10; @Kita]. Besides, in case of a weakly absorbing semi-conductor, sharp resonances may persist and yield strong optical absorption.
![(color online) (a) Sketches of different generic void gratings presenting a high permittivity contrast, either metallic (gold), either all-dielectric (index $n_H =\sqrt{\varepsilon_H}= n_{Silicon}$), or hybrid. External medium is air ($n_L=1$). H means high, and L low. Geometrical parameters are fixed. In case (E), the metallic part is 200nm width. (b) Normalized electric field modulus inside the voids, in function of $\lambda$, at normal incidence. (c) Reflectivity spectra for the first three structures.[]{data-label="figure1"}](Void-Figure1.jpg)
As a first approach, let us draw a comparative study of strongly sub-wavelength one-dimensional (1D) cavity gratings showing high permittivity contrasts, whose constitutive materials may be gold ($\Re(\varepsilon)<<0$), silicon ($\varepsilon=11.9$) or a mixture of them, and for a fixed set of geometrical parameters, in the short infrared range (see Fig. \[figure1\](a)). The excitation wave is transverse-magnetic (TM) polarized and the wavelength is $\lambda$. Special attention will be paid regarding the electric field amplitude inside the voids. Simulations are carried out through Rigorous Coupled Wave Analysis (RCWA) taking a periodicity $P=1\mu m$. Figure \[figure1\](b) shows spectra of the normalized electric field modulus calculated near the mouth of the cavities, for the five different configurations of Fig. \[figure1\](a). In parallel, Figure \[figure1\](c) gives the corresponding reflectivity responses for the first three cases (the other ones are not displayed for readability reasons and do not bring substantial information). We focus us on the peaks observed around $2.1\mu m$ (fundamental resonances), for which $w\sim\lambda/70$ and $h\sim\lambda/10$. The full-metal structure (A) exhibits a well-known Fabry-Pérot (FP) resonance (which is also a Fano resonance) supported by the cavity plasmon mode. This is correlated with a total optical absorption inside the nano-voids. The full-silicon groove structure (B) also shows a quantitatively close enhancement peak (intensity $|E_x/E_{inc}|^2 >10^3$ at $\lambda=2.145 \mu m$), and a better quality (Q) factor. The far-field response is very different (no absorption), with a total reflection effect very close to this resonance wavelength. Maps of Fig. \[figure2\] clearly shows that we get quite analogous electric field patterns in cases (A) and (B), indicating that (B) also supports a type of vertical FP resonance (we will give details on it later). The hybrid structure (C) is inspired from the electric field symmetry observed on (B) (the horizontal plane $y=0$ is nodal) and still supports a FP resonance which is a little bit damped and spectrally broadened because of the metal substrate.
.[]{data-label="figure2"}](Void-Figure2.jpg)
Structure (D) forms a high index bar grating (somewhat similar to that seen in [@Karagodsky] but much more thinner here), and the electric field pattern becomes symmetrical on both part of the plane $y=0$ at the resonance (not shown). We note in Fig. \[figure1\](a) that for higher order resonances ($\lambda \approx 1.4\mu m$), the field peak of (D) can overpass the (B) one and the Q factors may be improved too. At end, (E) derives from (B) where a metallic wall 200nm width is inserted in the high index region at mid-distance of the cavities. Here again, an enhancement peak persists, showing that the resonance does not need a continuous propagation of possible diffractively guided modes all along the dielectric plate. However, one can find that, by enlarging the metallic part (at fixed period), the resonance disappears if the dielectric region width becomes lower than $\lambda/n_H$.
Let us get more insight in configurations (A) and (B) to clarify the similarities and differences with respect to the so-called vertical FP resonances. In the framework of a modal approach, at *normal* incidence, the fundamental mode in the grating (and every even eigen function with respect to the x variable) has a wave vector $k_z=k n_{eff}$ given by the following transcendental equation: $$\label{eqtranscendental}
k_x^L \varepsilon_H \tan \left( \frac{k_x^Lw}{2} \right) + k_x^H\varepsilon_L \tan \left( \frac{k_x^H (P-w)}{2} \right) = 0$$ with $k_x^{L,H}=k(\varepsilon_{L,H}-n_{eff}^2)^{1/2}$ and $k=2 \pi/\lambda$. Taking a good metal ($\varepsilon_H \ll 0$), we find that the cavity mode corresponds to a guided plasmon wave characterized by: $$\label{neffmetal}
n_{eff}^2 \approx \varepsilon_L \left( 1+\frac{2\delta}{w} \tanh \left(\frac{P-w}{2\delta} \right) \right)$$ where $\delta$ is the classical metal skin depth. In case (A) of Figure 2, $n_{eff}=1.64+i0.031$ (numerical value given by RCWA, well consistent with Eq.(2)). For strongly sub-wavelength cavities, $n_{eff}$ dramatically increases (with no cut-off), and provided the period is not too small, the waveguide mode may enter the electro-static regime [@LePerchec08] characterized by a strong electric component and a weak magnetic field ($E_x/H_z \propto n_{eff}$). As a consequence, optical hot spots (local intensity enhancements of several thousands and much more) based on FP resonances may be generated inside relatively shallow nanometric grooves or notches (following a relation $\lambda_{res} \propto 4h n_{eff}$). The intensity enhancements are all the more important as the geometrical concentration ratio $(P/w)^2$ is high (the Q factor may be optimized with h).
Now, consider the entirely dielectric grating, with $\varepsilon_H>10$ and $\varepsilon_L\sim 1$ typically. A general remark is that, according to boundary conditions in TM polarization, $E_x^L / E_x^H= \varepsilon_H/\varepsilon_L>1$ at the vertical walls, so that a cavity mode is expected to have a boosted electrical component [@Robinson] in a narrow void (as for the metal case). Moreover, we know that $n_{eff}^2<max(\varepsilon_H,\varepsilon_L)$ whatever the dielectric structure. *What exactly supports the FP modes and how explain the strength of these resonances* (in order to improve the design)? The lossless property of all-dielectric structures is not a sufficient resaon for high Q factors because radiation leakage is another important limiting mechanism. We will begin with the first part of the here-above question. Taking again the eigenvalue equation (\[eqtranscendental\]) with $w \ll P<\lambda$, the effective index of the fundamental mode obeys the relation: $$\label{neff0}
n_{eff,0} \approx \frac{n_H}{\sqrt{1+\frac{w}{P}(\frac{\varepsilon_H}{\varepsilon_L} -1)}}$$ It weakly depends on $\lambda$ (contrary to the metal case) and has no cut-off (as for the metal). In case (B) Fig. \[figure2\], $n_{eff,0}= 3.31$. For a greater index contrast $n_H/n_L$, a narrower w or a greater P is needed to maximize the local effective index. Looking at the electric field pattern in Fig. \[figure2\], it could seem this slot mode is responsible for the strong FP resonance. But it is actually *not* the case: this is the second eigen mode, whose field profile is also close to that of the fundamental one, as we will see. Indeed, we said that if the dielectric region width was smaller than $\lambda/n_H$, no strong resonance occurs. Once $\lambda<n_H (P-w)$, a second eigen mode develops a positive effective index which almost corresponds to the lowest-spatial-frequency Bragg condition $\tan(k_x^H (P-w)/2)\approx 0$ (see Eq.(\[eqtranscendental\])), i.e.: $$\label{neff1}
n_{eff,1} \alt n_H\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{m\lambda}{n_H (P-w)}\right)^2}$$ with $m=1$ here, and $ n_{eff,1}< n_{eff,0}$. In case (B) of Fig. \[figure2\], $ n_{eff,1}= 2.19$ (exact numerical solution). To confirm and better understand what happens, pictures in Fig. \[figure3\] are very illuminating. The diagram of the electric field amplification inside the void has been calculated in function of wavelength and cavity depth (P and w are still fixed). In parallel, Fig. \[figure3\](b) and (c) give the effective indexes and profiles of the grating eigen modes. When $2n_HP< \lambda<n_HP$, we find a first set of harmonic vertical FP resonances following a law $h \propto p\lambda/4 n_{eff,1}$ where p is a positive integer. The field maps in Fig. \[figure2\] (silicon case) are clearly consistent with the second-order mode profile in Fig. \[figure3\](c). When $3n_HP<\lambda <2n_HP$, a third eigen mode becomes propagative ($n_{eff,2}>0$), and an additional set of harmonic FP resonances appears. These sets may interfere (that is why we see a multiplication of resonances in Fig. \[figure1\](a) and (b) for shorter $\lambda$). When $\lambda<P$, a new diffraction order becomes propagative in the external (air) medium and all the enhancements suddenly drop because of radiation leaks. At last, the fundamental slot mode is only associated to bad quality resonances identified as classical half-wave plate conditions. It is interesting to observe that we can get resonances for weakly deep cavities (up to 70nm depth only in this example), while the Q factor (inverse of spectral width) is generally better for thick gratings.
![(color online) (a) Diagram of the field enhancement inside the void of structure (B) in function of $\lambda$ and depth h. (b) Evolution of the square effective indexes of the four first eigen modes respecting Eq.(\[eqtranscendental\]) depending on $\lambda$ (when they are negative, the modes are said evanescent along z-direction). (c) Exact field profiles of the first three eigen modes (even functions) of the dielectric grating at $\lambda=2.145 \mu m$ (resonance seen in Fig. \[figure2\]). The void is centered at $x=0$.[]{data-label="figure3"}](Void-Figure3.jpg)
At this stage, the question of the mechanism behind the high-Q factors is still to be answered. In Ref.[@Karagodsky], the authors reported RCWA simulations of high-contrast and thick bar gratings, in TE polarization, and interpreted the high-Q factor resonances as the result of strongly coupled simultaneous FP resonances of (at least) two waveguide-array modes. In the present paper, we give a different and maybe more explicit explanation. According to the exact modal method [@Botten; @LePerchec08] (different from RCWA where modes are expanded onto a Fourier basis), true eigen modes form an orthogonal basis so there is no direct coupling between them. If one considers the case of a reflecting grating at normal incidence (as the structure (C) in Fig. \[figure1\](a), but taking a perfect mirror), algebraic calculations are simplified and one shows that each mode amplitude behaves as: $$\label{Am}
A_m^{-1}\propto \cot(kh n_{eff,m}) -\frac{i n_{eff,m}}{<F_m|F_m>} \sum_{q=-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{ |<e_q|F_m>|^2}{\sqrt{1-(q\lambda/P)^2}}$$ where the coupling terms are defined by: $$\label{coupling}
<f|g>=\frac{1}{P} \int_{0}^{P} f^* (x) g(x) \frac{1}{\varepsilon(x)} dx$$ $F_m$ is the $m^{th}$ eigen function describing the *magnetic* field component $H_y$ in function of x (see Fig. \[figure3\](c)). $(e_q)_q=(e^{i 2\pi q x/P})_q$ is the usual P-periodic Rayleigh basis describing the field outside the grating. The FP resonance condition occurs when the real part of the denominator of $A_m$ nearly cancels. As $<F_m|F_m>$ is necessarily positive for dielectrics, and $P<\lambda$, the remaining part in the denominator reduces to: $$\label{rdet}
r=-i~n_{eff,m}\frac{ |<1|F_m>|^2 }{<F_m|F_m>}$$ We have thus a direct vision of what bounds the FP resonance: it essentially depends on the magnetic field profile (we are in TM-polarization). Given $w/$P is very small *and* eigen modes with $m>0$ show a more oscillating behavior inside the high index dielectric parts (see Fig. \[figure3\](c)), their contribution to the limiting term r is much lower than that of the fundamental slot mode. It means that their coupling to the zero order diffraction ray, or their radiation leak outside the grating, is weak. In other words, high-contrast index horizontal interfaces play the role of good mirrors for these internal waves, hence the resonance. To sum-up, at view of Eq.(\[rdet\]), a first way to get efficient FP resonances is to work with a spatially oscillating propagative eigen mode, excited through a small resonator aperture (w), by taking a period (i.e. a dielectric region size) sufficiently *great* in the spectral range of interest. Another way is to resort to small $n_{eff}$ (near-cutoff mode) not far from a Bragg condition in our periodic case, but resonances are only obtained for very deep cavities (as seen in Fig. \[figure3\](a)), which is technologically difficult to make (the Deep Trench Isolation technique known in silicon microelectronics could be used [@Trivedi; @Tournier]). By comparison, for a perfect metal ($n_{eff}=1$, electromagnetic field null in the metal), Eq.(\[rdet\]) reduces to $r=-iw/P$. For a real metal, $n_{eff}>1$ and develops an imaginary part introducing an additional (absorption) term. Strong resonances may not hold for a 2D structure with voids having a small rectangular cross-section in the $(x,y)$-plane, because the modes would tend to be evanescent (excepting the fundamental one), and the coupling with the incident wave would become inefficient. Instead, crossed 1D (infinite) trenches work well and allow independence with respect to light polarization.
Taking advantage of our previous analysis, one can generate giant field enhancements in tiny (not too deep) indentations. We propose the structure designed in Fig. \[figure4\](a), based on a higher permittivity material (Germanium, with $n_H \approx 4.05$ for $\lambda>2\mu m$). The thin grating is supported by a bulk silicon oxide substrate, and is excited on the backside, which differs from the classically transverse excitation of grating waveguides for chemical or biological sensing [@Kita]. Here, the structure could be used both in reflection or transmission configurations, where molecules would be deposited on the free surface, especially into the voids to amplify the signal. Figure \[figure4\](b) clearly shows a very sharp photonic resonance. It corresponds to a huge electric field intensity $|E_x^L/E_{inc} |^2>2.7\times 10^5$ close to $\lambda=2.48\mu m$ (convergent values given by RCWA with 500 Fourier orders), inside voids whose depth $h\approx\lambda/27$ only. The corresponding Q factor is $1.65\times 10^4$. The intensity enhancement just above the horizontal free surface is also high ($\sim 4.10^3$, see Fig. \[figure4\](c)), which strongly differs from a metallic case where the field is only amplified inside cavities. This evancescent surface field is quite delocalized onto the whole period and stocks reactive power [@Leperchec10].
![(color online) (a) Optimized Germanium structure with voids 90nm deep and excited on its backside, in the mid infrared. (b) Corresponding field spectrum inside the voids, showing a sharp FP resonance. (c) Fully computed electric field map at $\lambda=2479.86 nm$ over one period ($n_{eff,1}=3.58$, $\lambda/h=27.55$). (d) Photo-absorption and reflectivity spectra when an imaginary part is added to the high index.[]{data-label="figure4"}](Void-Figure4.jpg)
Finally, by introducing a small imaginary part ($it$) to $n_H$, as shown in Fig. \[figure4\](d), we observe that a high-quality resonance may be preserved. It leads to strong frequency-selective photo-absorptions (up to 85%), without shifting the excitation wavelength. The peak only vanishes when $t=0.05$, showing some robustness of the resonance. The far-field response also exhibits a clearly detectable (absorption) signature. A thin layer of indirect band-gap semiconductor could thus be rendered anomalously absorbing by making a series of narrow indentations. It is worth pointing out that, for a fixed geometry a fine *tuning* of the resonance frequency may be done by tilting the incidence angle of a fraction of degree (or more) as it slightly modifies the effective index (note that oblique incidence may also excite additional odd eigen modes at other wavelengths). Besides, if this angle is above the critical one in the input medium (or if the system is excited by an evanescent wave as for metallic gratings [@Leperchec10; @Quemerais]), we could kill or minimize radiation leaks and get a gain in Q factor (not shown here). One can imagine many other configurations (multiple cavity arrangements, for instance). V-shaped dielectric grooves should also work, and higher index materials, like PbSe or Te in the infrared, could lead to extreme phenomena.
In conclusion, it has been theoretically shown that very sub-wavelength rectangular voids made in a high index dielectric medium can support giant electric field intensities, thanks to strong photonic Fabry-Perot resonances that remind those obtained with plasmonic nano-grooves, and even for depths sometimes several tens times lower than $\lambda$. The oscillating eigen modes supporting such resonances and the reason for very high Q factors have been explained through a modal analysis. Design rules have thus been indicated. The point is to work with the right discrete mode, provided appropriate boundary conditions exist. As an alternative to SPP-based sensors, such high-enhancement-factor transparent surfaces could be well used for molecule excitation and detection. Taking a slightly absorbing semiconductor, efficient resonances may persist and be used for wavelength-selective photo-absorbers based on thin active layers. These results should motivate experimental works.
[99]{} D.K. Gramotnev and S.I. Bozhevolnyi, Nat. Photonics **4**, 83 (2010). J.A. Schuller *et al*, Nat. Materials **9**, 193–204 (2010). N. Kazemi-Zanjani, S. Vedraine, and F. Lagugné-Labarthet, Opt. Express **21**, 25271 (2013). V. R. Almeida *et al*, Opt. Lett.**29**, 1209 (2004). V. Karagodsky and C.J. Chang-Hasnain, Opt. Express **20**, 10888 (2012). S. Jahani and Z. Jacob, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, **23** (2016). D.M. Kita, J. Michon, S.G. Johnson, and J. Hu, Optica **5**, 1046 (2018). R.F. Oulton *et al*, Nat. Photonics **2**, 496–500 (2008). M. Alam, J.S. Aitchsion, and M. Mojahedi, Appl. Opt. **50**, 2294 (2011). Yi Yang *et al*, Nano Lett. **17** 3238 (2017). J. Le Perchec, Y. Desieres, and R. Espiau de Lamaestre, Appl. Phys. Lett. **94**, 181104 (2009). Y. Cui *et al*, Laser Photonics Rev. **8**, 495-520 (2014). J. Le Perchec *et al*, Opt. Express **19**, 15720-15731 (2011). T. Li, V. Nagal, D.H. Gracias, and J.B. Khurgin, Opt. Lett. **43**, 4465 (2018). A. Devilez *et al*, Phys. Rev. B **92**, 241412 (R) (2015). J. Le Perchec *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 066408 (2008). A. Polyakov *et al*, Scientific Reports **2**, 933 (2012). Y. Liu *et al*, Opt. Express **18**, 25029 (2010). J. T. Robinson *et al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 143901 (2005). L.C. Botten *et al*, Optica Acta **28**, 413-428 (1981). K. Trivedi et al, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B **27**, 3145 (2009). A. Tournier *et al*, Proc. Int. Image Sensor Workshop, pp. 12-15 (2011). J. Le Perchec, Europhys. Lett. **92**, 67006 (2010). P. Quémerais *et al*, J. Appl. Phys. **97**, 053507 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\
Peter G.O. Freund[^1]\
*[Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637]{}\
*
[**[ABSTRACT]{}**]{}\
The possibility of building all particles from spinless constituents is explored. Composite fermions are formed from bosonic carriers of electric and magnetic charge of a composite abelian gauge field. Internal attributes are accounted for by dimensional reduction from a higher-dimensional space-time in which the abelian gauge field is replaced by a composite higher-rank antisymmetric tensor field. The problem of building magnetically neutral fermions is considered.
*It is with great sadness that I dedicate this paper to the memory of my friend Wolfgang Kummer. Wolfgang and I met during our student days in Vienna, and as fate would have it, we both went to Geneva for our first post-doctoral appointment. There we collaborated on the paper “The phases of the proton’s electromagnetic form factors in the time-like region”, Nuovo Cimento [**24**]{}, 1160 (1962).*
During some work Wolfgang and I did in those early computer-era days, we were asked to use the computing facilities sparingly. For numerical integration we therefore availed ourselves of the services of that marvelous one-of-a-kind CERN employee, Mr. Klein. This Mr. Klein could perform complex arithmetic operations in his head. A Holocaust survivor, he had used this unusual ability to earn his living in a circus in the postwar years. There he was spotted and recruited by CERN. Mr. Klein calculated our integrals to such accuracy, that in the end, the computer’s streamlined task was reduced to not much more than confirming his estimates.
I cannot resist mentioning here another bond between Wolfgang and me: since we both grew up in Viennas, he in the Austrian capital and I in the Romanian city of Timişoara, the Habsburg Empire’s former “Little Vienna,” we both developed keen musical interests, we both sang, we both were baritones, and we both gave recitals with mezzo-sopranos. Unlike me though, Wolfgang had as his singing partner none other than that wonderful mezzo-soprano Helga Dernesch, who after singing with him was destined to become a major star of the Wiener Staatsoper.
To this memorial volume I decided to contribute a paper I wrote in 1981, which however may still be of some interest today. It has been available on SPIRES (EFI-81/07-CHICAGO, Feb 1981) for over a quarter of a century, but due to all kinds of complications it has never been published before. I chose this paper, because I clearly recall a discussion with Wolfgang about the ideas contained in it. In fact, his interest in this paper prompted me to give him the preprint of the original 1981 version reproduced below without any changes.
1\. INTRODUCTION
The search for a simple way of accounting for the observed particle spectrum and interactions has led to ever more remote constituent and subconstituent models [@S]. In order to account for the observed fermions it is usually assumed that some or all of the constituents are themselves fermions, and thus carry half-odd-integer spin. Here we wish to explore the opposite case where none of the constituents carry spin so that all angular momentum is of dynamical origin. Spinless bosons can bind into bosonic states of integer angular momentum. If amongst these components there are gauge bosons, then we have the possibility of nontrivial topological objects that carry magnetic charge. Together with electrically charged objects we then have the ingredients to build spinorial fermions [@TF; @JHG]. For such a picture to make even remote phenomenological sense, a considerable “attribute” (i.e., flavor, color, etc) proliferation at the level of the electrically and magnetically charged constituents seems to be required. An elegant way to avoid such a proliferation is provided by higher-dimensional Kaluza-type theories [@WKTF]. Yet the idea of building fermions from electric and magnetic charges relies heavily on a 4-dimensional space-time. To extend this idea to higher dimensions we propose to replace the abelian vector gauge field of 4 dimensions by gauge fields of higher (totally antisymmetric) tensorial rank [@KR]. The corresponding carriers of electric and magnetic charge are then not point particles but extended objects, as we shall see. Since abelian structures are natural in this context, the nonabelian gauge fields of electroweak and strong interactions are to be viewed as composites. Both Bose and Fermi composites being possible, dynamical supersymmetry may also arise.
2\. MAGNETIC CHARGES IN HIGHER DIMENSIONAL SPACES
Consider a Minkowski space $M_d$ with one time- and $d-1$ space-dimensions. Define over $M_d$ a rank-$n$ antisymmetric tensor potential $A_{\mu _1....\mu _n} ~~ (n\leq d-1)$ or, equivalently, the $n$-form $A = A_{\mu _1....\mu _n} dx^{\mu _1}\wedge dx^{\mu _2} \wedge...dx^{\mu _n}$. The field strengths are the components of the n+1-form $F=dA$. It’s dual $*F$ is a $d-n-1$ form. Introducing the “electric” current $n$-form $J$ and the “magnetic” current $d-n-2$-form $K$, the field equations are $$d*F = *J, ~~ dF = *K.$$ The $n$-form $J$ can be restricted to “live” on a $(d_e+1)-$-dimensional submanifold of $M_d$, provided $d_e+1 \geq n$. We shall consider here the “minimal” case $d_e+1 = n$, and specifically that one of the dimensions of the submanifold is time-like (a proper-time) and $d_e$ are space-like. At any proper-time the support of the electric charge is then $d_e$-dimensional. Similarly, the support of magnetic charge has at least $d_m=d-n-3$ dimensions. Notice that $$d_e+d_m=d-4, \eqno{(1)}$$ so that both pointlike electric and magnetic charges are possible only in 4-dimensions. In general $d_e\neq d_m$, but in every even dimension there exists an electric-magnetic-dual case in which $F$ and \*$F$ are both $\frac{d}{2}$ forms, so that $n=\frac{d}{2}-1$ and $d_e=d_m=\frac{d-4}{2}$. It is this electric-magnetic-dual case that interests us here.
At this point we want to make precise what we mean by an electric or a magnetic field configuration and to find the counterparts of the Coulomb-electric and Dirac-magnetic (monopole) potentials. To this effect we first consider a static configuration such that at all times the support of $J$ is the $(\frac{d}{2}-1)$-hyperplane (our results are obviously generalizable to other J-supports) $$x^1=x^2=....=x^{\frac{d}{2}+1}=0. \eqno{(2)}$$
Here it is worthwhile to streamline our notation. The last coordinate $x^d$ is designated as time, the metric signature is thus (–...-+). Indices that range from $1$ to $\frac{d}{2}+1$ (from $\frac{d}{2}+2$ to $d$) will be designated by letters from the beginning (middle) of the latin alphabet $a, b,
c,....(m, n, p, ....)$. Thus, e.g., the hyperplane equation (2) becomes $x^a=0$. A set of totally antisymmetrized indices of either type will be indicated in a generic way by a square bracket containing one of them. Specifically, $[a]$ means $a_1 a_2...a_{\frac{d}{2}-1}$ with all a’s ranging from $1$ to $\frac{d}{2}+1$, and $[m]$ means $m_1 m_2 ... m_{\frac{d}{2}-1}$ with all m’s ranging from $\frac{d}{2}+2$ to $d$. Finally, the Levi-Cività symbol for the first $\frac{d}{2}+1$ (last $\frac{d}{2}-1$) indices will be written as $\epsilon_{[a]bc}$ $(\epsilon _{[m]})$.
With this notation the only nonvanishing components of $J$ in our static situation (2) are given by $$J_{[m]}=\epsilon _{[m]}\frac{e}{\Omega _{\frac{d}{2}}} \delta(x^1)... \delta(x^{\frac{d}{2}+1}) \eqno{(3a)}$$ where $\Omega _{\frac{d}{2}}$ is the $\frac{d}{2}$-dimensional total solid angle (area of unit $\frac{d}{2}$-sphere: $\Omega _2=4\pi ....$). The field equations then yield $$A_{[m]}=\frac{e}{r^{\frac{d}{2}-1}} (\frac{-2}{d-2}), \eqno{(3b)}$$ with $$r^2=(x^1)^2+ (x^1)^2+...(x^{\frac{d}{2}+1})^2 \eqno{(3c)}$$
The nonvanishing field components are all “electric” and of the form $$E_a=F_{a[m]}= \frac{e x^a \epsilon_{[m]}}{r^{\frac{d}{2}+1}} \eqno{(3d)}$$ independent of time and of the last $\frac{d-4}{2}$ space coordinates, as expected. The equations (3) define a Coulomb-electric field configuration. A Dirac-magnetic configuration with support in the same hyperplane requires a structure of $K$ of the same type as Eq. (3a) for $J$ but with the “electric charge” $e$ replaced by the “magnetic charge” $g$. For the magnetic field $$H_a=\frac{1}{\frac{d}{2}!} \epsilon _{ab[c]} F_{b[c]}=
\frac{1}{(\frac{d}{2}-1)!}\epsilon _{ab[c]} \partial _b A_{[c]} \eqno{(4)}$$ we require it to be of the same form as the Coulomb field (3d) but with $e \rightarrow g$: $$\frac{1}{(\frac{d}{2}-1)!}\epsilon _{ab[c]} \partial _b A_{[c]}= \frac{g x_a }{r^{\frac{d}{2}+1}}. \eqno{(5)}$$
We now have to solve these equations for $A_{[a]}$. As in the familiar 4-dimensional Dirac case, the Bianchi identities force us to introduce a string of singularities starting in each point of the support of K. For convenience we point all these strings along, say, the $3$-direction. The proper Ansatz for $A_{[a]}$ is then $$A_{[a]}= \epsilon _{[a]3b}x^b f(r,\xi), ~~~ \xi=\frac{x^3}{r}. \eqno{(6a)}$$Inserting this Ansatz into Eq. (5) we find $$f(r,\xi)= r^{-\frac{d}{2}}F(\xi) \eqno{(6b)}$$ with $F(\xi)$ obeying the differential equation $$F'(\xi)-\frac{d}{2}\frac{\xi}{1-\xi^2}F(\xi) + \frac{g}{1-\xi^2}=0. \eqno{(7)}$$ Since $|\xi| \equiv |\frac{x^3}{r}| \leq 1$, it is convenient to introduce the variable $$\theta = Arc cos \xi \eqno{(6c)}$$ and the function $$G(\theta) \equiv F(\xi) \eqno{(6d)}$$ The solution to Eq. (7) is then $$G(\theta)= g (sin\theta)^{-\frac{d}{2}} [\int^\theta (sin\psi)^\frac{d-2}{2} d\psi + \lambda] \eqno{(6e)}$$ with $\lambda$ an integration constant that goes with the indefinite integral. The equations (6) determine the Dirac potentials. As an example for $d=4$ we obtain the familiar Dirac result with the string along the positive (negative) $3$-axis for $\lambda= -1$ ($\lambda=+1$). From the familiar recursion formula for the indefinite integral in (6e), $G(\theta)$ is periodic in $\theta$ for $d$ an integer multiple of 4. For $d=2~(mod~4)$ the indefinite integral in $G(\theta)$ contains also a linear term in $\theta$ which can be brought to the main determination $0 < \theta <\pi$ by readjusting the integration constant $\lambda$.
At this point we have to consider some global problems. As defined above, the support of both electric and magnetic charges for even $d > 4$ are infinite $\frac{d-4}{2}$-dimensional hyperplanes, which is undesirable. But if the higher dimensions are to be unobservable, then $d-4$ space-like dimensions must have compact topology (e.g. a torus). But as we saw, $d_e+d_m=d-4$, so that an electric-magnetic charge pair can always fit into the “extra” compact space-like dimensions.
From the electric and magnetic charges in $d$ dimensions we can construct spinorial fermions. One way to see that, is to replicate the Tamm-Fierz \[2\] arguments for our spread-out charges. Heuristically, upon dimensional reduction (i.e., compactification of the $d-4$ dimensions in which the charges are extended) the $\frac{d}{2}-1$-tensor field contains ordinary $4$-dimensional abelian gauge fields. Spinors can then be constructed from Bose electric and magnetic charges in the usual way \[2,3\]. But these $4$-dimensional spinors must originate in $d$-dimensional spinors; they cannot come from $d$-dimensional tensors by dimensional reduction. Both $e$ and $g$ have dimension of $(d$-dimensional action)$^\frac{1}{2}$ so that the ensuing $d$-dimensional Dirac quantization is meaningful.
3\. COMPOSITE PICTURE
The way to use the arguments above to construct composite models is as follows. Suppose one starts with a $d$-dimensional space-time $d$ = even integer larger than $4$. In this space there exist a set of scalar fields for which one can build a composite $({\frac{d}{2}-1})$-rank antisymmetric tensor field or, alternatively, this field can be “elementary”. There can further appear electric and magnetic extended objects $\epsilon$ and $\mu$ and the corresponding anti-objects $\bar{\epsilon}$ and $\bar{\mu}$. From $\epsilon\mu, ~ \epsilon\bar{\mu}, ~ \bar{\epsilon}\mu, ~ \bar{\epsilon}\bar{\mu}$ one can construct spinor composites, from $\epsilon\bar{\epsilon}, ~ \mu\bar{\mu}$ tensor composites. With suitable dynamics these composites may exhibit a “dynamical” supersymmetry. If $d$ is large this may involve higher rank tensors. A dimensional reduction is precipitated one way or another [@WKTF] and in four dimensions we have a proliferation of composites since each spinor and tensor from $d$ dimensions branches into many counterparts in $4$ dimensions (just as in extended supergravities). In $4$ dimensions the spectrum is very rich, the simplicity is restored in $d$ dimensions. This picture is, of course, very similar to extended supergravity except that the gauged supersymmetry in the original $d$ dimensions is viewed as dynamical, thus allowing higher rank tensors and spin-tensors, or higher spins in $4$ dimensions. As it stands, this picture has a serious flaw: all fermions $\epsilon\mu, ~ \epsilon\bar{\mu}, ~ \bar{\epsilon}\mu, ~ \bar{\epsilon}\bar{\mu}$ contain one unit each of electric and magnetic charge. All fermions of the theory must contain an odd number of these basic fermions and, as such, must carry odd, and therefore non-vanishing, electric [*and*]{} magnetic charges. Even though we have not as yet specified the detailed nature of the abelian gauge field in $4$ dimensions whose sources these charges are, this is a serious difficulty.
We want to sketch here one possible way out. Consider (in four-dimensional space-time) a spherical shell of uniformly distributed electric charge. Classically this tends to explode and the Casimir effect is known to have the wrong sign [@B] and thus does not stabilize the configuration. It has been noted recently by Agostinho Ferreira, Zimerman and Ruggiero [@AZR] that in a distribution of both electric and magnetic charge along a spherical shell the Casimir effect is stabilizing. Specifically, they consider a spherical shell that is a perfect magnetic conductor at its polar caps, and a perfect electric conductor on the “ring” between these caps: On the ring is uniformly distributed the electric charge while the two polar caps support uniform distributions of magnetic charge $\tilde{g}$ and $-\tilde{g}$ respectively, so that the whole system is magnetically neutral. Here the Casimir effect is stabilizing. We observe that for this system the angular momentum does not vanish as it would, were the magnetic charges at the two polar caps to have the same sign. By adjusting $e$ and $\tilde{g}$, we can fix the total angular momentum at $\frac{\hbar}{2}$, as would befit a spinor (as a model for the electron such a semiclassical argument requires much too large a size). One may object that each polar cap contributes to the total angular momentum, which violates angular momentum quantization (or equivalently, the Dirac quantization). This can be circumvented by postulating that such “polar caps” can never be isolated, but must always come in like- or opposite-charged pairs, as if they were doublets of a confining $SU(2)$ gauge theory. This is similar to what would happen in discussing usual Dirac quantization were one guaranteed that all magnetically charged particles are composites made of an even number of very closely bound inseparable constituents of equal magnetic charge. Obviously then, the Dirac quantization for “monopoles” would translate into a quantization for the constituents.
The challenge is now to construct a detailed model that implements the ideas presented above.
Following the completion of this work I received a Trieste preprint IC/80/180 from J.C. Pati, A. Salam and J. Strathdee, in which similar ideas are explored in a rather different way.
[**Note (August 13, 2008)**]{}:
The results reported in section 2 of this paper have also been obtained independently by R. Nepomechie [@N] and by C. Teitelboim [@T].
The paper by Pati, Salam and Strathdee mentioned in the last sentence of the text has since appeared, [@PSS].
The 1981 work reported here was supported in part by the NSF: Grant No. PH-4-78-23669. I wish to thank Beth An Nakatsuka for her help with the retyping of the 1981 preprint.\
[99]{}
See A. Salam, in [*Proceedings International Conference on HEP Geneva, 1979*]{}, CERN, Geneva 1979 Vol 2, p. 853.
I.E. Tamm, Zs. F. Physik [**71**]{} (1931 141; M. Fierz, Helv. Phys. Acta [**17**]{} (1944) 27.
R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**36**]{} (1976) 116; G. P. Hasenfratz and G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**36**]{} (1976) 1119; A.S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. Lett [**36**]{} (1976) 1122.
B. de Witt, [*Dynamical theories of groups and fields*]{} (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1965) p. 139; P. Kerner, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare [**9**]{} (1968) 143; A. Trautman, Rep. Math. Phys. [**1**]{} (1970) 39; Y.M. Cho and P.G.O. Freund, Phys. Rev. [**D12**]{} (1975) 1711.
M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. [**D9**]{} (1974) 2273.
T. Boyer, Phys. Rev. [**174**]{} (1968) 1754.
L. Agostinho ÐFerreira, A. H. Zimerman, J.R. Ruggiero, Sao Paulo Preprint IFT-P-15/80.
R. Nepomechie, Phys. Rev. [**D31**]{} (1985) 1921.
C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. [**B167**]{} (1986) 69.
J.C. Pati, A. Salam and J.A. Strathdee, Nucl. Phys. [**B185**]{} (1981) 416.
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, visual information has been widely used to aid the sound source separation tasks. It aims at identifying sound components from a given sound mixture with the presence of visual information. Especially, the appearance cues play an important role on separating sounds. However, the capacity of how well the network processes each modality is often ignored. In this paper, we investigate the performance of appearance information, extracted from a single image, in the task of recovering the original component signals from a mixture audio. An efficient appearance attention module is introduced to improve the sound separation performance by enhancing the distinction of the predicted semantic representations, and to precisely locate sound sources without extra computation. Moreover, we utilize the ground category information to study the capacity of each sub-network. We compare the proposed methods with recent baselines on the $\textit{MUSIC}$ dataset. Project page: <https://ly-zhu.github.io/separating-sounds-from-single-image>.'
author:
-
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'root.bib'
title: Separating Sounds from a Single Image
---
Introduction
============
Human perceives a scene by looking, listening, and thinking, which requires different senses to capture multiple modalities and the ability of associating and understanding the received signals. Likewise, for developing deep networks, the performance of facilitating various tasks is highly relying on how well the models process and associate the correlated modalities. In recent years, researchers have developed diversified models to analyze different modalities from signals. Take visually guided learning as example, extensive effort has been focused on solving practical tasks, such as sound recognition [@aytar2016soundnet; @arandjelovic2017look; @nagrani2018seeing; @korbar2018cooperative], cross-model retrieval [@arandjelovic2018objects; @suris2018cross] and generation [@zhou2018visual; @oh2019speech2face], sound source separation [@gao2018learning; @ephrat2018looking; @owens2018audio; @zhao2018sound; @gao2019co; @zhao2019sound; @xu2019recursive; @gao20192; @gan2020music; @zhu2020visually] and localization [@tian2018audio; @hu2019deep; @zhu2020visually]. In this work, we are interested in the task of self-supervised audio-visual sound source separation, where our objective is to distinguish sound components via joint audio-appearance learning on unlabeled videos.
Recent researches [@gao2018learning; @ephrat2018looking; @owens2018audio; @zhao2018sound; @zhao2019sound; @xu2019recursive; @gao20192; @gan2020music; @zhu2020visually] achieve decent results on various sound separation tasks by conditioning on associated appearance and motion knowledge. For the sounds that always occur with actions of physical world, the motion cues are extraordinarily important for synchronizing visual streams and sound tracks. However, impressively, recent work by [@zhu2020visually] reports that with only appearance information can achieve decent sound separation performance. Sound features are split and separated by the semantic knowledge provided by the appearance information. In this paper, more specifically, we explore the performance of the sound source separation task conditioning on only appearance information (see e.g. Fig. \[fig:locsep\_vis\]).
Besides sound source separation, visualizing sound source locations is another classical audio processing problem. Early works e.g. [@pertila2011closed] utilize microphone arrays to locate the sources. Recently, associating the audio and visual signals [@tian2018audio; @hu2019deep] of a video has been used to determine the sound source locations. The unlabelled video with naturally aligned audio is more often available, which facilitates many self-supervised tasks.
![Examples of sound source separation (d) and localization (c) conditioning on appearance information.[]{data-label="fig:locsep_vis"}](figure/locSep_vis_MUSIC.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
This paper proposes a light yet efficient appearance attention module (Fig. \[fig:locsep\]) to improve the sound source separation performance. It enhances the distinction of the predicted semantic representations by predicting whether the learned appearance embedding and appearance feature maps are from the same source or not. This is an attention module adopted among input visual cues on the task of sound separation, which is not considered by previous works (e.g. [@zhao2018sound; @gao2019co; @zhao2019sound; @xu2019recursive; @zhu2020visually]). We show that the appearance attention module can greatly improve the sound source separation performance compared to the baseline systems. Moreover, at the same time, the proposed appearance attention module can precisely locate the sound locations without extra computation (see e.g. Fig. \[fig:locsep\_vis\]).
The proposed appearance attention module is capable of enhancing the final sound source separation performance. We ask what is the upper bound of the sound separation system conditioning on only the appearance information? As the category information of the MUSIC dataset is provided, we perform extensive experiments on evaluating the capacity of the proposed sound separation system with the ground category information in Sec. \[sec:exps\].
{width="0.90\linewidth"}
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
In this section, we briefly discuss the mainly related fields of audio-visual learning, audio-visual sound source separation, and sound source localization.
#### **Audio-Visual Learning**
Recent studies have shown promising prospect of learning audio-visual correspondences. Aytar *et al.* [@aytar2016soundnet] bridged visual content with sound representations by minimizing the KL-divergence of their distributions. Owens *et al.* [@owens2016ambient] provided sound supervision for visual learning. Arandjelovic *et al.* [@arandjelovic2017look; @arandjelovic2018objects] associated the learnt audio and visual embeddings by asking whether they belong to a same video. Nagrani *et al.* [@nagrani2018seeing] identified which of a pair of faces possesses the same identity as the voice by face and audio matching. More recently, researchers developed different approaches to map monaural to binaural audio by leveraging visual features [@gao20192], implement audio-video deep clustering [@alwassel2019self], generate talking faces [@zhou2019talking], predict audio-driven 3D facial animation [@cudeiro2019capture], and disentangle speech embeddings using the co-occurence of faces in video [@nagrani2020disentangled].
#### **Audio-Visual Sound Source Separation**
Researchers have recently proposed various learning-based approaches to include the visual signal to the task of sound separation. Ephrat *et al.* [@ephrat2018looking] extracted face embeddings using a pre-trained face recognition model to facilitate speech separation. Similarly, Gao *et al.* [@gao2019co] trained an object detector to localize objects in all video frames to improve the sound separation quality. Zhao *et al.* [@zhao2018sound] learned to separate sounds by a linear combination of sounds and images. A subsequent work [@zhao2019sound] introduced motion features and improvements to the output spectrogram prediction. Xu *et al.* [@xu2019recursive] separated sounds by recursively removing the sounds with large energy from sounds mixture. Gan *et al.* [@gan2020music] associated body and finger movements with audio signals by learning a keypoint-based structured representation from a Graph CNN. Zhu *et al.* [@zhu2020visually] proposed a cascaded opponent filter to utilize visual features of all sources to look for incorrectly assigned sound components from opponent sources. The most impressive results were mostly based on the models with both apearance and motion information. However, the contribution of the pure appearance knowledge has not been completely analyzed. In this work, we explore the performance of sound separation conditioning only on appearance information that extracted from a single image.
#### **Sound Source Localization**
Localizing sound sources entails identifying the regions where the sound comes from. Effort had been put to explore the audio-visual synchrony [@hershey2000audio], audio-visual subspace distribution [@fisher2001learning], canonical correlations [@kidron2005pixels], and temporal coincidences [@barzelay2007harmony]. Most recently, Arandjelovic *et al.* [@arandjelovic2018objects] visualized sound location by computing the similarity between the audio and all visual embeddings. [@owens2018learning; @owens2018audio] applied the class activation map for localizing ambient sounds. [@zhao2018sound; @zhao2019sound; @xu2019recursive] visualized sound sources by calculating the sound volume at each spatial location. Gao *et al.* [@gao2019co] localized potential sound source regions via a separate object detector. Morgado *et al.* [@morgado2018self] displayed the sound areas by converting mono audio into spatial audio. Senocak *et al.* [@senocak2018learning] learned to localize sound sources in visual scenes by transferring the sound-guided visual concepts to sound context vector. Zhu *et al.* [@zhu2020visually] located sound sources by learning to identify a minimum set of input pixels to produce almost identical output as for the entire image. In contrast to these methods, we propose a self-supervised appearance attention module to localize sound sources.
Architecture {#sec:method}
============
This section describes the framework of the proposed appearance-aided sound source separation and localization system. The framework, illustrated as Fig. \[fig:locsep\], consists of three components: appearance network, sound network, and appearance attention module. The input to the system consists of a mixture audio and a keyframe of each sequence video, each representing one component of the mixture. The objective of the system is to recover the audio component from sound mixture corresponding to each appearance information.
Appearance Network
------------------
To avoid the aid of motion cues, we import only a keyframe $I$ of a sequence video to the appearance network $A$. We choose Res-18 and Res-50 [@he2016deep] as two alternative appearance networks. The appearance network converts the input image of size $3 \times H \times W$ to feature maps $A(I)$ of size $K \times H/16 \times W/16$. With a spatial max pooling, we get a compact visual representation $e$ of size $1 \times K$ (K is the number of categories in the dataset). After a sigmoid operation, each element of the visual vector $e$ is within the range of \[0, 1\], which indicates the possibilities of which sound category (e.g. violin) appears in the input image.
Sound Network
-------------
The sound network is implemented using U-Net [@ronneberger2015u] and DV3P (DeepLabV3+ [@chen2018encoder] with mobilenetV2 [@sandler2018mobilenetv2] as backbone, we refer to it as DV3P). The input to the sound network is a mixture audio, which is represented as spectrograms that obtained from the audio stream using Short-time Fourier Transform (STFT). The sound network $S$ converts the input audio spectrogram $X$ of size $1 \times HS \times WS$ into a set of feature maps $S(X)$ of size $K \times HS \times WS$. The K equals to the K of the appearance representation from appearance network. The sound source separation is achieved by a linear combination between the learned appearance representation $e$ and the sound feature maps $S(X)$, as follows $$\centering
\label{eq:1}
%\hat{b} = th(\sigma(\sum^{K - 1}_{k=0} \, e_{k} \odot S(X)_{k}))
\hat{b} = th(\sigma(\sum_{k} \, e_{k} \odot S(X)_{k}))$$ where $e_{k}$ is the $k$-th element of the appearance representation, and $S(X)_{k}$ is the $k$-th sound network feature map for input spectrogram $\textit{X}$. $\odot$ indicates scalar product. $\sigma$ denotes the sigmoid operation. We get the predicted binary mask $\hat{b}$ by setting a threshold of 0.5.
Appearance Attention Module {#sec:att}
---------------------------
The performance of the appearance network might be limited because of the appearance similarity and existing noise within the video sequences. In order to enhance the distinction of the predicted semantic representations, we add an appearance attention branch with an auxiliary contrastive loss to the appearance network. The appearance attention module is depicted as red and blue arrows in Fig. \[fig:locsep\].
In this paper, we discuss the appearance-aided sound source separation of the sounds from different categories (e.g. instruments). In other words, the corresponding input image to each appearance network as well as the sound sources of audio mixture are from different categories. As is shown in Fig. \[fig:locsep\], the appearance attention module is optimized by predicting whether the appearance embedding $e$ and appearance feature maps $A(I)$ are from the same categories (positive pairs) or not (negative pairs). The red arrows (positive pairs) represent the scalar product between the appearance embedding (e.g. $e_{2}$) and feature maps (e.g. $A(I_{2})$) from the same input image. With a sigmoid operation, it outputs a location mask which locate the sound sources. However, the blue arrows (negative pairs) show that the multiplication components are from different inputs (e.g. $e_{2}$ and $A(I_{1})$). The scalar product between the appearance embedding and visual feature maps of same category (e.g. instrument) will locate the sound sources (e.g. $\hat{p}_{2}$), and of different categories will return a blank mask (e.g. $\hat{p}_{1}$). The output of the appearance attention module is described as below,
$$\label{eq:2}
\left.\begin{aligned}
%\hat{p}_{pos} = \sigma(\sum^{K - 1}_{k=0} \, e_{nk} \odot A(I_{n})_{k})\\
%\hat{p}_{neg} = \sigma(\sum^{K - 1}_{k=0} \, e_{nk} \odot A(I_{m})_{k})
\hat{p}_{pos} = \sigma(\sum_{k} \, e_{nk} \odot A(I_{n})_{k})\\
\hat{p}_{neg} = \sigma(\sum_{k} \, e_{nk} \odot A(I_{m})_{k})
\end{aligned}\right\}
\begin{aligned}
n, m \in &[0, N-1], \\
m &\neq n
\end{aligned}$$
$$\centering
\label{eq:2}
\begin{drcases}
\hat{p}_{pos} = \sigma(\sum^{K - 1}_{k=0} \, e_{nk} \odot A(I_{n})_{k}) \\
\hat{p}_{neg} = \sigma(\sum^{K - 1}_{k=0} \, e_{nk} \odot A(I_{m})_{k})
\end{drcases}
n, m \in [0, N-1], m \neq n %\quad$$ where $\hat{p}$ is the predicted location mask of the appearance attention module. $A(I_{n})$ is the appearance feature maps of n-th video, $e_{n}$ is its corresponding appearance embedding that derived from $A(I_{n})$ by a spatial pooling. N is the number of sounds in sound mixture. k $\in$ \[0, K-1\]. K is the number of elements in appearance representation $e$ as well as the channel number of feature maps $A(I)$.
Learning Objective
------------------
The learning objective of our system is to estimate a binary mask $\hat{b}$ (Eq. (\[eq:1\])) to separate the target sound from mixture. The binary ground truth mask $b$ of sound separation is calculated based on whether the target sound is the dominant component in the input sound mixture spectrogram $X$. The model parameters are optimised with respect to the Binary Cross Entropy (BCE) loss that is calculated between the predicted binary mask $\hat{b}$ and ground truth masks $b$. Moreover, we add an appearance attention module with an auxiliary contrastive loss to the appearance network. The ground truth $p$ of the appearance attention module is defined by whether the appearance embedding and appearance feature maps are from the same categories (1) or not (0). More specifically,
$$\centering
\label{eq:3}
\mathcal{L} = \textit{BCE}(\hat{b}, b) + \textit{BCE}(th(maxpool(\hat{p})), p)$$
where $\hat{b}$ and $b$ are the predicted sound separation mask and ground truth mask respectively. $th(maxpool(\hat{p}))$ adds a maxpooling and threshold operation on the predicted location mask $\hat{p}$ of appearance attention module. $p$ is the ground truth of positive/negative pairs.
---------------------- ------ ------- -------
Models SDR SIR SAR
A(Res-18) + S(U-Net) 5.38 11.00 9.77
A(Res-50) + S(U-Net) 5.88 11.09 10.73
A(Res-18) + S(DV3P) 7.73 13.48 11.55
A(Res-50) + S(DV3P) 7.95 13.66 12.16
---------------------- ------ ------- -------
: The sound source separation results of baseline models on MUSIC test set. A: appearance network and S: sound network[]{data-label="table:baseline"}
Experiments {#sec:exps}
===========
We evaluate the proposed approach on the public dataset MUSIC [@zhao2018sound]. The proposed model is trained using artificial examples, generated by adding audio signals from two training videos. The performance of the final sound source separation is measured in terms of standard metrics: Signal to Distortion Ratio (SDR), Signal to Interference Ratio (SIR), and Signal to Artifact Ratio (SAR). Higher is better for all metrics. It might be worthy to note that SDR and SIR scores measure the separation accuracy, SAR captures only the absence of artifacts (and hence can be high even if separation is poor).
In the following, we first introduce the dataset and continue to investigate the contribution of proposed appearance attention module and the capacity of each model component with the presence of ground category embedding. Finally, we present the comparisons with recent state-of-the-art self-supervised audio-visual approaches.
Dataset
-------
MUSIC [@zhao2018sound] dataset is a high quality dataset of musical instruments. Most of the video frames are well aligned with the audio track and have little off-screen noise. It contains 714 untrimmed YouTube videos which span 11 instrumental categories, namely accordion, acoustic guitar, cello, clarinet, erhu, flute, saxophone, trumpet, tuba, violin, and xylophone. However, part of the original MUSIC dataset is no longer available in YouTube (10%) and its train/test splits are not published. Thus, we replaced the missing entries with similar YouTube videos and randomly split the dataset into 400 training videos, 100 validation videos, and 130 test videos. We extract video frames at 8fps and adopt frame augmentation by random scaling, random horizontal flipping, and random cropping ($224\times224$) during training. We sub-sample each audio signals at 11kHz and randomly crop an audio clip of 6 seconds for training. A Time-Frequency (T-F) spectrogram of size $512\times256$ is obtained by applying Short-time Fourier Tranform (STFT), with a Hanning window size of 1022 and a hop length of 256, to the input sound clip. We further re-sample this spectrogram to a T-F representation of size $256\times256$ on a log-frequency scale. The final separated sound is achieved by adding an inverse Short-time Fourier Tranform (iSTFT) to the predicted component spectrogram.
![The framework of the appearance classifier aided sound source separation.[]{data-label="fig:sep_classifier"}](figure/sop_appe_bvemb.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
Baselines
---------
The appearance network learns an appearance representation of length K from a single RGB image. The predicted appearance representation will force the sound network to split and project the mixture spectrogram into feature maps of corresponding K channels. Finally, the appearance weighted summation of sound component features, with a sigmoid operation, will yield a sound separation mask. A multiplication between the mask $\hat{b}$ and the sound mixture spectrogram $X$, following an iSTFT, recovers the corresponding audio components from mixture. The above-mentioned processes form the baseline framework of audio-appearance sound separation system (without the red and blue arrows of Fig. \[fig:locsep\]). We combine the appearance network $A$ of Res-18 and Res-50 with sound network $S$ of U-Net and DV3P as four baseline models A(Res-18) + S(U-Net), A(Res-18) + S(DV3P), A(Res-50) + S(U-Net), and A(Res-50) + S(DV3P). We report the corresponding sound separation metric scores of SDR, SIR, and SAR in Tab. \[table:baseline\].
Sound Source Separation with Appearance Attention Module
--------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the Tab. \[table:baseline\], with the same appearance network, the higher capacity the sound network has, the better performance the system achieves, e.g. from A(Res-18) + S(U-Net) to A(Res-18) + S(DV3P), it achieves the improvement of e.g. 2.35dB in SDR scores. However, with the same sound network, having the appearance network of higher capacity does not achieve clearly large performance improvement, e.g. from A(Res-18) + S(DV3P) to A(Res-50) + S(DV3P), the improvement is only 0.22dB in SDR. The appearance network of current system, we hypothesize, does not reach its upper bound on the task of self-supervised sound source separation.
To study this, we introduce an efficient appearance attention module to emphasize the learned semantic distinction (appearance network), which enhances the predicted categorical possibility by predicting whether the appearance embedding and feature maps are from same sources or not. We assess the performance of the appearance attention module (denoted as $att$) for the sound separation task (sound source localization in Sec. \[sec:loc\_vis\]) in Tab. \[table:sound\]. The improvement, e.g. 1.49dB in SDR and 1.74dB in SIR scores of A(Res-18, att) + S(DV3P) compared to its counterpart A(Res-18) + S(DV3P), indicates that the model with the proposed appearance attention module clearly outperforms the baselines.
----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Models SDR SIR SAR
V(Res-18) + A(U-Net) 7.52 13.01 11.53
V(Res-18, att) + A(U-Net) 8.19 13.88 11.32
-V(Res-18, classifier) + A(U-Net) 7.02 12.77 10.37
-V(Res-50) + A(U-Net) 8.43 14.26 11.49
-V(Res-50, att) + A(U-Net) 8.23 14.12 11.32
-V(Res-50, classifier) + A(U-Net) 7.08 13.17 10.25
V(Ground Category Emb) + A(U-Net) **9.10** **14.87** **11.65**
-V(Res-18) + A(DV3P) 8.74 14.14 12.52
-V(Res-18, att) + A(DV3P) 8.85 14.37 12.39
-V(Res-18, classifier) + A(DV3P) 7.20 13.13 10.65
-V(Res-50) + A(DV3P) 9.17 14.80 12.47
-V(Res-50, att) + A(DV3P) 9.16 14.90 12.57
-V(Res-50, classifier) + A(DV3P) 7.99 13.75 11.38
V(Ground Category Emb) + A(DV3P) **10.06** **16.10** **12.47**
----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: The sound source separation results on MUSIC-21 test set. V: Vision and A: Audio. att: appearance attention module[]{data-label="table:sound"}
----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Models SDR SIR SAR
A(Res-18) + S(U-Net) 5.38 11.00 9.77
A(Res-18, att) + S(U-Net) 6.48 12.06 10.31
A(Res-18, classifier) + S(U-Net) 7.13 13.74 10.14
A(Res-50) + S(U-Net) 5.88 11.09 10.73
A(Res-50, att) + S(U-Net) 7.14 12.83 10.93
A(Res-50, classifier) + S(U-Net) 8.38 14.94 10.85
A(Ground Category Emb) + S(U-Net) 8.55 14.98 11.21
A(Res-18) + S(DV3P) 7.73 13.48 11.55
A(Res-18, att) + S(DV3P) 9.22 15.22 12.62
A(Res-18, classifier) + S(DV3P) 10.06 16.82 12.66
A(Res-50) + S(DV3P) 7.95 13.66 12.16
A(Res-50, att) + S(DV3P)
A(Res-50, classifier) + S(DV3P)
A(Ground Category Emb) + S(DV3P) **10.74** **17.29** **13.04**
----------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: The sound source separation results on MUSIC test set. A: appearance network and S: sound network. att: appearance attention module. The best results are bolded. The best results of the methods without having ground category information are highlighted as . The best results of the methods with ground category information only during the training phase are highlighted as []{data-label="table:sound"}
Sound Source Separation with Ground Category Embedding {#sec:binary}
------------------------------------------------------
![The framework of the ground category embedding aided sound source separation.[]{data-label="fig:sep_gt"}](figure/sop_gt.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Given a sound mixture and a video keyframe which contains the target sounding object, the objective of appearance guided sound source separation in this work is to use the appearance network to predict the sound category from visual image and further separate its corresponding sound components from the sound mixture. When providing the ground truth categories of dataset, we encode the category information of a keyframe into binary embedding. As an example, if the visual frame contains instrument e.g. accordion, the binary ground embedding is \[1,0,0,...,0\]. This binary ground embedding will be a replacement of the learned appearance embedding $e$ from appearance network.
At the training phase, we adopt the binary ground embedding as the appearance (semantic) cues to separate the target sound components from the sound mixture with the sound network. The category information helps to investigate the capacity of the sound networks. As is shown in Table. \[table:sound\], with the ground category embedding, the sound network U-Net [@ronneberger2015u] attains the performance of SDR: 8.55, SIR: 14.98 and SAR: 11.21, which tells the capacity of the chosen sound network in current system on the task of sound source separation. Moreover, we obtain a more powerful architecture DV3P [@chen2018encoder] as the sound network. The system of binary ground embedding with DV3P achieves the performance to SDR: 10.74, SIR: 17.29 and SAR: 13.04. We conclude that with the ground category information, the system can separate sounds with high quality, which is the upper bound of the system, and the higher capacity of the chosen sound network the better performance the system can achieve.
![Visualization of visual embedding of (a) Res-50 and (b) Res-50 with appearance attention, (c) Res-50 classifier, and (d) ground category embedding.[]{data-label="fig:tsne"}](figure/tsne_res50_MUSIC.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
{width="0.87\linewidth"}
Sound Source Separation with Appearance Classifier
--------------------------------------------------
Results in Tab. \[table:sound\] demonstrate that the proposed appearance attention module is capable of enhancing the semantic distinction. However, there is still a relatively large gap between using appearance network prediction $e$ and the ground categories as semantic cues on the sound separation results. How far can we push the appearance network prediction towards the ground category embedding? To answer this question, we first train an appearance classifier when providing the ground category information, and then adopt it for the sound separation task. During inference time, we transfer the weights of the sound networks that trained with ground category embedding (Sec. \[sec:binary\]) to the system. The framework is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sep\_classifier\]. For simplicity, we exclude the appearance attention module. Its quantitative result is reported in Table \[table:sound\]. With the appearance classifier, the system pushes its sound separation performance further towards the upper bound, e.g. the scores of SDR: 10.59, SIR: 17.23, and SAR: 12.75 of A(Res-50, classifier) + S(DV3P).
We take the framework of A(Res-50) + S(DV3P) as an example to visualize the learned appearance embedding from the appearance network on different conditions (e.g. appearance attention, appearance classifier, and ground category embedding) with t-SNE [@maaten2008visualizing] in Fig. \[fig:tsne\]. As we can see, the compactness of both the intra- and inter-class of Res-50 embedding is limited. From the Res-50 to Res-50 with appearance attention, and Res-50 classifier, the learned appearance embedding is pushed more close to the ground category embedding in Fig. \[fig:tsne\](d).
Sound Source Localization with Appearance Attention Module {#sec:loc_vis}
----------------------------------------------------------
Given a sound mixture and a keyframe of a video, we use the spacial pooled appearance representation to give self attention to the appearance features to localize the sounding objects. It is shown as red arrows in Fig. \[fig:locsep\]. We visualize the sound source location examples in Fig. \[fig:loc\_vis\] by applying the appearance attention module, which precisely localizes sound sources with appearance information. We display the spatial location in heatmaps on input image during inference.
Comparison with State-of-the-Art
--------------------------------
---------------------------------- ------- ------- -------
Models SDR SIR SAR
SoP [@zhao2018sound] 7.52 13.01 11.53
SoM [@zhao2019sound] 8.31 14.82 13.11
MUSIC gesture [@gan2020music] 10.12 15.81 -
COF [@zhu2020visually] 10.65 17.23 13.15
V(Res-50, att) + A(DV3P) 0 0 0
V(Res-50, classifier) + A(DV3P) 0 0 0
V(Ground Category Emb) + A(DV3P) 10.06 16.10 12.47
---------------------------------- ------- ------- -------
: The appearance aided sound source separation results in comparison to four recent approaches SoP [@zhao2018sound], SoM [@zhao2019sound], MUSIC gesture [@gan2020music], and COF [@zhu2020visually]. The compared approaches are reported from original paper (except COF [@zhu2020visually] that is re-implemented on MUSIC-21 dataset)[]{data-label="table:comparison"}
---------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Models SDR SIR SAR
SoP [@zhao2018sound] 5.38 11.00 9.77
SoM [@zhao2019sound] 4.83 11.04 8.67
MP-Net [@xu2019recursive] 5.71 11.36 10.45
Co-Separation [@gao2019co] 7.38 13.7 10.8
COF [@zhu2020visually] 10.07 16.69 **13.02**
A(Res-50) + S(DV3P) 7.95 13.66 12.16
A(Res-50, att) + S(DV3P) 9.41 15.56 12.66
A(Res-50, classifier) + S(DV3P) **10.59** **17.23** 12.75
A(Ground Category Emb) + S(DV3P) **10.74** **17.29** **13.04**
---------------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: The appearance aided sound source separation results in comparison with recent approaches SoP [@zhao2018sound], SoM [@zhao2019sound], MP-Net [@xu2019recursive], Co-Separation [@gao2019co], and COF [@zhu2020visually]. A: appearance network and S: sound network. The top 2 results are bolded[]{data-label="table:comparison"}
We compare our best appearance-based methods with recent approaches SoP [@zhao2018sound], SoM [@zhao2019sound], MP-Net [@xu2019recursive], Co-Separation [@gao2019co], and COF [@zhu2020visually] on the task of visually guided sound source separation on MUSCI test set. The corresponding results are provided in Table \[table:comparison\]. Note that the compared approaches were either trained on multiple images or involved with motion information. However, our methods only have single kayframe of a video as the input to the appearance network. The quantitative results in Table \[table:comparison\] indicate that the model with appearance attention can greatly improve the performance, and the system with the ground category information outperforms recent approaches by a large margin.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we proposed an efficient appearance attention module to enhance the semantic cues by predicting whether the appearance embedding and appearance feature maps are from same sources or not. The improvement of sound source separation performance on the discussed baseline models indicates that the appearance attention module can greatly improve the distinction of the learnt semantics from the appearance network. Moreover, at the same time, the proposed appearance attention module can precisely locate the sound locations without extra computation. Furthermore, with the ground category information presented in the dataset, we trained an appearance classifier and performed extensive experiments on evaluating the capacity of the proposed appearance aided sound source separation system.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Spin-dependent quark densities, matrix elements of specific density operators in proton states of definite spin-polarization, indicate that the nucleon may harbor an infinite variety of non-spherical shapes. We show that these matrix elements are closely related to specific transverse momentum dependent parton distributions accessible in the angular dependence of the semi-inclusive processes $ep\rightarrow e\pi X$ and the Drell-Yan reaction $pp\rightarrow l\bar{l}X$. New measurements or analyses would allow the direct exhibition of the non-spherical nature of the proton.'
author:
- 'Gerald A. Miller'
title: |
[NT@UW-07-10]{}
Densities, Parton Distributions, and Measuring the Non-Spherical Shape of the Nucleon
---
[[**y**]{}]{}[[**y**]{}]{} [[**x**]{}]{}[[**x**]{}]{}
=1000 plus 1pt minus 1pt
[Eq. (\[)\]]{}[Eq. (\[)\]]{}
0.5cm
Since the discovery that that the spins of quarks and anti-quarks account for only about 33% of the nucleon spin [@oldspin], [@newspin], many experiments have sought the origins of the remainder, which must be accounted for by effects of quark and gluon angular momentum. The importance of orbital angular momentum is also demonstrated in exclusive reactions. Measurements [@Jones:1999rz; @Gayou:2001qd] find that the ratio of the proton’s electric and magnetic form factor $G_E/G_M$, falls with increasing momentum transfer $Q^2$ for 1$<Q^2<6 $ GeV$^2$. This striking behavior indicates that the sum of the orbital angular momentum of the quarks in the proton is non-vanishing [@ralston; @Braun:2001tj; @Miller:2002qb; @Ji].
One expects that the presence of significant orbital angular momentum would lead to a non-spherical shape, if such can be defined by an appropriate operator. We showed [@Miller:2003sa], using the proton model of Ref. [@Frank:1995pv], that the rest-frame ground-state matrix elements of spin-dependent density operators reveal a host of non-spherical shapes. The use of the spin-dependent density operator allows the detailed connection between orbital, spin and total angular momentum to be revealed in quantum systems. In the model of [@Frank:1995pv] the orbital angular momentum originates from the relativistic nature of the quarks manifest by lower components of Dirac spinors of the wave function, but there are many other potential sources.
It is natural to ask if the non-spherical nucleonic shapes can be measured. While matrix elements of the non-relativistic spin-density operator have been measured in condensed matter systems [@Prokes] to reveal highly non-spherical densities and the related the orbital angular momentum content of electron orbitals, finding the corresponding determination of the nucleon properties has remained a challenge. Our purpose here is to show that matrix elements of the spin-dependent density are closely related to specific unintegrated (transverse momentum dependent) parton densities that could be obtained by measuring the angular dependence of the $ep\rightarrow e\pi X$ reaction and of the Drell-Yan production cross section in $ pp$ collisions.
We begin by explaining how the shapes of a nucleon are exhibited by studying the rest-frame ground-state matrix elements of spin-dependent density operators [@Miller:2003sa]. The usual density operator in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is given by ()= \_i (-\_i),\[rho\]where $\bfr_i$ is the position operator of the $i$’th particle. Matrix elements of this operator yield the density of a system. Suppose the particles also have spin 1/2. Then one can measure the probability that particle is at a given position $\bfr$ and has a spin in an arbitrary, fixed direction specified by a unit vector $\bfn.$ The spin projection operator is $(1+{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}\cdot\bfn)/2 $, so the spin-dependent density operator is (,)= \_i (-\_i)[12]{}(1+\_i).\[sddr\] The spin-dependent density allows the presence of the orbital angular momentum to be revealed in the shape of the computed density. To understand this, it is worthwhile to consider a simple example of a single charged particle moving in a fixed rotationally invariant potential in an energy eigenstate $|\Psi\rangle$ of quantum numbers: $l=1,j=1/2$, polarized in the direction $\widehat{\bfs}$ and radial wave function $R(r)$. We find (,)= (,) =[R\^2(r)2]{} 1+2 -.Suppose $\hat{\bfn}$ is either parallel or anti-parallel to the direction of the proton angular momentum defined by the vector $\hat\bfs$. The direction of the vector $\hat\bfs$ defines an axis (the “z-axis”), and the direction of vectors can be represented in terms of this axis: $\hat{\bfs}\cdot\hat{\bfr}=\cos\theta$. With this notation $ \rho(\bfr,{\bfn}=\hat{\bfs})={R^2(r)}\cos^2\theta,\;
\rho(\bfr,{\bfn}=-\hat{\bfs} )={R^2(r)}\sin^2\theta$ and the non-spherical shape is exhibited. The average of these two cases is a spherical shape, as is the average over the direction of $\hat\bfs$ or the average over the direction of $\bfn$.
The densities of [Eq. (\[rho\])]{} and [Eq. (\[sddr\])]{} can be extended to include other operators. Indeed, Ref. [@Prokes] uses only the spin-dependent term appearing in [Eq. (\[sddr\])]{}, and this is weighted by the electronic charge. For systems of quarks, the densities could be weighted by the charge of the quarks, or be concerned with a specific flavor. One could also weight the spin-dependence by other operators. In particular, consider \_[REL]{}(,)\_i (-\_i)[12]{}(1+\^0\_i\_i),\[sddrrel\] where the relativistic aspects are emphasized by the appearance of the Dirac operator $\gamma^0$, which becomes unity in the non-relativistic limit. We denote the density operators of [Eq. (\[rho\])]{},[Eq. (\[sddr\])]{} and [Eq. (\[sddrrel\])]{}, and any number of obvious extensions, simply as densities.
These densities are defined in terms of position, but to use QCD it is necessary to define operators that give the probability for a particle to have a given momentum, $\bfK$, and a given direction of spin, $\bfn$. The field-theoretic version of the spin-dependent charge density operator, [Eq. (\[sddr\])]{}, is a generalization of the operator defined in Ref. [@Miller:2003sa]: &&(,)= e\^[-i]{} . |(0) (\^0+\_5)[L]{}(0,;)()|\_[t=\^0=0]{}, \[qft\] where $\psi$ is a quark field operator and flavor indices are omitted. The quark field operators are evaluated at equal time and accompanied by a path-ordered exponential link operator $ {\cal L}((0,\xi;\;{\rm path})$ needed for color-gauge invariance. This introduces a path-dependence, which must be specified correctly to obtain a parton interpretation. We will use the choice of Ref. [@Mulders:1995dh]; see below. The first quantized version of [Eq. (\[qft\])]{} (neglecting the gluonic aspects) is of the form of [Eq. (\[sddr\])]{} except that the factor $\delta(\bfr-\bfr_i) $ is replaced by $\delta(\bfK-\bfK_i)$, where $\bfK_i$ is the momentum of the i’th quark. It is worthwhile to define another density corresponding to $\widehat{\rho}_{\rm REL}$ of [Eq. (\[sddrrel\])]{}. This is given by &&\_[REL]{}(,)= e\^[-i]{} . |(0)\^0 (1+\_5)[L]{}(0,;) ()|\_[t=\^0=0]{}. \[qftrel\]
The matrix element of a density operator in a nucleon state $\vert P,S\rangle$ of definite total angular momentum defined by four-vector $S^\mu$ and momentum $P$ is (,,) P,S\_[G]{}(,)P,S, \_[REL]{}(,,) P,S\_[REL]{}(,)P,S. \[sdd\]The most general shape of the proton in its [*rest frame*]{}, obtained if parity and rotational invariance are upheld is then [@Miller:2003sa] &&(,,)=A(\^2)+B(\^2)+C (\^2)( -[13]{})\
&&\_[REL]{}(,,)=A\_[REL]{}(\^2)+B\_[REL]{}(\^2)+C\_[REL]{} (\^2)( -[13]{}) \[genshape\] ,with the last terms generating the non-spherical shape. Any wave function that yields a non-zero value of the coefficient $C(\bfK^2)$ or $C_{\rm REL}(\bfK^2)$ represents a system of a non-spherical shape. If the relativistic constituent quark model of [@Frank:1995pv] is used, the principle difference between $\rho(\bfK,\bfn,\bfS)$ and $\rho_G(\bfK,\bfn,\bfS)$ would be that $C_{\rm REL}=-C$. This indicates that either $C_{\rm REL}$ or $C$ can be used to infer information about the possible shapes of the nucleon. Measuring either $C(\bfK^2)$ or $C_{\rm REL}(\bfK^2)$, would require controlling the three different vectors $\bfn,\bfS$ and $\bfK$ or their equivalent.
The densities of [Eq. (\[genshape\])]{} are difficult to measure because the system must be probed without momentum transfer and the initial and final states are the same. This configuration also appears in parton distributions, both ordinary and transverse-momentum-dependent TMD. Parton density operators depend on pairs of quark-field operators defined at a fixed light cone time $\xi^+=\xi^3+\xi^0=0$ while the density operators of [Eq. (\[qft\])]{} and [Eq. (\[qftrel\])]{} are defined as an equal-time, $\xi^0=0$, correlation functions and cannot be regarded as parton density operators. However, we find a relation between the two sets of operators by integrating Eqs. (\[qft\],\[qftrel\]) over all values of $K_z$. This sets $\xi^3=0$, so the quark field operators of [Eq. (\[qft\])]{} or [Eq. (\[qftrel\])]{} are now evaluated at $\xi^0=0$ and $\xi^3=0$ so $\xi^\pm=0$: \_[T]{}(\_T,)\_[-]{}\^dK\_z(,) = e\^[-i\_T\_T]{} .|(0) (\^0+\_5)[L]{}( 0,;n\^-)([\_T]{})|\_[\^=0]{}\
\_[[REL]{}T]{}(\_T,)\_[-]{}\^dK\_z\_[REL]{}(,) = e\^[-i\_T\_T]{} .|(0)\^0 (1+\_5)[L]{}( 0,;n\^-)([\_T]{})|\_[\^=0]{} \[qftt\] where the specific path $n^-$ is that of Appendix B of [@Mulders:1995dh]. To obtain the relevant transverse densities we take the matrix element of $\widehat{\rho}_{GT}$ in a nucleon state polarized in the transverse direction $\bfS_T$, with &&\_[T]{}(\_T,,\_T) P,\_T\_[T]{}(\_T,)P,\_T\[nrt\]\
&& = A\_[T]{}(K\_T\^2) +B\_[T]{}(K\_T\^2)\_T+ C\_[T]{}(K\_T\^2),\
&& \_[[REL]{}T]{}(\_T,,\_T)=A\_[[REL]{}T]{}(K\_T\^2) +B\_[[REL]{}T]{}(K\_T\^2)\_T+ C\_[[REL]{}T]{}(K\_T\^2), \[sddt\]where $M$ is the nucleon mass, and we take the unit vector $\bfn$ to be in the transverse direction.
Information regarding the shape of the nucleon resides in the functions $C_{T},C_{{\rm REL}T}$. We now are able to connect our newly-defined transverse densities with TMD parton distributions. The latter are related to Dirac projections of correlation functions [@Mulders:1995dh]: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{[\Gamma]}(x,\bfK_T) & = &
\left. \int \frac{d\xi^-d^2\xi_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{2\,(2\pi)^3}
\ e^{iK\cdot \xi}
\,\langle P,S \vert \overline \psi (0)\,\Gamma\,{\cal L}(0,\xi;n_-)
\,\psi(\xi) \vert P,S \rangle \right|_{\xi^+ = 0}. \label{projection}\end{aligned}$$ The projections $\Phi^{[\Gamma]}$ depend on the fractional momentum $x$ = $K^+/P^+$, $\bfK_T$ and on the hadron momentum $P$ (in essence only $P^+$ and $M$ where we work in a frame in which $P^+\gg M$.). Depending on the Lorentz structure of the Dirac matrix $\Gamma$ the projections $\Phi^{[\Gamma]}$ are ordered according to powers of $M/P^+$ multiplied with a function depending only on $x$ and $\bfK_T^2$. Each factor $M/P^+$ leads to a suppression by a power in cross sections [@Levelt-Mulders-94a] so that one may refer to the projections as having a ’twist’ $t$ related to the power $(M/P^+)^{t-2}$ that appears. Then moments (in $x$) of the $\bfK_T$-integrated functions involve local operators of twist $t$ [@Collins-Soper-82].
We use certain transverse momentum dependent parton distribution functions of [@Mulders:1995dh], which for transversely polarized nucleons are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Phi^{[\gamma^+]}(x,\bfK_T) =
f_1(x ,K_T^2) ,
\label{chirality}
\\ & &
\Phi^{[ i \sigma^{i+} \gamma_5]}(x,\bfK_T)
= S_T^i\,h_1(x ,K_T^2)
+ \frac{\left(K_T^i K_T^j
- \frac{1}{2}K_T^2\delta_{ij}\right) S_T^j}{M^2}
\,h_{1T}^\perp(x ,K_T^2),
\label{transversity}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \Phi^{[ \gamma^i \gamma_5]}(x,\bfK_T)
= \frac{M\,S_T^i}{P^+} \,
g_T(x ,K_T^2)
+ {M\over P^+}\frac{\left(K_T^i K_T^j
- \frac{1}{2}K_T^2\delta_{ij}\right) S_T^j}{M^2}
\,g_T^\perp(x ,K_T^2).\label{gt}\end{aligned}$$ Terms of higher order in $(M/P^+)$ are neglected in the extraction of the functions $g_T,g_T^\perp$ from high energy data. Similarly, at high energies, we may replace $\gamma^+$ by $\sqrt{2}\gamma^0$. Note that the quantity $g_T^\perp$ is closely related to the quantity $C_T$, while the quantity $h^\perp_{1T}$ is closely related to $C_{{\rm REL}T}$ because $i\sigma^{i+}\gamma^5=
\gamma^+\gamma^i\gamma^5\rightarrow \sqrt{2} \gamma^0\gamma^i\gamma^5$. Extracting $g_T^\perp$ would require a higher twist analysis, while $h^\perp_{1T}$ appears at leading order in the cross sections for semi-inclusive leptoproduction experiments [@Boer:1997nt]. Thus the relativistic spin-dependent density [Eq. (\[sddt\])]{} is easier to measure than the quantity of [Eq. (\[nrt\])]{}.
We integrate the above parton distribution functions over all $x$ so that the field operators are evaluated at $\xi^\pm=0$ as in our spin-dependent densities. A tilde is placed over a given quantity to define the $x$-integrated result, [*e.g.*]{} $\widetilde{\Phi}^{[\Gamma]}(\bfK_T)\equiv \int\;dx \Phi^{[\Gamma]}(x,\bfK_T),\;
\widetilde{f}_1(K_T^2)\equiv\int\;dx f_1(x,K_T^2) $, [*etc.*]{} Then $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde\Phi^{[\Gamma]}(\bfK_T)= \left. \int \frac{d^2\xi_{{\scriptscriptstyle T}}}{2P^+\,(2\pi)^2}
\ e^{-i\bfK_T\cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}_T}
\,\langle P,S \vert \overline \psi (0)\,\Gamma\,{\cal L}(0,\xi;n_-)
\,\psi({\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}_T) \vert P,S \rangle \right|_{\xi^+ = 0,\xi^-=0}.\label{projectiont}\end{aligned}$$ The various $\Phi^{[\Gamma]}$ are expressed, in the infinite momentum frame, in terms of transverse momentum dependent parton distribution functions [Eq. (\[transversity\])]{} and [Eq. (\[gt\])]{}. To relate these to our functions $A_T,B_T,C_T$ we evaluate these equations in the rest frame ($P^+\rightarrow M/\sqrt{2}$, $\gamma^+\rightarrow\sqrt{2}\gamma^0$) and choose the operators $\Gamma$ to correspond to those appearing in the spin-dependent densities. We find that && (\_T,,\_T)=\_[1]{}(K\_T\^2)+\_T(K\_T\^2)\_T +[(\_T\_T \_T\_T-[12]{}K\_T\^2\_T)M\^2]{} \_[T]{}\^(K\_T\^2),\[rhot\]\
&&\_[[REL]{}T]{}(\_T,,\_T)=\_[1]{}(K\_T\^2)+\_[1]{}(K\_T\^2)\_T +[(\_T\_T \_T\_T-[12]{}K\_T\^2\_T)M\^2]{} \^\_[1T]{}(K\_T\^2).\
\[rhotrel\] Finding a non-zero value of either $\tilde{g}_T$ or $\tilde{h}^\perp_{1T}$ would demonstrate that the proton is not spherical. Both the spectator model [@Jakob:1997wg] and the quark model [@Frank:1995pv] yield the result that $\tilde{g}_T=-\tilde{h}^\perp_{1T}.$ This relation does not appear to be a general result. In particular, one may use the most general parameterization of the correlation functions [@Mulders:1995dh; @Goeke:2005hb] in terms of scalar functions $A_i(K,P)$ to show that $g_T^\perp$ is proportional to the term $A_{8}$ and $h_{1T}^\perp$ is proportional to the term $P^+/M A_{11}$. This means that, in the nucleon rest frame, the ratio $g_T^\perp/h_{1T}^\perp$ is simply a function of $(x,\bfK_T^2)$. Furthermore, the quantity $\tilde{h}^\perp_{1T}$ is known to characterize the dependence of the transverse polarization of quarks in a transversely polarized nucleon on the direction of $\bfK_T$ [@Boglione:1999pz; @Barone:2001sp]. Thus the two quantities $\tilde{g}_T^\perp$ and $\tilde{h}^\perp_{1T}$ each characterize the non-spherical nature of the nucleon, and the density $\rho_{{\rm REL}T}$ can be thought of as “the” spin-dependent density”.
Next we focus on experimental means to access $\tilde{h}^\perp_{1T}$. The presence of the term $\tilde{h}^\perp_{1T}$ causes distinctive signatures in semi-inclusive leptoproduction experiments [@Boer:1997nt] in which a hadron $h$ is produced. If the target is polarized in a direction transverse to the lepton scattering plane, the cross section acquires a term proportional to $\cos (3\phi_h^l)$ where $\phi_h^l$ is the angle between the hadron production plane (defined by the momenta of the incoming virtual photon and the outgoing hadron) and the lepton scattering plane. A similar effect occurs in electroweak semi-inclusive deep inelastic leptoproduction and this could be accessed at high energies such as those found at HERA [@Boer:1999uu]. Another signature occurs in the angular distribution of the leptoproduction of $\rho$ mesons [@Bacchetta:2000jk], obtained using an unpolarized lepton beam and a transversely polarized target. Similarly the term $\tilde{h}^\perp_{1T}$ makes its presence felt in studying the production of two-pions inside the same current jet [@Radici:2001na]. In each of these cases, the momentum of the virtual photon and its vector nature provide the analogue of two of the three vectors $\bfn$ and $\bfS_T$ needed to define the spin-dependent density. The hadronic transverse momentum provides the third, $\bfK_T$.
Another interesting possibility occurs in the Drell-Yan reaction $pp(\uparrow)\rightarrow l\bar{l} X$ using one transversely polarized proton [@Boer:1999mm]. In case the term ${h}^\perp_{1T}$ causes a distinctive oscillatory dependence on the angle $3\phi-\phi_{S_{1}},$ where $\phi$ is the angle between the momentum of the outgoing lepton and the reaction plane in the lepton center of mass frame, and $\phi_{S_{1}}$ denotes the direction of polarization with respect to the reaction plane. The term ${h}^\perp_{1T}$ is multiplied by the anti-quark Boer-Mulders function.
To illustrate the shapes that could be obtainable using this method we use the spectator model of [@Jakob:1997wg] to evaluate the shapes of the proton. We rewrite [Eq. (\[rhotrel\])]{} as =1+ [\_1(K\_T\^2)\_1(K\_T\^2)]{}\_n+ [12]{}[K\_T\^2M\^2]{} (2-\_n)[\_[1T]{}\^(K\_T\^2)\_1(K\_T\^2)]{},\[shapeq\]where $\phi$ is the angle between $\bfK_T$ and $\bfS_T$ and $\phi_n$ is the angle between $\bfn$ and $\bfS_T$. The transverse shapes of the nucleon, as defined by the right hand side of [Eq. (\[shapeq\])]{} are shown in Fig. 1, taking $\phi_n=0$. Deformation is seen for values of $K_T$ as small as 0.25 GeV, and this increases as $K_T$ increases. Choosing $\phi_n=\pi$ emphasizes the non-spherical nature because the first two terms of [Eq. (\[shapeq\])]{} tend to cancel. The possible shapes implied by [Eq. (\[shapeq\])]{} can be thought of as transverse projections of the shapes displayed in Refs. [@Miller:2003sa].
{width="4cm"} \[shape\]
{width="4cm"} \[shape1\]
One complication as that it would be very difficult to measure the necessary TMD’s at all values of $x$ to construct the integrals appearing here. However, the model [@Jakob:1997wg] indicates that the functions $f_1,h_1$ and $h_{1T}^\perp$ have very similar $x$ dependence, so that measurements at values of $x$ for which these functions peak should be sufficient.
We have shown that that the non-spherical nature of the nucleon shape is closely related to the non-vanishing of the measurable TMD $h_{1T}^\perp$. While determining this function experimentally represents a challenge, the ultimate determination of a non-zero values would clearly demonstrate that the shape of the proton not round.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the USDOE for partial support of this work, D. Boer, W. Detmold and L. Gamberg for useful discussions and J.C. Peng for a stimulating oral presentation.
[9]{} See the reviews: M. Anselmino, A. Efremov and E. Leader, Phys. Rept. [**261**]{}, 1 (1995) \[Erratum-ibid. [**281**]{}, 399 (1997)\]; B. Lampe and E. Reya, Phys. Rept. [**332**]{}, 1 (2000) E. W. Hughes and R. Voss, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**49**]{}, 303 (1999). A. Airapetian [*et al.*]{} \[HERMES Collaboration\], arXiv:hep-ex/0609039; V. Y. Alexakhin [*et al.*]{} \[COMPASS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**647**]{}, 8 (2007) M. K. Jones [*et al.*]{} \[Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1398 (2000) O. Gayou[*et al.*]{}Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 092301 (2002) P. Jain, B. Pire and J. P. Ralston, Phys. Rept. [**271**]{}, 67 (1996); V. M. Braun, A. Lenz, N. Mahnke and E. Stein, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 074011 (2002).
G. A. Miller and M. R. Frank, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 065205 (2002) A. V. Belitsky, X-d. Ji and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 092003 (2003) G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{}, 022201 (2003), A. Kvinikhidze and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 065203 (2006). M.R. Frank, B.K. Jennings and G.A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C [**54**]{}, 920 (1996). K. Prokeš et al. Phys. Rev. B[**65**]{}, 144429 (2002)
P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B [**461**]{}, 197 (1996) \[Erratum-ibid. B [**484**]{}, 538 (1997)\]. J. Levelt and P.J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{} (1994) 96
J.C. Collins and D.E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. [**B194**]{} (1982) 445
D. Boer and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 5780 (1998) R. Jakob, P. J. Mulders and J. Rodrigues, Nucl. Phys. A [**626**]{}, 937 (1997). K. Goeke, A. Metz and M. Schlegel, Phys. Lett. B [**618**]{}, 90 (2005). M. Boglione and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 054007 (1999). V. Barone, A. Drago and P. G. Ratcliffe, Phys. Rept. [**359**]{}, 1 (2002). D. Boer, R. Jakob and P. J. Mulders, Nucl. Phys. B [**564**]{}, 471 (2000). A. Bacchetta and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 114004 (2000).
M. Radici, R. Jakob and A. Bianconi, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 074031 (2002). D. Boer, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 014012 (1999)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We discuss the clustering properties of galaxies with signs of ongoing star formation detected by the *Spitzer Space Telescope* at $24\mum$ band in the SWIRE Lockman Hole field. The sample of mid-IR-selected galaxies includes $\sim20000$ objects detected above a flux threshold of ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=310\,\mu$Jy. We adopt optical/near-IR color selection criteria to split the sample into the lower-redshift and higher-redshift galaxy populations. We measure the angular correlation function on scales of $\theta=0.01-3.5$deg, from which, using the Limber inversion along with the redshift distribution established for similarly selected source populations in the GOODS fields [@Rodighiero2009], we obtain comoving correlation lengths of $r_0 = 4.98 \pm 0.28 \, h^{-1}\,$Mpc and $r_0 =8.04 \pm 0.69 \, h^{-1}\,$Mpc for the low-$z$ ($z_{\rm
mean}=0.7$) and high-$z$ ($z_{\rm mean}=1.7$) subsamples, respectively. Comparing these measurements with the correlation functions of dark matter halos identified in the *Bolshoi* cosmological simulation [@Klypin2010], we find that the high-redshift objects reside in progressively more massive halos reaching $\Mtot\gtrsim3\times10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\Msun$, compared to $\Mtot\gtrsim7\times10^{11}\,h^{-1}\,\Msun$ for the low-redshift population. Approximate estimates of the IR luminosities based on the catalogs of $24\mum$ sources in the GOODS fields show that our high-$z$ subsample represents a population of “distant ULIRGs" with $L_{\rm IR}>10^{12}L_{\odot}$, while the low-$z$ subsample mainly consists of “LIRGs”, $L_{\rm IR}\sim10^{11}L_{\odot}$. The comparison of number density of the $24\mum$ selected galaxies and of dark matter halos with derived minimum mass $M_{\rm tot}$ shows that only 20% of such halos may host star-forming galaxies.
author:
- 'S. Starikova, S. Berta, A. Franceschini, L. Marchetti, G. Rodighiero, M. Vaccari, and A. Vikhlinin'
bibliography:
- 'clust24um.bib'
title: 'Clustering of star-forming galaxies detected in mid-infrared with the *Spitzer* wide-area survey'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The cosmic infrared background accounts for approximately half of the total extragalactic background energy integrated over cosmic time and wavelengths . The CIB emission is mainly contributed by star-forming galaxies where optical–UV light from young stellar populations is absorbed by dust and re-emitted at longer wavelengths. The IR-energy output per unit volume must strongly increase with redshift to account for the total measured CIB . Indeed, observations with the *Infrared Space Observatory* and the *Spitzer Space Telescope* [@2004ApJS..154....1W] revealed large number of distant mid- and far-infrared sources . According to the current consensus from both theoretical and observational studies, major developments in the evolution of galaxies in the universe happened at high redshifts, $z>1$ [for references and details, see @Franceschini2010], with the peak of star formation and nuclear activity occurring at $z\sim2$ [e.g., @1996MNRAS.283.1388M; @2004ApJ...615..209H; @2005ApJ...624..630S; @2011ApJ...737...90B]. A large fraction of energy emitted during these active phases of galaxy evolution is hidden by dust and can be detected only through mid- and far-IR observations. Therefore, studying the distant universe in the infrared provides valuable information on the history of assembly of present-day massive galaxies .
In this work, we use observations of star-forming galaxies made by the *Spitzer Space Telescope* at $24\mum$. The *Spitzer* $24\mum$ surveys have revolutionized studies of “distant ULIRGs” — ultraluminous infrared galaxies. These objects are dusty star-forming galaxies with infrared luminosity $L_{\rm IR}>10^{12}L_{\odot}$[^1] . While the average spectral energy distribution of high-$z$ sources is consistent with that of present-day ULIRGs, the nature and the cosmological environment hosting them must still be clarified [see @Huang2009 for details and references]. Various photometric techniques are applied to identify high-redshift objects among the thousands detected by wide-field *Spitzer* surveys, e.g., [@2005ApJ...628..604Y], [@2007MNRAS.375.1121M], [@2008ApJ...677..957F], [@2009ApJ...692..422L], , [@Huang2009], and [@2008ApJ...677..943D]. All these selected objects represent sub-populations of ULIRGs with observational characteristics partly overlapping those of star-forming galaxies detected in optical and submillimeter . The nature of these populations has been a subject of intensive work based on modeling of their physical properties such as spectral energy distribution (SED), star formation rate, stellar and halo masses, etc. [e.g., @2004ApJ...600..580G; @2010MNRAS.404.1355D; @2010MNRAS.407.1701N; @2010MNRAS.405....2L]. A significant new observational input for such studies can be provided by measurements of the clustering amplitude, which is a unique tool for determination of the halo masses of high-redshift galaxies. The goal of this paper is to present clustering and halo occupation analysis of $24\mum$ detected galaxies from one of the largest *Spitzer* extragalactic survey.
First studies on clustering of $24\mum$ galaxies were made either in small fields with low statistics, e.g., [@Gilli2007] and [@Magliocchetti2008], or applying additional selection criteria as in [@Farrah2006] and [@Brodwin2008]. Here we improve on these first measurements by using a large sample of $\sim20,000$ galaxies detected in the Lockman Hole field, $\sim 8$ deg$^{2}$, and uniformly selected only by their $24\mum$ flux, ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310\,\mu$Jy. Our data reduction procedures are presented in Section \[sec:data\]. The clustering strength measurements of $24\mum$ selected galaxies and inferred properties of their dark matter (DM) halos are discussed in Sections \[sec:24mum\_wtheta\] and \[sec:24mum\_halo\]. Comparison with previously published results is presented in Section \[sec:24mum\_comparison\], and our conclusions appear in Section 6.
Throughout the paper, all cosmology-dependent quantities are computed assuming a spatially flat model with parameters $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.268$ and $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.732$ [best-fit $\Lambda$CDM parameters obtained from the combination of CMB, supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and galaxy cluster data, see @2009ApJ...692.1060V]. All distances are comoving and given with explicit *h*-scaling, where the Hubble constant is $H_0=100\,h^{-1}\,\rm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$. The parameter uncertainties are quoted at a confidence level of 68%. IR luminosities were computed using $H_0=70\,\rm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ [see @Rodighiero2009 for details].
The data sample {#sec:data}
===============
For reliable clustering measurements one needs a statistically complete, large, and homogeneous sample of sources selected over a large area of the sky to probe the correlation signal on a wide range of scales. The Spitzer Wide-area InfraRed Extragalactic Survey [SWIRE, @Lonsdale2003] is highly suitable for this purpose, as was demonstrated in several papers [@Waddington2007; @Torre2007; @Farrah2006]. It is the largest survey carried out with the *Spitzer Space Telescope*, covering $\sim 49\,\rm{deg}^2$ in six separate fields in the Northern and Southern sky. Each field was imaged in the seven near-to-far infrared bands: InfraRed Array Camera (IRAC) 3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0$\mum$ [@Fazio2004] and Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS) 24, 70, and 160$\mum$ bands [@Rieke2004]. In addition to the infrared observations, every SWIRE field has high-quality ancillary data.
Following the goal of our work to estimate the correlation function of star-forming galaxies detected in the MIPS $24\,\mum$ band, we first selected a sample of bright sources, ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>400\,\mu$Jy, from the SWIRE ELAIS-S1 catalog (M. Vaccari et al., in preparation). However, our estimated angular correlation function, $w(\theta)$, showed an unexpected lack of clustering signal at scales $\theta<36''$. There were suggestions in the literature [e.g., @Gilli2007] that because of the poor angular resolution of the MIPS instrument ($\sim
6''$ FWHM), there could be difficulties in determining $w(\theta)$ for *faint* sources due to blending. However, the deficit of close pairs in the sample of *bright* sources remained unexplained. This problem has no bearing on our main results presented below but obviously its origin needs to be understood. To this end, we carried out a comparison of the angular correlation function of the $24\,\mum$ sources selected from the four largest SWIRE fields (Lockman Hole, ELAIS-N1, ELAIS-N2, and CDFS) using two releases of the SWIRE team catalogs (versions 2005 and 2010), and an additional source catalog based on the wavelet decomposition algorithm (Section\[subsec:wavelet\]). This comparison is reported in the Appendix. Our clustering results for 24 sources presented below are based on the best available catalog in the Lockman Hole field.
Wavelet-based Detection of 24 Sources {#subsec:wavelet}
-------------------------------------
Due to the reasons outlined in the Appendix, we perform clustering analysis of 24 sources extracted from the publicly available MIPS images using the wavelet decomposition source detection algorithm [, see @Vikhlinin1998]. This algorithm at ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}\gtrsim 300\,\mu$Jy performs nearly identically to the detection method used in the Final SWIRE Data Release (J. A. Surace et al., in preparation) in terms of the $\log N - \log S$ distribution of detected sources and their angular correlation function at large scales. The only noticeable difference is in the treatment of very crowded regions and zones in the immediate vicinity of the bright sources (see the Appendix). These differences have no effect on our clustering results presented in Section 3 and 4 below.
was designed to efficiently detect both point-like and slightly extended sources in the crowded fields. Originally, the wavelet decomposition program was intended for Poisson-noise-limited X-ray images, where it generally outperforms its rivals , but it was found that with a suitable choice of parameters, it produces good results also for the 24 MIPS images.
First, we re-bin the archival MIPS images to $2.4''$ pixels (by a factor of two with respect to an original pixel size of $1.2''$) to reduce the cross-correlation of noise in the adjacent pixels while still maintaining the adequate sampling of the PSF. We then convolve the image with the ${\rm scale}=2$ wavelet filter, corresponding to an effective kernel width of $\approx 5''-6''$, matching the size of the MIPS 24 point sources. The rms of variations in this convolved image, excluding the regions around bright sources using $\sigma$-clipping, is the approximation of effective noise at the scale we are most interested in. This noise level is supplied to the program (its internal noise determination algorithm is best suitable for the case Poisson statistics and thus not applicable for MIPS images). starts with the smallest scales and iteratively detects and removes detected structures from the input image, while adding them to the resulting “clean” image. When the process is finished at the given scale, it proceeds to the next at which the size of the wavelet kernel is increased by a factor of two. In our case, the detection algorithm works on the scales corresponding to structure sizes (FWHM) of $\approx 2.4''$, $5''$, and $10''$, bracketing the range of sizes for the MIPS point sources. Detection threshold is set at $4.5\sigma$, at which we expect $\sim 100$ false detections in the Lockman Hole area.[^2]
The main output of the wavelet decomposition algorithm is a list of source locations detected above a predefined SNR threshold, and a map which allows one to split the original image into “empty” regions and those with significant emission “belonging” to a particular source. The source fluxes were then measured using aperture photometry. In choosing the aperture size, the tradeoff is between our desire to include as much of the source flux as possible into the aperture size, and the fact that for wide apertures, the flux measurements are increasingly affected by the larger-scale background fluctuations and by source confusion. Several tests have shown that the best results are achieved for an aperture size of $4''$, encompassing approximately 50% of the PSF power, and corresponding to the bright core of the MIPS PSF. These aperture fluxes were then converted into total flux using the PSF model calibrated with images of the bright stars in the same field. Using this method, the 24 sources were extracted from the MIPS map of the Lockman Hole field.
The Lockman Hole Source Sample {#subsec:sample}
------------------------------
The Lockman Hole is the largest of the SWIRE fields. In addition to deeper MIPS observations (the limiting flux is ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=310 \,\mu$Jy, compared, e.g., to ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=400 \,\mu$Jy in the ELAIS-S1 field, see Appendix \[sec:flux\_limits\] for details), it has deep and uniform data in many other bands. In particular, we used the data from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) survey for the star-mask construction (see Section \[subsubsec:mask\_construction\]), and the optical observations carried out with INT-WFC and KPNO MOSAIC1 [@2011MNRAS.416..927G] to photometrically separate the 24-selected objects into the low- and high-redshift subsamples (Section \[subsubsec:24mum\_color\_mag\]).
We cross-correlated our sample of 24 sources with the multi-band IRAC-based catalog (limiting fluxes of ${\ensuremath{S_{3.6\mum}}}\simeq7
\,\mu$Jy and ${\ensuremath{S_{4.5\mum}}}\simeq11 \,\mu$Jy, M. Vaccari et al., in preparation) using a matching radius of $3.2''$. We then applied the following flux cuts: $310<{\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}<2500 \,\mu$Jy and ${\ensuremath{S_{3.6\mum}}}<1000
\,\mu$Jy, and ${\ensuremath{S_{4.5\mum}}}<1000 \,\mu$Jy. ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=310 \,\mu$Jy is the flux at which the catalog is complete and the fluxes are measured reliably and accurately. The bright flux cuts are applied in order to conservatively discard obviously extended and/or saturated sources whose astrometry may be poor and whose flux estimates may be affected by saturation. Only $1.7\%$ of sources with ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310\,\mu$Jy had no IRAC-couterparts. A small fraction of them are Galactic stars, $\sim
0.3\%$ are expected due to false detections for our choice of detection thresholds, the nature of the rest is unclear. In any case, their number is too small to affect our clustering measurements.
### Elimination of Stars and the Region Mask {#subsubsec:star_gal_sep}
\[subsubsec:mask\_construction\]
Galactic stars contaminate our clustering analysis of extragalactic sources and should be removed.[^3] To this end, we followed the procedures of [@Shupe2008] and [@Waddington2007] in which the foreground stars were identified using the 2MASS Point Source Catalog [@Skrutskie2006]. The derived $24 \mum$-IRAC catalog was cross correlated with the 2MASS survey using a matching radius of $2.5''$. [@Shupe2008] proposed that nearly all of the $24\,\mum$-emitting sources with color $K_{s}-[24]<2.0$ (Vega, mag) are Galactic stars (see their Figure 2). We applied this criterion to our catalog and eliminated such sources.
In addition to directly polluting the extragalactic sample, bright Galactic stars may affect our clustering measurements indirectly, by obscuring the background galaxies or affecting the fluxes of the fainter galaxies near the same line of sight. Therefore, we need to completely exclude from the analysis the sky regions affected by the presence of bright foreground stars. Following [@Waddington2007] this was achieved by masking out the circular regions around sources with $K_s<12$ (Vega, mag) from the cross-correlated $24\mum$-IRAC-2MASS catalog; the exclusion radius was determined as $\log(R'')=3.1-0.16\,K_s$, which is the distance at which the stellar PSF merges into the background [@Waddington2007].
A close examination of the $24\mum$ source catalog shows that there are spurious detections around very bright $24\mum$ sources (most of which correspond to Galactic stars or low-$z$ galaxies). Therefore, we decided to mask out those regions as well. The exclusion radius was set to be $20''-80''$, depending on the source flux. As we will discuss in the next section, Section \[subsubsec:24mum\_color\_mag\], we use the INT/WFC optical data to divide our sample photometrically into the low- and high-redshift subsamples. Unfortunately, the INT/WFC observations are insufficiently deep in some subsections of the MIPS Lockman Hole image, and we had to mask out those regions also. To identify the regions of insufficient INT/WFC depth, we examined the distribution of optical counterparts for $3.6\,\mum$ IRAC sources at various $i$-band magnitude cuts. We found that the depth is at least $i=22.8$ throughout the field, except for the regions masked out as rectangles in Figure \[fig:24mum\_mask\_lh\]. At fainter magnitudes, the WFC coverage becomes highly nonuniform. The resulting mask excluding the regions around bright stars, extremely bright 24 sources and the regions of nonuniform optical coverage is shown in Figure \[fig:24mum\_mask\_lh\], and was used in the estimation of the angular correlation function (Section \[sec:24mum\_wtheta\]). The total “good” survey area is 7.9 deg$^{2}$.
![Final region mask for the clustering analysis in the Lockman Hole field. The circles mark the locations of stars and bright objects. The rectangles mask those regions where the completeness of INT/WFC images is not achieved for $i=22.8$ (AB mag). All black patches were excluded from the subsequent analysis (see details in Section \[subsubsec:mask\_construction\]).[]{data-label="fig:24mum_mask_lh"}](fig1.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
### Identifying Low- and High-redshift Galaxy Populations {#subsubsec:24mum_color_mag}
To derive the spatial correlation length and investigate the dependence of clustering on redshift, we need to know the redshift distribution of the sources. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 24 sources selected in the Lockman Hole field have neither spectroscopic nor photometric redshifts. The SWIRE photometric redshift catalog [@photz2008], available in this field, has a limited and heavily inhomogeneous coverage for our sample. The approach we are taking instead is to use simple photometric criteria to divide the catalog into the low- and high-redshift subsamples, and then use a similarly selected sample of $24\mum$ sources from the GOODS survey to derive the redshift distribution within each subsample.
To separate the sample into low- and high-redshift sources, we defined the optical-to-NIR color selection criterion based on the optical $I$-band data [from ESIS-VIMOS survey; @Berta2008] and SWIRE IRAC $4.5\,\mum$ observations in the ELAIS-S1 SWIRE field. Particularly, we examined the dependence of the $(I-[4.5])_{\rm AB}$ color on redshift for various galaxy spectral templates such as Mrk 231 (Sy-1), IRAS 19254 (Sy-2), M 82 (starburst), M 51 (spiral), and NGC 4490 (blue spiral) [see examples of a similar analysis in @Berta2007; @Berta2008]. It appears that for starburst galaxies, the color cut $(I-[4.5])_{\rm AB}\sim 3$ separates well low ($z\lesssim1$) and high ($z\gtrsim1$) redshift galaxy populations, with only a small contamination in both groups. Such a rapid color transition around $z\sim1$ can be explained by the passage of the Balmer break in the galaxy spectra through or redward the $I$ band. To further refine this color selection criterion, we applied it to the deep *Spitzer* observations of GOODS fields [@Rodighiero2009]. The GOODS-N and GOODS-S $24\,\mum$ catalogs include 889 and 614 sources, respectively, detected in a total area of $\sim 350\,\text{arcmin$^2$}$. The catalogs are complete down to ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=80\,\mu$Jy. Observations in the *i* band were made by the Advanced Camera for Surveys in both fields down to a magnitude limit *i*=26.5 [@Grazian2006]. Redshift estimates are available for all these sources, 46% are spectroscopic and 54% photometric redshifts. The latter are estimated with an rms scatter in $z_{\text{phot}}-z_{\text{spec}}$ of 0.09 and 0.06 for the GOODS-N and GOODS-S samples, respectively [for details see @Rodighiero2009].
From the GOODS catalogs, we selected the sources with ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310 \,\mu$Jy and separated them into two redshift bins $z>1.2$ and $z<1.2$.[^4] The color–magnitude diagram for these sources shows that the low- and high-$z$ galaxies indeed can be separated by a boundary value of $(i-4.5)=3$ (AB mag) (dashed line in Figure \[fig:24mum\_color\](a)). The deepest optical data available in the Lockman Hole field are those from the INT/WFC which provides sufficiently uniform coverage to $i=22.8$ (with the $5\sigma$ magnitude limit reaching $i=23.3$ (AB) in the deepest sections of the survey). Therefore, a magnitude cut of $i=22.8$ had to be incorporated in our selection. Figure \[fig:24mum\_color\](b) shows that the low-$z$ sources fainter than $i=22.8$ (above dotted line) and with the color $(i-4.5)<3$ (AB mag) (below dashed line) in practice are very few and they only minimally contaminate ($\sim10\%$) the high-$z$ sample. Based on these considerations, we implemented the redshift separation as a combined color and magnitude criterion: the source is considered to belong to a high-redshift sample, if it is undetectable in the INT/WFC $i$ band, or its measured $i$ magnitude is $>22.8$, or the $(i-4.5)$ (AB mag) color is $>3$.
{width="0.5\linewidth"} {width="0.5\linewidth"}
One of the main sources of concern for the color–magnitude based separation of 24 objects into low- and high-redshift subsamples is the presence of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in the sample. Therefore, we checked the AGN contents in the GOODS sample of the 24selected sources. According to [@Rodighiero2009], less than $10\%$ of these sources are type-1 AGNs. The authors classified the observed SEDs using [@Polletta2007] templates. This AGN fraction is consistent with that reported by [@Gilli2007] and [@Treister2006], who used very deep *Chandra* X-ray observations in the GOODS fields. Concerning the highly obscured (type-2) AGNs and the sources of composite spectral type (starburst+ANG), their contribution to the $24\,\mum$ emitting sources is hard to estimate. One of the reasons is that the AGN and star formation activity often occur simultaneously, and both are revealed in the form of the $24\,\mum$ emission [see, e.g., @Brand2009; @Rodighiero2009; @Franceschini2005 and references therein]. Some studies suggest, on the basis of estimates by different methods, that the $24\,\mum$ selected samples may contain $\sim$20%–30% of AGNs of both types [@Sacchi2009; @Franceschini2005]. However, we note that to estimate the redshift distribution within our color and $i$-magnitude-selected subsamples, we used an empirical redshift distribution of identically selected GOODS sources (see below). As long as the GOODS redshifts are valid and the GOODS sample is a fair representation of our main Lockman Hole sample, the derived $dN/dz$ models for the low- and high-redshift subsamples are correct, even though the high-$z$ subsample may be slightly contaminated by AGNs.
Empirical Redshift Distributions {#subsec:24mum_redshift_distribution}
--------------------------------
We need a model for the redshift distribution of the sources in order to use the Limber equation (Equations (\[frm:LE\_power\]) and (\[frm:LE\_full\]) below) to relate the angular and spatial correlation functions. We determined these redshift distributions empirically, using the GOODS sources selected identically to our main sample in the Lockman Hole field. All sources with ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310
\,\mu$Jy in GOODS-N and GOODS-S fields were divided into low- and high-redshift subsamples by applying the color-magnitude selection criteria (Section \[subsubsec:24mum\_color\_mag\] and Figure \[fig:24mum\_color\](b)). The obtained redshift distributions within these photometrically-selected samples are shown in Figure \[fig:24mum\_nz\](a) and (b). These empirical distributions can be well approximated by a Gaussian model:
{width="0.5\linewidth"} {width="0.5\linewidth"}
![Redshift distribution of sources brighter than ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=310 \,\mu$Jy from GOODS surveys. Blue and red lines are Gaussian fits to redshift distributions of sources undergone color–magnitude selection. The dashed line is a combined fit of two selected samples.[]{data-label="fig:24mum_nz_all"}](fig4.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
$$dN/dz = C\times\exp(-(z-z_{\text{mean}})^{2}/2\sigma^{2})$$
(blue and red lines in Figure \[fig:24mum\_nz\]). The best-fit parameters for the low-$z$ subsample in the redshift range $0<z<2$ are $C=50, \sigma=0.349, z_{\rm mean}=0.7$. For the high-$z$ subsample in the redshift range $0.5<z<3.5$, we find $C=12, \sigma=0.629, z_{\rm
mean}=1.7$. The derived widths are significantly larger than the estimates uncertainties in the GOODS photometric redshifts ($\pm$0.06–0.09), and therefore accurately approximate the *intrinsic* widths of the redshift distributions for our two subsamples.
This two-Gaussian model provides a good fit also to the redshift distribution of all GOODS sources with ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310 \,\mu$Jy (i.e., without the photometric separation into low and high-$z$ subsamples). The combined redshift distribution is shown in Figure \[fig:24mum\_nz\_all\], and the dashed line is the sum of two Gaussian models for the low and high-$z$ subsamples.
We also can use these subsamples of GOODS galaxies to estimate the typical infrared luminosities (8–1000) for our Lockman Hole sample. In the GOODS low-redshift subsample, $z_{\rm mean}=0.7$, the mean luminosity is $L_{\rm IR}\sim 3\times 10^{11}L_{\sun}$ indicating that the selected objects belong to the class of luminous infrared galaxies [“LIRGs”, $10^{11}L_{\sun}<L_{\rm
IR}<10^{12}L_{\sun}$, @Sanders1996]. The high redshift galaxies, $z_{\rm mean}=1.7$, have an order of magnitude higher mean luminosity, $L_{\rm IR}\sim 3\times 10^{12} L_{\sun}$ which places them into the category of ultra-luminous infrared galaxies [“distant ULIRGs”; $L_{\rm IR}>10^{12}L_{\sun}$; @Sanders1996]. Barring an unexpectedly high level of cosmic variance, our $24 \mum$ sources selected in the Lockman Hole field should have the same mean luminosities.
Clustering properties of $24\,\mum$ selected galaxies {#sec:24mum_wtheta}
=====================================================
The total area of the Lockman Hole field used in the clustering analysis (white regions in Figure \[fig:24mum\_mask\_lh\]) is $\simeq 7.9$ deg$^{2}$. There are 21844 $24\mum$ emitting objects with fluxes greater than $310 \,\mu$Jy within this area. Applying the color–magnitude selection criteria (Section \[subsubsec:24mum\_color\_mag\]), we obtained two subsamples of 14822 and 7022 sources with $z_{\rm mean}=0.7$ and $z_{\rm
mean}=1.7$, respectively.
The angular correlation functions were estimated by the Landy & Szalay method ([[email protected]]) at angular scales $0.01<\theta<3.5$ deg.[^5] The random points used in this estimator were homogeneously distributed in the field but avoiding the excluded regions of the mask shown in Figure \[fig:24mum\_mask\_lh\]. In order to suppress the uncertainties related to a complex geometry of the field and to decrease the statistical errors, the number of simulated random points was 100 times greater than the number of data points in each sample. The correlation function was computed in angular bins $\Delta\log\theta=0.2$. In Figure \[fig:24mum\_wtheta\], we show the derived angular correlation functions for the whole sample (open black triangles), for the low-$z$ subsample with $z_{\rm mean}=0.7$ (open blue circles), and for high-$z$ subsample with $z_{\rm mean}=1.7$ (filled red circles).
Statistical uncertainties which can be assigned to angular correlation function $w(\theta)$ measured using the Landy & Szalay estimator are $\delta w(\theta)=1+w(\theta)/\!\!\sqrt{{\rm DD}(\theta)}$ [@1993ApJ...412...64L], where DD is the number of data pairs. However, it is considered that these uncertainties do not account for cosmic variance and covariance of the correlation function at different separations, and therefore, underestimate real errors. These difficulties might be overcome by applying, for instance, the jackknife subsampling of data [e.g., @2002ApJ...579...48S; @2002ApJ...571..172Z; @Waddington2007; @2007MNRAS.381..573R]. To calculate jackknife errors we divided the observed field into 25 approximately equal-sized patches and computed the correlation function excluding one part of our sample at one time. The ensemble errors are then estimated from the scatter between perturbed and full sample realizations: $$\sigma^2(\theta) = \sum_{i=1}^N\frac{{\rm DR}_i(\theta)}{{\rm DR}(\theta)}[w_i(\theta)-w(\theta)]^2,
\label{frm:jack_error}$$ where DR is the number of pairs between cross-correlated data and random catalogs, $i$ refers to a given sample realization, and ${\rm DR}_i/{\rm DR}$ accounts for a complex field geometry [@2005MNRAS.359..741M; @2007MNRAS.381..573R]. All quoted uncertainties are obtained by applying the jackknife subsampling technique to the data, except in Appendix \[sec:ang\_fun\_comparison\], where we compare the correlation functions from different catalogs and calculate errors $\delta w(\theta)$ (see above).
Because of the good statistics of the SWIRE sample and the large size of the Lockman Hole field, we are able to measure the clustering signal at angular scales which correspond to fairly large spatial scales. Indeed, comoving sizes of 1–8$h^{-1}\,$Mpc at $z=1.7$ correspond to an angular range of $0.017^{\circ}-0.13^{\circ}$. A great advantage of the measurements done at such large scales is that we directly probe the clustering signal at angular separations which correspond to the expected range of three-dimensional correlation lengths, $r_{0}$. This makes it possible to obtain robust estimates of $r_{0}$ from a standard power-law fit to the angular correlation function, $w(\theta)=(\theta/\theta_0)^{1-\gamma}$, and application of the simplified Limber equation (full version is given by Equation (\[frm:LE\_full\])) which gives a direct link between the angular and spatial correlation lengths: $$\theta_0^{\gamma-1} = r_0^{\gamma}\;A(\gamma){\displaystyle{\frac{2}{c}}}\;\frac{\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}dz\,N(z)^2\,H(z)D_{\rm M}(z)^{1-\gamma}}{\big[\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}dz\,N(z)\,\big]^2},
\label{frm:LE_power}$$ where $D_{\rm M}(z)$ is the transverse comoving distance to redshift $z$ and $N(z)$ is the redshift distribution of sample galaxies. $H(z)=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{\rm M}(1+z)^3+\Omega_{k}(1+z)^2+\Omega_{\Lambda}}$ is the Hubble parameter at redshift $z$ and $A(\gamma)=\Gamma(1/2)\,\Gamma([\gamma-1]/2)/\Gamma(\gamma/2)$. If the angular correlation function measurements at large scales are unavailable, a power-law fit to the data at small angular/spatial scales may lead to incorrect estimates of the correlation lengths and incorrect conclusions about clustering properties of given galaxy populations [e.g., @2004ApJ...609...35K; @Quadri2007; @Quadri2008 and references therein].
The angular correlation functions shown in Figure \[fig:24mum\_wtheta\] were iteratively fitted over the angular range $0.01^{\circ}<\theta<3.5^{\circ}$ with a power-law model, $w(\theta)=(\theta/\theta_0)^{1-\gamma} - {\rm IC}$, where the term IC refers to the Integral Constraint. The IC correction accounts for a systematic offset in estimated correlation function due to the finite size of any survey and it is usually calculated using a method proposed by [@1993MNRAS.263..360R]: $${\rm IC}=\theta_0^{\gamma}\,\frac{\sum_j{\rm RR}(\theta_j)\,\theta_j^{1-\gamma}}{\sum_j{\rm RR}(\theta_j)},
\label{frm:IC}$$ where ${\rm RR}(\theta_j)$ is the number of random pairs in an angular bin $j$.
The best-fit parameters for the entire sample are $\theta_0=0.31'' \pm 0.04''$, and $\gamma=1.69 \pm 0.11.$[^6] Splitting the whole sample into smaller subsamples obviously increases the statistical uncertainties. Therefore, we decided to fix the power-law slope in the subsequent analysis at $\gamma=1.69$. The best-fit amplitudes for the low-$z$ and high-$z$ data are then $\theta_0=0.63''
\pm 0.09''$ and $\theta_0=0.91'' \pm 0.21''$, respectively. These best-fit models are shown in Figure \[fig:24mum\_wtheta\] with blue and red dotted lines.
The spatial correlation lengths $r_0$ were then obtained from the Limber inversion (Equation (\[frm:LE\_power\])) using the fits to the empirical redshift distributions of GOODS survey sources, described in Section \[subsec:24mum\_redshift\_distribution\]. The derived correlation lengths are $r_0 = 4.98 \pm 0.28 \, h^{-1}\,$Mpc (comoving) for the low-$z$ ($z_{\rm mean}=0.7$), and $r_0 = 8.04 \pm 0.69 \, h^{-1}\,$Mpc for the high-$z$ ($z_{\rm mean}=1.7$) sample. Without using a fixed power-law slope, we obtain $r_{0}=5.07\pm0.34\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc, $\gamma=1.63\pm0.11$, and $r_{0}=7.99\pm0.75\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc, $\gamma=1.65\pm0.20$, for the low and high-$z$ subsamples, respectively.
The uncertainties above include only statistical errors in the measurement of the angular correlation function. In principle, another source of uncertainty is the inaccuracies in the models for the redshift distribution. These are hard to estimate in our case since we use an empirical fit to the $dN/dz$ observed for the GOODS sources and any inaccuracies would be related to problems with the GOODS photometric redshifts.[^7] The range of theoretical models for the redshift distribution of 24 sources provides a poor guidance because these models, still poorly constrained by observations, sometimes give contradictory results [@Desai2008; @photz2008; @Franceschini2010]. Qualitatively, if the real $dN/dz$ distribution for our sources is wider than what we assume, the correlation lengths should be corrected upward.
![Two-point angular correlation function of SWIRE Lockman Hole sources brighter than ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=310 \,\mu$Jy. The dotted lines are power-law fits. Triangles represent clustering of the whole sample, open and filled circles are for the low-$z$ and high-$z$ galaxies, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:24mum_wtheta"}](fig5.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
As a further check, we re-estimated the correlation lengths for our high-$z$ subsample using the redshift distribution of the 24 sources in the COSMOS field [@2007ApJS..172...86S; @2009ApJ...703..222L; @2009ApJ...690.1236I]. The COSMOS survey area is significantly larger than GOODS ($\approx$2 deg$^{2}$ versus $\approx$0.1 deg$^{2}$) and thus is more representative of our Lockman Hole region. Unfortunately, there are two problems which prevent us from using the COSMOS $dN/dz$ as our baseline model. First, the optical and near-IR data in the COSMOS field are shallower than those in GOODS, which can affect the $dN/dz$ distribution at high redshifts. Indeed, 7% of the COSMOS 24 sources with ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310\,\mu$Jy have no redshifts; this is $\approx$20% of the sources in our high-$z$ bin. Second, there is a significant overdensity of galaxies at $z\sim
1$ in the COSMOS field [@2010MNRAS.409..867D]. However, even with these problems in mind, using the COSMOS-derived $dN/dz$ for the estimates of $r_{0}$ from the Limber equation provides a useful test of sensitivity of our results to the assumed shape of the redshift distribution, possible cosmic variance in the GOODS field, etc. We applied the same color–magnitude criteria to the 24 COSMOS sources and approximated the redshift distribution for the high-$z$ bin using either a single-Gaussian model as we do for GOODS, or two-Gaussian model to better fit a component near $z\sim1$. We derive $r_{0}=7.90\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc and $8.23\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc for these two $dN/dz$ approximations, respectively; these values are to be compared with $r_{0}=8.04\pm0.69\,$Mpc we derive using the GOODS $dN/dz$. Therefore, this test confirms that the uncertainties in $r_{0}$ related to the redshift distribution of sources are small compared to the purely statistical uncertainties.
In what follows, we use the derived correlation lengths for the 24 selected galaxies for estimating the mass range of their host DM halos through the comparison of our measurements with the clustering properties of DM halos from the *Bolshoi* cosmological simulation [@Klypin2010].
Properties of dark matter halos hosting $24\,\mum$ selected galaxies {#sec:24mum_halo}
====================================================================
Galaxy Population Model {#subsec:galaxy_halo}
-----------------------
Several methods can be used to connect a population of galaxies with that of their host DM halos [see, e.g., @Guo2010 and references therein]. Here, we use the clustering properties, assuming that the mass scale of the DM halos hosting the galaxies can be established by requiring that the observed correlation function of galaxies selected above a luminosity threshold matches the correlation function of DM halos selected above a certain mass limit [@2004ApJ...609...35K; @Conroy2006] .
To compute the correlation function of the DM halos, we used the outputs of the *Bolshoi* cosmological simulation for redshifts ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 with a step size of $\Delta z=0.5$. The *Bolshoi* simulation, described in [@Klypin2010], is a high-resolution and large-volume run performed with the WMAP5 and WMAP7 cosmological parameters $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.27$, $h=0.7$, and $\sigma_{8}=0.82$ [@2009ApJS..180..330K; @2011ApJS..192...18K]. The simulation contained $2048^3 \approx 8$ billion DM particles in a $250\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc box. The corresponding mass and force resolutions are $m_{p}=1.35\times10^{8}\,h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ (one particle mass) and $1.0\,h^{-1}\,$kpc (the smallest cell size in physical coordinates), respectively. The simulation outputs were recorded at 180 time steps and were analyzed by the halo-finding algorithm [@Klypin1997; @2004ApJ...609...35K; @Klypin2010] to locate gravitationally bound objects and to calculate their characteristics such as the virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$, virial radius $R_{\rm vir}$, maximum circular velocity $v_{\rm max}$, etc. The identified halos are classified into distinct (host, parent) halos whose centers are not located within any larger virialized systems, and subhalos (satellites, substructure) which lie within the virial radius of a larger halo. The completeness limit for the halo catalogs derived from the *Bolshoi* outputs is $v_{\rm max}=50$ or $M_{\rm vir}\approx 1.5\times 10^{10}\,h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$.
As outlined in [@1999ApJ...520..437K], [@2005ApJ...618..557N], and [@Conroy2006], the maximum circular velocity, $v_{\rm max}$, of a DM halo, rather than its virial mass, is more closely related to the properties of a galaxy residing in this halo. Therefore, we “populated” the *Bolshoi* simulation with “galaxies" by putting the “galaxies" at the centers of all halos and subhalos selected above a given $\vmax$ threshold (this threshold value of $\vmax$ is referred to as hereafter). The considered range of is $130<\Vmin<385\,$. The lower velocity limit is chosen so that the correlation length for such DM halos is below the $r_{0}$ derived for our low-$z$ subsample of 24 galaxies. The high velocity limit is chosen to ensure that the statistics of DM halos is sufficiently good at all output redshifts of the *Bolshoi* simulation. We estimated the correlation lengths for the model galaxy populations by fitting their spatial correlation functions with a power law at scales $1<r<25\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc.
![Spatial correlation length of dark matter halos as a function of the maximum circular velocity threshold and redshift.[]{data-label="fig:r0_vmax_bolshoi"}](fig6.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Figure \[fig:r0\_vmax\_bolshoi\] shows the derived model correlation lengths for DM halos as a function of and redshift. Clearly, the $r_0$ significantly increases with $\Vmin$ (or mass) of the halos and also changes with redshift. These correlation lengths can be matched to the observed $r_{0}$ for our samples of 24 selected galaxies. The redshifts of the simulation outputs do not match exactly the mean redshifts of our galaxy samples, $z_{\rm mean}=0.7$ and $z_{\rm mean}=1.7$. However, the trend of the model $r_{0}$ with $z$ for a given is weak,[^8] and so we can linearly interpolate between the results for the outputs branching the mean redshifts in the data.
Halo Mass and Number Density {#subsec:galaxy_halo_II}
----------------------------
Using these data, each observed value of $r_{0}$ can be matched to the corresponding . The uncertainty intervals for our low- and high-$z$ subsamples, $r_0 = 4.98 \pm 0.28 \, h^{-1}\,$Mpc and $r_0 =
8.04 \pm 0.69 \, h^{-1}\,$Mpc, respectively, correspond to intervals of $\Vmin=172\pm18\,$ for low-$z$ $24\,\mum$ galaxies and $\Vmin=322\pm33\,$ for the high-$z$ subsample with $z_{\rm
mean}=1.7$.
These velocity thresholds can be easily converted to the corresponding virial mass limits, $M_{\rm vir}$, using a tight scaling, which approximately goes as $v_{\rm max}\propto M^{1/3}_{\rm vir}$ [e.g., @Klypin2010]. This relation is valid for both distinct halos and subhalos at different redshifts. Fitting the $\vmax-\Mvir$ relation for all halos and subhalos above $\vmax>130\,$ in the *Bolshoi* outputs, we obtain the following power-law scalings: $$\begin{aligned}
\log M_{\rm vir} = 4.60 + 3.25\,\log v_{\rm max}, & \text{for $z=0.5$}, \\
\log M_{\rm vir} = 4.69 + 3.13\,\log v_{\rm max}, & \text{for $z=1.5$},
\label{eq:mass_v_relation}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{\rm vir}$ is in units of $h^{-1}\,M_{\sun}$. These results can be scaled to the mean redshifts of our samples using the expected redshift evolution of the $\vmax-M_{\rm vir}$ relation, which goes as $M_{\rm vir}\propto
E(z)^{-1}$ for a fixed $\vmax$ [@Borgani2009], where $E(z)=H(z)/H_{0}$. Using these scalings, we find that the limiting total mass for the $24\,\mum$ emitting galaxies with $z_{\rm
mean}=0.7$ is $\Mtot=(0.7\pm0.2)\times10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\Msun$[^9] and $\Mtot=(3.1\pm1.0)\times10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\Msun$ for our high-$z$ sample.
Having this established mass scale, we can approximately estimate the fraction of massive DM halos containing 24 emitting galaxies, even though our sample is not volume-limited. The observed comoving number density of the galaxies near the mean redshift of the sample can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\rm gal} = \frac{dN/dz}{dV/dz} = 1.1\times10^{-3}\,h^3\,{\rm
Mpc^{-3}}, & \text{$z_{\rm mean}=0.7$}, \\
n_{\rm gal} = 0.12\times10^{-3} \, h^3\,{\rm Mpc^{-3}}, & \text{$z_{\rm mean}=1.7$},
\label{frm:24mum_number_density}\end{aligned}$$ where $dV/dz$ is the comoving volume within the survey area. These values are compared with the number density of halos in the *Bolshoi* outputs above the derived $\Vmin$ thresholds. For $z=0.5$, $\vmax>172\,$, we find $n_{\rm halo}= 5.0\times10^{-3} \,
h^3\,{\rm Mpc^{-3}}$, or $n_{\rm halo}\approx5\,n_{\rm gal}$. For $z=1.5$, $\vmax>322\,$, the corresponding number densities are $n_{\rm halo}= 0.48\times10^{-3} \, h^3\,{\rm Mpc^{-3}}$ or $n_{\rm
halo}\approx4\,n_{\rm gal}$.[^10] Therefore, we find that similar fractions, $\sim 20\%$, of DM halos contain galaxies with ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310\,\mu$Jy at both low and high redshifts. This may be simply a coincidence since the mass and 24 luminosity scales for the two samples are quite different and so we cannot separate the luminosity and redshift dependences.
Full Limber Modeling of the Observed Angular Correlation Function {#subsec:galaxy_halo_III}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we test that our analysis based on the power-law approximation of the observed angular correlation functions provides unbiased answers even though the correlation function of DM halos shows clear deviations from the power law at both small and large scales [@2004ApJ...609...35K; @Springel2005]. For this, we compute a full projection of the two-point spatial correlation function of the *Bolshoi* DM halos for $\vmax>172\,$ at $z=0.5$ and $\vmax>322\,$ at $z=1.5$.[^11] The spatial correlation functions, $\xi(r)$, for the halos were calculated at scales $0<r<50 \, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$ in narrow, $\Delta\log r=0.1 \, h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}$, bins, and then were used in the full Limber ([[email protected]]) transformation: $$w(\theta) = {\displaystyle{\frac{2}{c}}}\;\frac{\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}dz\,N(z)^2\,H(z)\int\limits_{0}^{\pi_{\rm max}}d\pi\,\xi\left(\!\sqrt{[D_{\rm M}(z)\theta]^2+\pi^2}\right)}{\big[\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}dz\,N(z)\,\big]^2},
\label{frm:LE_full}$$ where the functions are the same as in Equation (\[frm:LE\_power\]), and $\xi(r)=\xi\left(\!\sqrt{[D_{\rm M}(z)\theta]^2+\pi^2}\right)$ is the three-dimensional correlation function under approximation of small angles ($\theta\ll1$ \[rad\]), $\pi$ is the radial separation. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:24mum\_wtheta\_linversion\]. The blue and red data points (open and filled circles, respectively) show the observed angular correlation functions for the low-$z$ and high-$z$ samples (same as those in Figure \[fig:24mum\_wtheta\]), and the lines are the full projections of the halo correlation functions for the best fit values of .
![Observed two-point angular correlation function for low-$z$ (open circles) and high-$z$ (filled circles) samples of the $24\,\mum$ selected galaxies. The dashed and solid lines are the angular correlation function models derived from the full Limber inversion of spatial correlation functions of DM halos with maximum circular velocities greater than $V_{\rm min}=172\,\,{\rm km
\,\, s^{-1}}$ and $V_{\rm min}=322 \,\,{\rm km \,\, s^{-1}}$.[]{data-label="fig:24mum_wtheta_linversion"}](fig7.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Clearly, the full models fit the data points very well, confirming that the power-law approximation to the observed $w(\theta)$ yields accurate estimates of the spatial correlation lengths, $r_0$, and thus accurate mass scales for the DM halos hosting the 24selected galaxies. At $\theta>0.2$ deg we observed a decline of the observed correlation functions relative to the power-law approximations, and this could be related to the behavior of the DM halos correlation function at large scales [e.g., @Springel2005 and model curves in Figure \[fig:24mum\_wtheta\_linversion\]] .
At the opposite end, $\theta<0.01$ deg, the models show enhancements in the clustering signal relative to the power-law extrapolation from large radii. These enhancements correspond to the correlation function of galaxies located within a single parent halo [the so-called “one-halo” term, @2002PhR...372....1C; @2004ApJ...609...35K]. The measurements of the correlation function at these scales are very interesting because they can be used to determine the location of galaxies in the host DM halos, and thus to constrain their recent merger history [e.g. @Porciani2002; @2006ApJ...642...63L; @Quadri2008; @Cooray2010]. Unfortunately, the broad PSF of the MIPS instrument does not allow us to make reliable measurements of the clustering of 24 sources at such small scales (see discussion in Appendix \[sec:ang\_fun\_comparison\]).
Comparison with previous measurements {#sec:24mum_comparison}
=====================================
It is important to compare our measurements with the previous studies of the clustering properties of $24\mum$ selected galaxies. In doing so, we should keep in mind that direct comparisons with other studies are difficult because of a wide variety of criteria used for selecting high-redshift sources. The comparison presented below is done in terms of the correlation lengths. We do not compare the derived halo masses because their estimates depend on the assumptions on the cosmological parameters, power spectrum, and halo occupation models [e.g., @2008ApJ...679.1192C], and even the definition used (e.g., threshold versus mean mass for a population).
We start with low-redshift ($z<1$) samples selected in small areas. [@Gilli2007] presented the correlation function measurements of the ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>20\,\mu$Jy galaxies with the mean $z\sim0.8$, detected in the GOODS fields. They found that the correlation length increases with the infrared luminosity, reaching for LIRGs ($L_{\rm
IR}>10^{11}L_{\sun}$) a level of $r_0=5.14\pm0.76\,h^{-1}$Mpc. Our estimate of $r_0$ for the low-*z* subsample ($z_{\rm
mean}=0.7$) is almost identical to this value. Another study, focused on the bright $24\mum$ emitting galaxies, was performed by [@Magliocchetti2008]. The galaxies brighter than ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=400\,\mu$Jy detected in the SWIRE XMM-LSS field ($0.7 {\rm
deg}^2$ used in the analysis) were divided into low-redshift (350 sources at $z_{\rm mean}=0.79$) and high-redshift (210 objects at $z_{\rm mean}=2.02$) subsamples based on photometric redshifts. The samples are thus comparable to those selected in our work. The derived correlation lengths were $5.9^{+1.1}_{-1.3}\,h^{-1}$Mpc and $11.1^{+2.0}_{-2.4}\,h^{-1}$Mpc for the low and high-$z$ subsamples, respectively. Within uncertainties, these results are in a reasonable agreement with our measurements. However, our sample contains a much larger number of sources and covers a wider area, so we were able to measure the angular correlation function at larger scales [probing directly the “two-halo” term, e.g., @2002PhR...372....1C] and significantly reduce the statistical uncertainties.
Several studies were focused on distant ULIRGs ($z\sim2$) but they used selection criteria in addition to $24\mum$ flux [@Farrah2006; @2007MNRAS.375.1121M; @Brodwin2008], therefore their and our results should be compared with caution. For example, [@Farrah2006] used a sample of the ULIRGs with ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>400\,\mu$Jy which also had a spectral peak in the $4.5\mum$ and $5.8\mum$ IRAC bands, corresponding to the redshifted stellar $1.6\mum$ peak. The $4.5\mum$ peak sources were estimated to be at $1.5<z<2.0$; their derived correlation length was $r_0=9.40\pm2.24\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc. The $5.8\mum$ peak sources are at $2<z<3$ and their angular clustering corresponded to the correlation length of $r_0=14.40\pm1.99\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc. The Farrah et al. $r_0$ for the 24+4.5 peak sample is higher than (but consistent within the errors) our value for the high-$z$ sample. We note that their results are dominated by the angular clustering measurements at small scales, and thus can be biased if one uses a power-law fit for the angular correlation function [@2004ApJ...609...35K; @Quadri2007]. In another work, a sample of dust obscured galaxies was selected. DOGs are mid-IR luminous (${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>300\,\mu$Jy) and optically faint ($R-[24]>14$) galaxies estimated to be at $z\sim 2$. Their measured correlation length is $7.4^{+1.27}_{-0.84}\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc [@Brodwin2008], similar to our value.
Models of galaxy formation suggest that DOGs and submillimeter galaxies [“SMGs”; @2002PhR...369..111B] form by mergers of massive ($M_{\rm
tot}\sim10^{12-13}\,h^{-1}M_{\odot}$) galaxies [see @2010MNRAS.407.1701N and references therein] and may represent different phases in the evolution of a merging system. It would be interesting to compare the clustering of SMGs and other classes of ULIRGs, but, unfortunately, the present estimates of the SMG correlation length is too uncertain . The best available measurements for submillimeter sources with redshifts close to our high-$z$ subsample have been presented in [@Cooray2010]. The authors reported a clustering strength of $r_0=3.15\pm0.35\,h^{-1}$Mpc and $r_0=4.41\pm0.49\,h^{-1}$Mpc for the HerMes-*Herschel* sources detected down to the 30 mJy at $250\mum$ and $500\mum$. The mean redshift of the samples are $z_{\rm mean}^{250}\approx2.1$ and $z_{\rm mean}^{500}\approx2.6$. It is unlikely that these sources are directly related to our $24\mum$ selected galaxies because of very different values of the inferred correlation lengths.
Conclusions
===========
We presented an analysis of the clustering properties of $24\mum$ emitting (${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310\,\mu$Jy) galaxies detected in Lockman Hole—one of the largest fields in the *Spitzer*/SWIRE survey. The large number of sources ($\sim 20,000$) and the size of the field allowed us to detect the clustering signal with high level of significance and probe large angular scales. Due to the lack of direct redshift measurements for the objects in the Lockman Hole sample, we used the optical and near-IR photometric data to separate the sample into high-redshift and low-redshift galaxies. The selection criteria as well as the redshift distributions for color-separated subsamples were empirically established using the catalogs of GOODS $24\mum$ sources [@Rodighiero2009], whose redshifts were measured spectroscopically or estimated from multiband photometry. Using a power-law approximation to the correlation function, we derived the spatial correlation length $r_0$. We found $r_0
= 4.98 \pm 0.28\, h^{-1}\,$Mpc and $r_0 =8.04 \pm 0.69 \,
h^{-1}\,$Mpc for $z_{\rm mean}=0.7$ and $z_{\rm mean}=1.7$ populations, respectively. The estimated infrared luminosities showed that our $24\mum$ selected galaxies belong to populations of distant ULIRGs and local LIRGs. Based on the clustering analysis, we can conclude that our $24\mum$ selected galaxies represent different populations of objects found in differently sized DM halos, $\Mtot\gtrsim7\times10^{11}\,h^{-1}\,\Msun$ and $\Mtot\gtrsim3\times10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\Msun$ at low and high redshifts, respectively. In each case, the $24\mum$ selected galaxies populate $\sim20\%$ of the halos at these mass thresholds. Their high level of mid-IR luminosities may be caused by similar physical processes (e.g., triggered by mergers or interactions), but occurring in different environments. Further information can be obtained by studying in detail the dependence of clustering properties on the IR luminosity at each redshift.
We are grateful to A. Klypin for letting us use the outputs of the *Bolshoi* cosmological simulations. We thank C. Jones for careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments. S.S. was supported by the Smithsonian Grand Challenges Consortia.
*Facility:* *Spitzer*\
Below, we present a study of stability of the correlation function measurements for $24\mum$ sources through comparison of different source catalogs in the SWIRE fields. In particular, we use four largest SWIRE fields (Lockman Hole, ELAIS-N1, ELAIS-N2, CDFS) and three catalogs - two versions of the SWIRE team catalogs (produced in 2005 and 2010, respectively) and our own list of sources extracted from *Spitzer*-MIPS maps using the wavelet decomposition method [@Vikhlinin1998].
Catalogs of $24 \mum$ Sources {#sec:24mum_sample}
=============================
The first data set we used is publicly available catalogs from the SWIRE Data Release 2 (version 2005).[^12] These catalogs consist of the optical, IRAC, and MIPS 24 information merged into a single table for sources detected in the IRAC 3.6 and 4.5 bands above pre-defined SNR thresholds. Source detection in the MIPS data was carried out using *SExtractor* . The estimated completeness threshold is $\sim 400\,\mu$Jy in all fields. For the clustering analysis, we selected all $24\,\mum$ sources above this flux threshold. To eliminate Galactic stars (see Section \[subsubsec:star\_gal\_sep\]), we cross-correlated this set of 24 sources with the objects in the 2MASS survey using a matching radius of $2.5''$. Hereinafter, we refer to these source catalogs (with stars eliminated) as the “2005-catalog" or “v.2005".
The second set of catalogs is based on the SWIRE Final Data Release (J. A. Surace et al. in preparation), a re-reduction of both the IRAC and MIPS datasets reaching a fainter flux limit. Ancillary multi-wavelength photometry from the FUV to the NIR was compiled for sources detected at either $3.6\,\mum$ or $4.5\,\mum$ into the so-called Data Fusion (M. Vaccari et al., in preparation). For the IRAC images, the source detection was again done using *SExtractor*, while the *MOPEX*/*APEX* package [@2005PASP..117.1113M] was used for MIPS data. The *MOPEX*/*APEX* package was specifically optimized for detection of point-like sources in crowded fields, and its application results in a significant improvement in the completeness limit for MIPS data, which can be as low as $\sim 200\,\mu$Jy (see below). The completeness of the IRAC detections was also improved compared to the previous data release. The initial IRAC source was associated with the data from other catalogs (e.g., the 2MASS PSC) using a matching radius of $2.5''$. In order to avoid source confusion and false identification in the $24\,\mum$ band, Vaccari et al. matched $24\,\mum$ and IRAC sources within the same radius of $2.5''$. For our analysis, we used all these $24\,\mum$ sources, and the selected sample is referred to as the “2010-catalogs" or “v.2010".
Another significant difference between the 2005- and 2010-catalogs is in the methods of flux measurements for the MIPS sources. The 2005 data release used the aperture photometry with a set of apertures $7.5''-15''$ radius, which contained $60\%-85\%$ of the total flux, and applying suitable aperture corrections as determined by the MIPS instrument team. The *MOPEX*/*APEX* package yields the total fluxes provided by the PSF fitting. This is significant in our case because the aperture and PSF fitting photometry have different problems in dealing with the close source pairs, which can produce different results for the small-scale clustering.
Because, as we show below, neither the 2010- nor 2005- catalogs are completely free of problems, we produced our own list of MIPS-detected sources (see Section \[subsec:wavelet\] for details). This third data set is referred to as the “A1-catalog" below.
All $24 \mum$-IRAC catalogs were cross correlated with the 2MASS survey [@Skrutskie2006] in order to identify and remove foreground stars using [@Shupe2008] criterion and to built region masks (Section \[subsubsec:mask\_construction\]). It appeared that in general Galactic stars comprise $\sim 2\%$ to the total number of sources detected in the $24\mum$-IRAC bands of SWIRE images.
Limiting Fluxes for Individual Catalogs {#sec:flux_limits}
=======================================
For a proper comparison of the angular correlation function between different versions of the source catalogs and different fields, we have to make sure that the sources are selected above a flux which exceeds a completeness limit for each field/catalog. Ideally, a completeness limit is a flux threshold above which (nearly) all real sources are detected and into which (almost) no fainter sources migrate. The exact completeness limit for the MIPS/SWIRE data can be established only through Monte Carlo simulations [e.g., @Shupe2008]. However, we can apply a useful empirical criterion and identify the sensitivity limit with a point of maximum in the differential $\log N$ – $\log S$ distribution observed for each field/catalog.
In Figure \[fig:flux\_all\], we show the number of sources per square degree and the logarithmic flux bin contained in the 2010-catalogs for different SWIRE fields. The maxima in the differential $\log N$ – $\log S$ distribution in all cases are achieved near a flux of $\sim
200\,\mu$Jy. However, there are clear differences in the number counts of faint sources up to a flux limit of ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}\sim
350\,\mu$Jy. This probably indicates a flux measurement uncertainty of $\sim 100\,\mu$Jy, which may explain also why the drop in the differential $\log N$ – $\log S$ distribution below the point of maximum is not sharp but extends to $\sim 100\,\mu$Jy. Therefore, based on examination of the $\log N$ – $\log S$ distributions, the correlation functions for the 2010-catalog in different SWIRE fields should be compared for sources brighter than $350\,\mu$Jy.
\[fig:flux\_lh\_three\]
[ccc]{}
&$S^{2010}=180$&\
Lockman Hole&$S^{2005}=400$&$8.7$\
&$S^{\rm A1}=310$&\
ELAIS-N1&$160$&$7.1$\
ELAIS-N2&$170$&$3.3$\
CDFS&$180$&$6.2$\
ELAIS-S&$S^{\rm A1}=400$&6.3
In Figure \[fig:flux\_lh\_three\], we show the source counts for the three different catalogs in the Lockman Hole field. There is a striking difference in the sensitivity limits between the 2005 and 2010 versions of the SWIRE team catalogs—the maxima in the differential $\log N$ – $\log S$ distributions are at ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=400$ and $180\,\mu$Jy, respectively. The sensitivity limit for the A1-catalog is between these two values, at $\approx 310\,\mu$Jy. Note that the drop in number counts below the maximum is very sharp for the A1-catalog, indicating a high level of reliability for the flux measurements. Even though the $\log N$ – $\log S$ for the 2010-catalog extends further down, the flux region ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}\lesssim350\,\mu$Jy in this catalog might be affected by the scatter in the source flux measurements, as we have just discussed.
The sensitivity limits (the points of maxima in the differential $\log
N$ – $\log S$ distribution) for different fields and catalogs are reported in Table \[tab:fields\_fluxes\] together with the field areas after applying the stellar mask (see discussion in Section \[subsubsec:mask\_construction\]). Below, we compare the angular correlation function computed for different fields/catalogs taking into account these sensitivity limits.
Comparison of the Angular Correlation Functions {#sec:ang_fun_comparison}
===============================================
\[fig:w\_LH\_2005\_vs\_2010\]
We start with a comparison of the angular correlation functions, $w(\theta)$, computed for different SWIRE fields using the 2010-catalog. As discussed above, we use a flux threshold of $350\,\mu$Jy. This is the flux above which the $\log N - \log S$ distributions agree among different fields (Figure \[fig:flux\_all\]), and it is higher than the formal sensitivity limit for the 2010-catalogs. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:w\_all\_300\] (left). Reassuringly, there is an excellent agreement between the results in different fields. At the largest separations, $\sim 1^{\circ}$ and above, the angular correlation function becomes consistent with zero, but one might expect distortions at such large scales because they are comparable to the size of the fields we are using. More relevant to our analysis are the obvious problems at small scales. There is a drop in the correlation signal at $0.003^{\circ}<\theta<0.01^{\circ}$, and a strong positive signal located in a single bin at $\theta\sim 0.003^{\circ}$. As we discuss below, these distortions are probably related to blending of nearby sources due to a relatively large size of the MIPS PSF.
Next, we compare the correlation functions for the 2005- and 2010-catalogs above the sensitivity limit for v.2005 ($400\,\mu$Jy). The results for the Lockman Hole field are shown in Figure \[fig:w\_LH\_2005\_vs\_2010\] (right). There is a good agreement at large scales ($\theta\gtrsim0.02^{\circ}$) but a strong difference at small scales. While there is a drop in the correlation signal at $0.003^{\circ}<\theta<0.01^{\circ}$ for the 2010-catalog sources, there is a strong excess correlation in the same angular range for the v.2005 sources. The origin of the discrepancy is probably not because some real pairs at separations of $\sim 30''$ are missing from the 2010-catalog—it is highly unlikely that this, more sensitive source list would miss *any* sources brighter that $400\,\mu$Jy. Rather, we suggest that some of these close pairs arise spuriously in the 2005-catalog because high fluxes are erroneously assigned to some faint sources in the vicinity of bright ones [see also @Surace2005].
{width="0.49\linewidth"} \[0pt\]\[0pt\][{height="0.4\linewidth"}]{}
Next, we compare the results for the Lockman Hole field using the sources from the 2010- and A1-catalogs above a flux threshold of ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=310\,\mu$Jy, the sensitivity limit of the A1- catalog. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:w\_lh\_2010\_a1\] (left). The measurements are nearly identical at scales $\theta>0.01^{\circ}$, but the A1 correlation function shows somewhat weaker small-scale distortions. This impression is confirmed by cross-examination of the source detections from both catalogs overlayed on the input MIPS image (Figure \[fig:w\_lh\_2010\_a1\] (right)). Most sources are found in both catalogs. There are a small number of real sources contained in one catalog but not the other (examples are marked by blue arrows) but this is not surprising because the source fluxes are derived using different methods and so we can expect some “migration” across the flux threshold. However, there are some cases (marked by yellow arrows) where obviously spurious sources are identified in the 2010-catalog in the vicinity of bright or extended sources. We believe that these detections are responsible for stronger small-scale distortions seen in the v.2010 correlation function.
It is clear from the comparisons above that there is a good agreement in the correlation functions at larger scales, $\theta>0.01^{\circ}$, when we compare the data for different fields and catalogs above a common sensitivity threshold. The differences are localized to small scales and are generally trackable to problems related to blending of sources in the MIPS images because of a relatively poor angular resolution of this instrument. These problems are not surprising. The MIPS PSF has an FWHM of $\approx 6''$ and so the sources become resolvable only when they are separated by $\sim 10''\approx
0.003^{\circ}$. The MIPS PSF has wide wings—nearly 30% of the source flux is scattered outside the $8''$ (radius) aperture. Therefore, there should be a substantial “cross-talk” in the flux measurements for sources separated by $\sim 15''$ (and up to $30''$ depending on a source extraction algorithm). In any case, it appears that the angular correlation function measurements for the MIPS 24 sources are not reliable at $\theta<0.01^{\circ}$, and it is best to restrict the analysis to larger scales. This is not a problem since our main goal is to measure the correlation length and the mass scale for the DM halos hosting the 24 sources, as these parameters are mainly constrained by the angular correlation observed near $\theta=0.1^{\circ}$ (Section \[sec:24mum\_wtheta\]). However, it would be interesting to put constrains on the location of star-forming galaxies within their DM halos, which is determined by the shape of the correlation function at small scales [e.g., @2002PhR...372....1C; @2004ApJ...609...35K] and thus is not accessible for us.
{width="0.49\linewidth"} \[0pt\]\[0pt\][{height="0.4\linewidth"}]{}
Even though the A1-catalog appears to perform better for the smallest separations above its flux threshold, ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=310\,\mu$Jy, the difference is rather small. The 2010-catalog, on the other hand, extends to significantly fainter fluxes, and so the question is, can we use these fainter sources to improve the statistics in the correlation function measurements? The comparison of the angular correlation function measurements in the Lockman Hole field for the A1- and 2010-catalogs above their respective flux limits of 310 and $180\,\mu$Jy is shown in Figure \[fig:w\_lh\_2010\_a1\_faint\] (left). Unfortunately, there are systematic deviations for the 2010 sources at angular scales $0.2^{\circ}-0.5^{\circ}$ (recall that the results for the two catalogs were an excellent agreement for a common flux threshold of $310\,\mu$Jy, see Figure \[fig:w\_lh\_2010\_a1\]). The difference on these scales cannot be attributed to the edge effects—the size of the MIPS field in the Lockman Hole region is $\sim4.6\times1.9$ deg. Rather, we believe that this difference can be traced to how the large-scale structures in the MIPS background affect the flux measurements for fainter sources in the 2010-catalog. Examination of the MIPS image shows that, indeed, for a significant number of sources (some marked by yellow arrows in Figure \[fig:w\_lh\_2010\_a1\_faint\] (right)), the flux above $180\,\mu$Jy is assigned spuriously, and many such sources appear on top of larger-scale background structures. These are likely *real* sources because by construction of the 2010-catalog, they have IRAC counterparts. It is also possible that these sources are suitable for measurements of the luminosity function or similar studies because an approximately equal number of objects “migrate” below $180\,\mu$Jy in those regions with the negative residual background. However, for clustering studies, these sources can not be used because they arise on top of spatially correlated structures and thus can distort the angular correlation function at intermediate scales.
As a final test, we compare the A1-based angular correlation functions for the Lockman Hole and ELAIS-S1 field (Figure \[fig:w\_a1\_lh\_es1\]). The limiting flux for the A1-catalog in the ELAIS-S1 field is ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}=400\,\mu$Jy. At all angular scales, the correlation function computed for sources above this threshold in the ELAIS-S1 field is in excellent agreement with that for the Lockman Hole field and ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}>310\,\mu$Jy.
In summary, using our own, completely independent source detection algorithm we reproduced the $\log N$ – $\log S$ at ${\ensuremath{S_{24\mum}}}\gtrsim300\mu$Jy and angular correlation function results at scales $\theta>0.01^{\circ}$ obtained for the 2010-catalog. The main analysis presented in this paper will lead to nearly identical results using either the 2010- or our A1-catalogs of the 24 sources. The most significant differences in the measured $w(\theta)$ are localized to $\theta<0.01^{\circ}$. They can be traced to different treatment of very crowded regions and zones in the immediate vicinity of bright sources, where our detection pipeline performs slightly better (Figure \[fig:w\_lh\_2010\_a1\]). On the basis of these considerations, we choose our A1-catalog in Lockman Hole to investigate clustering of $24\,\mum$ selected galaxies (Section \[sec:24mum\_wtheta\]).
[^1]: $L_{\rm
IR}=\int_{8\mum}^{1000\mum}L_{\lambda}d\lambda$, [@Sanders1996]
[^2]: The calibration of the false detection rate was described in @1995ApJ...451..553V, and was done assuming uncorrelated Gaussian or Poisson noise in the image pixels. The noise properties in the SWIRE images are more complex but the above value is still a good order-of-magnitude estimate of the false-positive rate in our 24 sample.
[^3]: We note, however, that the star removal is not a crucial component of our analysis since the contamination of near- to mid-IR galaxy samples by foreground stars is a severe problem only at fluxes of brighter than several mJy.
[^4]: The boundary was chosen near the minimum of the bimodal redshift distribution predicted by the Franceschini et al. ([-@Franceschini2010]) model.
[^5]: These angular sizes correspond to the comoving separations 0.12–43, 0.31–109, 0.50–174, and 0.78-272 $h^{-1}\,$Mpc at $z=0.25$, $0.7$, 1.3, and 2.8, respectively (cf. Figure \[fig:24mum\_nz\_all\]).
[^6]: The uncertainties include the covariance of the parameters.
[^7]: We are unaware of such problems, and in any case, their discussion is beyond the scope of our work.
[^8]: Note that $r_{0}$ as a function of *mass* does evolve with redshift, as expected. However, this evolution appears to be canceled by the evolution in the $M-\vmax$ relation and the trend of $r_{0}$ with $M$ at a given redshift.
[^9]: For reference, the Milky Way dark matter halo is estimated to have $\vmax=201\,$ and $\Mtot\sim1.4\times10^{12}\,h^{-1}\,\Msun$ [e.g., @Guo2010].
[^10]: The halo number densities at the mean redshifts of our samples were determined by the interpolation using the closest output redshifts of the *Bolshoi* simulation.
[^11]: Note that in calculating the projected models, we neglected the redshift evolution of the DM halo correlation function within the redshift intervals covered by the data. As is clear from Figure \[fig:r0\_vmax\_bolshoi\], the change in the clustering length at our thresholds is comparable to the statistical uncertainties for the $r_{0}$ measurements, so this assumption is justified.
[^12]: Available at <http://swire.ipac.caltech.edu/swire>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the semigroup of real linear fractional transformations on a proper subinterval of the real line does not admit any 2-generator dense subsemigroups, and then we construct a 3-parameter family of examples of 3-generator dense subsemigroups. We also construct an explicit example of a 2-generator dense subsemigroup of $2\times 2$ real matrices. In the complex case, we prove the existence of uncountably many 2-generator dense subsemigroups.'
author:
- |
Mohammad Javaheri\
300 Summit Street\
Department of Mathematics\
Trinity College\
Hartford, CT 06106\
title: 'Dense 2-generator subsemigroups of $2\times 2$ matrices '
---
Introduction
============
Let $\cal{F}$ denote the set of real linear fractional transformations from $(0,\infty)$ into $(0,\infty)$ i.e., maps of the form $$f(x)=\frac{ax+b}{cx+d}~;~~a,b,c,d \geq 0~\mbox{and}~ad-bc \neq 0.$$ The semigroup $\cal{F}$ (under the composition of functions) is isometric to the semigroup of $2 \times 2$ invertible matrices with nonnegative entries modulo (nonzero) scalar multiplication. A sequence $f_i \in {\cal{F}}$, $i \in \mathbb{N}$, is said to be convergent to $f \in {\cal {F}}$ if for every $x>0$, we have $f_i(x) \rightarrow f(x)$ as $i \rightarrow \infty$.
In [@MJ1], we found all pairs in $\cal F$ that generate a topologically transitive semigroup on $(0,\infty)$ i.e., pairs $f,g \in {\cal F}$ so that the orbit of (almost) every $x>0$ under the action of the semigroup generated by $f$ and $g$ is dense in $(0,\infty)$. In this paper, we are interested in finding minimally generated dense subsemigroups of $\cal F$. It turns out that we need at least three elements in $\cal F$ to generate a dense subsemigroup of $\cal F$, and we present a three-parameter family of examples of 3-generator dense subsemigroups of $\cal F$ (see Theorem \[denselft\]).
A subgroup of $SL(2,C)$, the group of complex $2\times 2$ matrices with determinant 1, is called elementary if the commutator of every two elements of infinite order in the subgroup has trace 2. Also, a subgroup of $SL(2,C)$ is called discrete if no sequence of distinct elements in the subgroup converges. Jørgensen [@Jorg] studied the non-elementary subgroups of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$, and showed that a non-elementary subgroup is discrete if and only if each of its subgroups generated by two elements is discrete. In the real case, a subgroup of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ is discrete if and only if each subgroup generated by one element is discrete. Jørgensen also proved that every dense subgroup of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ has a dense subgroup generated by two elements. We asked the following question in [@MJ2] regarding the dense subsemigroups of $n \times n$ matrices.\
\
**Problem**. *What is the least number of generators that can generate a dense subsemigroup of the set of $n\times n$ matrices?*\
\
The semigroup generated by only one matrix can never be dense or even have a dense orbit (this can be seen by looking at the Jordan normal form of the matrix; see [@K; @Rol]). In this paper, we will answer this question for $n=2$: we construct an explicit example of a 2-generator dense subsemigroup of $2\times 2$ real matrices (see Example \[exr\]). In the complex case, we prove the existence of uncountably many 2-generator dense subsemigroups (see Example \[exc2\]). We also show that the semigroup of $2\times 2$ matrices with nonnegative entries does not have any 2-generator dense subsemigroup, however it has 3-generator dense subsemigroups.
Although there is a lot of literature on dense subgroups in a variety of settings, dense subsemigroups, on the other hand, have rarely been studied. One might argue that it is more natural to seek dense subsemigroups instead of dense subgroups, since the semigroup structure is more natural than the group structure. One hopes that many of the results on dense subgroups can be improved to existence results on dense subsemigroups. Below, we mention two examples.
X. Wang [@xia] has shown that every dense subgroup of the group of orientation preserving Möbius transformations on $S^n$ has a dense subgroup that is generated by at most $n$ elements, $n\geq 2$. A similar statement about the group $U(n,1)$ was obtained by W. Cao [@cao]. In both settings, one could ask for minimally generated dense subsemigroups.
Here is how this paper is organized. In Section 2, we study dense subsemigroups of $\cal F$. In Section 3, we will give a geometric description of the orbit of a given point in $(0,\infty)^2$ under the action of a pair of LFT’s. In Sections 4 and 5, we study dense subsemigroups of $2\times 2$ matrices in real and complex cases.
Dense subsemigroups of $\cal F$
===============================
In this section, we show that there are no 2-generator dense subsemigroups of $\cal F$, and then we construct a 3-parameter family of examples of 3-generator dense subsemigroups. The proper interval of reals under consideration is $(0,\infty)$; however, using a conjugation by a linear fractional map, the results in this section are valid on any proper subinterval of reals. Given a pair of functions $f,g \in {\cal F}$ and $x>0$, the orbit of $x$ under the action of $\langle f, g \rangle$ (the semigroup generated by $f$ and $g$) is given by $$\left \{f^{\alpha_1}g^{\beta_1}\ldots f^{\alpha_k}g^{\beta_k}(x): \forall i\, \alpha_i,\beta_i\geq0, k \geq 0 \right \}.$$ The induced action of $f\in {\cal F}$ on $(0,\infty)^2$ is defined by $$f(x,y)=(f(x),f(y)).$$ We use the same character to denote $f \in {\cal F}$ and its induced action on $(0,\infty)^2$. The conjugation $\theta: (0,\infty) \rightarrow (0,1)$, defined by $\theta(x)=1/(x+1)$, gives a one-to-one correspondence between LFT’s from $[0,1]$ to $[0,1]$ and $\cal F$. In particular if $\langle f, g \rangle$ is dense in $\cal F$, then $\langle \hat f, \hat g \rangle$ is also dense in the set of LFT’s from $[0,1]$ to $[0,1]$, where $\hat f= \theta f \theta^{-1}$ and $\hat g=\theta g \theta^{-1}$.
We prove that there are no 2-generator dense subsemigroups in $\cal F$ by contradiction. Suppose that $\langle f, g\rangle$ is dense in $\cal F$. Then $\langle f, g \rangle$ must have dense orbits in $(0,\infty)$, and so, by the results in [@MJ1], one of the following occurs (up to order and a conjugation by a map of the form $ux^v$ with $u>0$ and $v\in \{1,-1\}$).
- - $a,b\geq 1$, $c\geq 0$, $b>1$ if $c=0$, and $$f(x)={x \over {x+a}}~,~g(x)=bx+c~.$$
- $a,b>1$, $\ln a / \ln b$ is irrational, and $$f(x)={x \over a}~,~g(x)=bx~.$$
- - $0\leq c\leq 1$, $a>0$, $b \geq 1$, $b>1$ if $c=0$, and $$f(x)={a \over {x+a}}~,~g(x)=bx+c~.$$
- $a,b\geq 1$ and $$f(x)={a \over x}~,~g(x)=bx+1~.$$
- $0\leq c \leq 1$, $a>0$, $b\geq 1$, $ab \leq 1$ if $c=0$, and $$f(x)={a \over {x+a}}~,~g(x)=c+{{ab} \over x}~.$$
In case I, $f$ and $g$ are both increasing, and so the entire semigroup $\langle f, g \rangle$ is comprised of increasing maps. In particular, the induced action of $\langle f, g\rangle$ on $(0,\infty)^2$ preserves the regions $\{(x,y): 0\leq x\leq y\}$ and $\{(x,y): x \geq y \geq 0\}$. It follows that in cases I, the action of $\langle f, g\rangle$ on $(0,\infty)^2$ has no dense orbits, and the semigroup $\langle f, g \rangle$ is not dense in $\cal F$. A similar argument eliminates case III.
Next, we eliminate the sub-case (ii) of case II, where $f(x)=a/x$ and $g(x)=bx+1$. By conjugating these maps with $\theta(x)=1/(x+1)$, we get $\hat f(x)=(1-x)/(ax-x+1)$ and $\hat g(x)=x/(2x-bx+b)$ on $[0,1]$. Since $$\rm{Im}(\hat g)=[0,1/2]~,~\rm{Im}(\hat f \hat g)=[1/(a+1),1],$$ and $(\hat f)^2=Id$ (the identity map), for every $(x,y) \in [0,1]^2$ and $\hat h \in \langle \hat f, \hat g \rangle$ with $\hat h \neq \hat f, Id $, we have $$|\hat h(x)-\hat h(y)| \leq \frac{a}{a+1} \cdot$$ Hence, the open set $\{(x,y) \in [0,1]^2: |x-y|>a/(a+1)\}$ cannot contain more than one element of each orbit. However the orbit of the point $(0,1)$ is dense under the action of LFT’s on $[0,1]$, hence the orbit of $(0,1)$ is dense under the action of any dense subsemigroup. Since $\langle f, g \rangle$ has no dense orbits, we conclude that it is not dense in $\cal F$.
Next, suppose $$f(x)=\frac{a}{x+a}~\mbox{and}~g(x)=bx+c,$$ with $c \neq 0$. The conjugation by $\theta(x)=1/(x+1)$, gives the maps $\hat f=\theta f \theta^{-1}(x)=(ax-x+1)/(2ax-x+1)$ and $\hat g=\theta g \theta^{-1}(x)=x/(cx-bx+x+1)$, and we have $$\rm{Im}(\hat f)=[1/2,1]~\mbox{and}~\rm{Im}(\hat g)=[0,1/(c+1)].$$ It follows that for every $(x,y) \in [0,1]^2$ and $\hat h \in \langle \hat f, \hat g\rangle$, we have $$|\hat h(x)-\hat h(y)| \leq \max \left ( \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{c+1} \right )\cdot$$ If $c \neq 0$, then the open set $\{(x,y) \in [0,1]^2: |x-y|>\max(1/2,1/(c+1))\}$ cannot contain more than one element of each orbit i.e. the orbits are not dense, and so $\langle f, g\rangle$ is not dense in $\cal F$ in this case either.
We study the remaining case of $f(x)=a/(x+a)$ and $g(x)=bx$ in more details below. By a conjugation ($x \rightarrow 1/x$), we have the pair $$R(x)=1+\frac{a}{x}~\mbox{and}~S(x)=\frac{x}{b},$$ where $a>0$ and $b>1$.
Let $\Lambda$ be the semigroup of real linear fractional transformations generated by $R$ and $S$, and let $\bar \Lambda$ be the closure of $\Lambda$.
\[first\] For every $(\alpha_1,\cdots,\alpha_{k+1}) \in \mathbb{Z}^{k+1}$, $k\geq 0$, the map $$f_{\alpha}(x)=\frac{b^{\alpha_{k+1}}x}{(b^{\alpha_1}+\cdots+b^{\alpha_{k}})x/a+1}$$ belongs to $\bar \Lambda$.
Proof is by induction on $k$. For $k=0$, we need to show that for every $\alpha_1 \in \mathbb{Z}$, we have $b^{\alpha_1}x \in \bar \Lambda$. For positive integers $m$ and $n$, we have $$S^mRS^nR(x)=\frac{b^{-m}(a+x+ab^{n}x)}{x+a}~.$$ Let $l$ be a fixed integer, and set $n=l+m$. Then as $m \rightarrow \infty$, we have $S^mRS^nR \rightarrow b^{l}x/(1+x/a)$, and so $f_{l}(x)=b^lx/(1+x/a) \in \bar \Lambda$ for all $l \in \mathbb{Z}$. Next, we let $l \rightarrow \infty$, to get $b^{\alpha_1}x=\lim f_lS^{l-\alpha_1}(x) \in \bar \Lambda$, which proves the basis of the induction.
Now suppose the assertion of the lemma is true for $k\geq 0$, and let $(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_{k+2}) \in \mathbb{Z}^{k+2}$. By the inductive hypothesis, $g(x)=b^{\alpha_{k+1}}x/(Ax+1) \in \bar \Lambda$, where $A=(b^{\alpha_1}+\ldots+b^{\alpha_k})/a$. For $l=\alpha_{k+2}-\alpha_{k+1}$, it follows that $$f_l g(x)=\frac{b^{\alpha_{k+2}}x}{(A+b^{\alpha_{k+1}}/a)x+1} \in \bar \Lambda,$$ and the inductive step is completed.
Given $s \geq 0$, there exists a sequence $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ os integers so that $sa=\sum_{i=1}^\infty b^{\alpha_i}$. It follows from Lemma \[first\] that $$\label{tu}
T_s(x)=\frac{x}{sx+1}=\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}\frac{x}{(b^{\alpha_1}+\ldots+b^{\alpha_k})x/a+1} \in \bar \Lambda.$$ On the other hand, $$S^{m}RS^{m}(x)=\frac{1}{b^m}+\frac{a}{x} \rightarrow \frac{a}{x},$$ as $m \rightarrow \infty$. Hence, $I(x)=a/x \in \bar \Lambda$.
\[imp\] Let $\alpha,\beta,\gamma \geq 0$, so that $0\leq \alpha - \beta \gamma \leq \min(1,\alpha^2)$. Then $$F(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)(x)= \frac{\alpha x+\beta}{\gamma x + 1} \in \bar \Lambda.$$
It is sufficient to consider the case where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma>0$ and $0<\alpha-\beta \gamma\leq \min(1,\alpha^2)$. For $u,v,w \geq 0$, it follows from that $$T_u I T_{v/a}IT_w(x)=\frac{(1+vw)x+v}{(u+w+uvw)x+1+uv} \in \bar \Lambda.$$ Now, given $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$, we set $$\label{defabg}
u=\frac{-\sqrt{d}+1}{\beta},v=\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{d}},w=\frac{-\sqrt{d}+\alpha}{\beta},$$ where $d=\alpha-\beta \gamma$. The conditions given in the Lemma guarantee that $u,v,w \geq 0$. These choices of $u,v,w$ are made so that $T_uIT_{v/a}IT_w=F(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$, and the proof is completed.
For $f(x)=(\alpha x+\beta)/(\gamma x+\delta) \in {\cal F}$ with $\delta \neq 0$, let $${\rm{det}}(f)=\frac{1}{\delta^2}(\alpha \delta -\beta \gamma)~,~\sigma(f)=\frac{\alpha^2}{\delta^2}.$$ Let ${\cal F}^+=\{f \in {\cal F}: {\rm{det}}(f) \geq 0\}$, and for $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, let $$\label{defU}
U_k=\left \{f \in {\cal F}^+: \det(f) \leq \min(b^{k},b^{-k}\sigma(f)) \right \}.$$
\[main\]
$\bar \Lambda \cap {\cal F}^+=\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}U_k.$
Since $U_1 \subseteq \bar \Lambda$ by Lemma \[imp\] and $U_k=S^{-k}U_1$, we have $U=\bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}U_k \subseteq \bar \Lambda \cap {\cal F}^+$. Next, we show that $\bar \Lambda \cap {\cal F}^+ \subseteq U$. First we show that $U$ is a semigroup under composition. To see this, let $f\in U_k$ and $g\in U_l$ for some $k,l \in \mathbb{Z}$. Let $f(x)=(\alpha x+ \beta)/(\gamma x+1)$ and $g(x)=(ux+v)/(wx+1)$. Then $$fg(x)=\frac{(\alpha u + \beta w)x+(\alpha v + \beta)}{(\gamma u+ w)x+(\gamma v+1)} \cdot$$ One verifies that $$0 \leq {\rm{det}}(fg)= \frac{(\alpha - \beta \gamma)(u-vw)}{(\gamma v+1)^2} \leq \min \left (b^{k+l}, b^{-k-l}\left ( \frac{\alpha u + \beta w}{\gamma v+1} \right )^2 \right ),$$ and so $fg \in U$ i.e., $U$ is a semigroup.
Next, a simple calculation shows that $S^k(x)=F(b^{-k},0,0) \in U_1$ and $RS^kR=F(b^k+1/a,1,1/a) \in U_k$ for every $k\geq 0$. Now, every $f \in \Lambda \cap {\cal F}^+$ can be factored into terms of the form $RS^kR$, and $S^k$, and since $U$ is a semigroup, it follows that $\Lambda \cap {\cal F}^+ \subseteq U$. Since $U$ is closed in $\cal F$, we conclude that $\bar \Lambda \cap {\cal F}^+ \subseteq U$, and the proof is completed.
Theorem \[main\] implies that there are no 2-generator dense subsemigroups of LFT’s on $[0,\infty)$ (hence on any proper subinterval of reals), since $U$ does not include every $f \in {\cal F}^+$. In the next theorem we show that there are 3-generator dense subsemigroups.
\[denselft\] Let $a,c>0$ and $b> 1$ so that $\ln c/ \ln b \notin \mathbb{Q}$. Then the semigroup generated by $1+a/x, x/b$, and $x/c$ is dense in the set of LFT’s on $[0,\infty)$.
Let $U$ be defined as in . Suppose that $\alpha,\beta, \gamma > 0$ so that $0 \leq \alpha - \beta \gamma$. Since $\ln c / \ln b \notin \mathbb{Q}$, it follows that there exist a sequence $\{k_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ of integers and a sequence $\{l_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ of positive integers so that $b^{k_i}c^{-l_i} \rightarrow \alpha$. Then, we have $$\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \min (b^{k_i}c^{-l_i}, b^{-k_i}c^{l_i}\alpha^2)=\alpha,$$ and so for $i$ large enough, we have $$\alpha - \beta \gamma \leq \min (b^{k_i}c^{-l_i}, b^{-k_i}c^{l_i} \alpha^2),$$ which in turn implies that $$0 \leq c^{l_i} \alpha - (c^{l_i} \beta )\gamma \leq \min (b^{k_i}, b^{-k_i}(c^{l_i}\alpha)^2).$$ By Theorem \[main\], we conclude that $F(c^{l_i}\alpha, c^{l_i}\beta, \gamma) \in \bar \Lambda$, and so $F(\alpha, \beta, \gamma) =c^{-l}F(c^{l_i}\alpha, c^{l_i}\beta, \gamma) \in \bar \Lambda$ as well. The case of $\beta=0$ or $\gamma=0$ follows by using a limiting process.
By composing $F(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ with $a/x$, we deduce that $F(u,v,w) \in \bar \Lambda$ for all $u,w \geq 0$ and $v>0$. The case of $v=0$ can be dealt with by using another limiting process.
Orbit closures
==============
In section 2, we showed that there are no 2-generator dense subsemigroups of $\cal F$. In this section, we study the induced action of the semigroup generated by $R(x)=1+a/x$ and $S(x)=x/b$ on $(0,\infty)^2$, and show that it has no dense orbits in $[0,\infty)^2$. On the other hand, the action of the conjugated maps $\hat R=\theta R \theta^{-1}$ and $\hat S=\theta S \theta^{-1}$, where $\theta=1/(x+1)$, on $[0,1]^2$ has dense orbits (where the only dense orbits are the orbits of $(x,y)$ with $x=0$ or $y=0$ except $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$).
The next theorem describes the orbit closure of $(x,y) \in (0,\infty)^2$ under the action of $\langle R,S \rangle$. It is more appropriate to give a geometric description of the orbit closures. Given a point $A=(x,y) \in (0,\infty)^2$, there exists a unique hyperbola tangential to the line $y=x$ at the origin that connects the origin to $A$. We denote this hyperbolic segment by $H(x,y)$. Also, we denote the infinite half-line in $(0,\infty)^2$ with slope 1 starting at $(x,y)$ by $L(x,y)$. Finally, let $\Omega(x,y)$ denote the closed region bounded by $H(x,y),L(x,y),H(a/x,a/y)$, and $L(a/x,a/y)$. If $x=y$, then this region degenerates to the half-line $y=x$, and so in this case we set $\Omega(x,x)=\{(t,t); t \geq 0\}$. In the sequel, $\bar \Lambda$ denotes the closure of the semigroup generated by $R(x)=1+a/x$ and $S(x)=x/b$, where $a>0$ and $b>1$. We begin with the following Lemma.
\[step1\] Let $(x,y) \in (0,\infty)^2$. Then for every $(u,v) \in \Omega(x,y)$, there exists $f\in \bar \Lambda$ so that $f(x,y)=(u,v)$.
Since $\Omega(x,y)$ is invariant under $I(x)=a/x \in \bar \Lambda$, without loss of generality, we assume that $x\geq y$ and $u\geq v$. If $x=y$ or $u=v$, the claim follows from the fact that the orbits of $\langle R,S \rangle$ on $[0,\infty)$ are all dense (and that $(0,0)$ belongs to every orbit closure). Thus, suppose that $x>y$ and $u> v$. Since $(u,v) \in \Omega(x,y)$, we have $$\label{vineq}
u \geq v \geq \max \left ( u-x+y, \frac{uxy}{ux-uy+xy} \right ).$$ It follows from Lemma \[imp\] (by setting $\alpha=1$) that maps of the form $f(x)=(x+\beta)/(\gamma x+1)$ belong to $\Lambda$, where $\beta, \gamma \geq 0$ and $\beta \gamma < 1$. We choose $\beta$ and $\gamma$ so that $f(x)=u$ and $f(y)=v$. In fact, we need to have $$\beta=\frac{xy(-u+v)+uv(x-y)}{ux-vy}~,~\gamma=\frac{x-y-u+v}{ux-vy}\cdot$$ The conditions $\beta,\gamma \geq 0$ follow directly from . The condition $\beta \gamma \leq 1$ is equivalent to $$(ux-vy)^2-(xy(-u+v)+uv(x-y))(x-y-u+v) \geq 0,$$ which can be factorized as $(u-v)(v+x)(x-y)(u+y)>0$, and the proof is completed.
\[orbdes\] Let $R(x)=1+a/x$ and $S(x)=x/b$, where $a>0$ and $b>1$. Then for any $(x,y) \in (0,\infty)^2$, the orbit closure of $(x,y)$ under the action of $\langle R,S \rangle$ is given by $$\bigcup_{k\in \mathbb{Z}} \Omega(b^kx,b^ky).$$
Lemma \[step1\] and the fact that $b^kx \in \bar \Lambda$, for all $k\in \mathbb{Z}$, imply that the set $\bar \Omega=\cup_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}\Omega(b^kx,b^ky)$ is included in the orbit closure of $(x,y)$. To show that the orbit closure is included in $\bar \Omega$, it is sufficient to show that $\bar \Omega$ is invariant under $R$ and $S$. The set $\bar \Omega$ is clearly invariant under $S$. Moreover, we have $R(x)=1+a/x=M\circ I(x)$, where $M(x)=x+1$ and $I(x)=a/x$. Since $\bar \Omega$ is invariant under both $I$ and $M$, we see that it is invariant under $R$ as well, and the proof is completed.
Theorem \[orbdes\] shows that the orbits of $\langle R,S \rangle$ on $(0,\infty)$ are never dense. However, if the interval is finite, dense orbits exist. To see this, we use the conjugation $\theta(x)=1/(x+1)$ to move to the interval $[0,1]$, and denote the conjugated maps by the hat notation.
The orbit of $(x,y)$ under the action of the semigroup $\langle \hat R, \hat S \rangle$ is dense in $[0,1]^2$ if and only if $(x,y)$ belongs to the perimeter of the square $[0,1]^2$ except the vertices $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$.
The claim that none of the orbits starting from an interior point are dense follows from Theorem \[orbdes\]. The orbits starting from $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ are clearly not dense. Since the point $(0,1)$ belongs to the orbit of every point on the perimeter of $[0,1]^2$ except $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$, it is sufficient to prove that the orbit of $(0,1)$ is dense. Let $\bar O$ denote the closure of the orbit of $(0,1)$ in $[0,1]^2$. Let $u \geq 0$ be arbitrary. By , after conjugation by $\theta$, we conclude that $$\hat T_u(x)=\frac{u(1-x)+x}{(u+1)(1-x)+x}$$ belongs to the closure of $\langle \hat R, \hat S \rangle$. It follows that $(f(0),f(1))=(u/(u+1),1) \in \bar O$, which implies that the segment $[0,1] \times \{1\}$ is a subset of $\bar O$. By applying $\hat R=(1-x)/(2-2x+ax)$ to this segment, we obtain $[0,1/2] \times \{0\} \subseteq \bar O$. By applying $\hat S$ to the segment repeatedly, we get $[0,1] \times \{0\} \subseteq \bar O$. Now, for any $u\geq 0$, apply $\hat T_u$ to $[0,1] \times \{0\}$ , we conclude that the segment $[u/(u+1),1] \times \{u/(u+1)\}$ is in $\bar O$. It follows that $\Delta=\{(x,y) \in [0,1]^2: x\geq y\} \subseteq \bar O$. By applying $\hat R$ to $\Delta$, we get $\{ (x,y) \in [0,1]^2: y \leq 1/2\} \subseteq \bar O$, and by applying $\hat S$ repeatedly to this latter set, we conclude that $[0,1]^2 \subseteq \bar O$.
Dense subsemigroups of $2 \times 2$ matrices
============================================
It immediately follows from Theorem \[main\] that there are no 2-generator dense subsemigroups of $\cal F$. This, in turn, implies that there are no 2-generator dense subsemigroups of the set of $2\times 2$ matrices with nonnegative entries. In this section, we first show that there exist 3-generator subsemigroups of matrices with nonnegative entries. Recall that a real matrix is called unimodular if its determinant is $\pm 1$.
\[thethree\] Let $a,c>0$ and $b>1$ so that $\ln c / \ln b \notin \mathbb{Q}$. Then the semigroup generated by the matrices $$\begin{pmatrix}
1/c & 0 \\
0 & c
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1/b & 0 \\
0 & b
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1/a & a \\
1/a & 0
\end{pmatrix},$$ is dense in the semigroup of unimodular real matrices with nonnegative entries.
Let us denote these three matrices by $A,B$, and $C$. Let $X=[y,z;s,t]$ be a $2\times 2$ matrix with nonnegative entries and $\rm{det}(X)=\pm 1$. Without loss of generality, we can assume $\rm{det}(X)=1$ and $t \neq 0$. By Theorem \[denselft\], for each $i \geq 1$, there exists a matrix$D_i=[\alpha_i, \beta_i; \gamma_i, \delta_i] \in \langle A,B,C \rangle$ so that $$\label{alp}
\left |\frac{\alpha_i}{\delta_i}-\frac{y}{t}\right |+\left |\frac{\beta_i}{\delta_i}-\frac{z}{t} \right |+\left |\frac{\gamma_i}{\delta_i}-\frac{s}{t} \right |<\frac{1}{i} \cdot$$ It follows that $$\left | \frac{1}{\delta_i^2}-\frac{1}{t^2} \right |=\left | \frac{\alpha_i \delta_i-\beta_i \gamma_i}{\delta_i^2}-\frac{yt-zs}{t^2} \right|<\frac{\lambda}{i},$$ where $\lambda$ depends only on $X$. And so $\delta_i \rightarrow t$ as $i \rightarrow \infty$, and consequently, by , we have $\alpha_i \rightarrow y$, $\beta_i \rightarrow z$, and $\gamma_i \rightarrow s$. In other words, $D_i \rightarrow X$ as $i \rightarrow \infty$, and the claim follows.
\[cormat1\] Let $a>0$ and $b>1>c>0$ so that $\ln c / \ln b \notin \mathbb{Q}$. Then the semigroup generated by the matrices $$\label{thremat4}
\begin{pmatrix}
c & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & b
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1 & a \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ is dense in the set of $2 \times 2$ matrices with nonnegative entries.
Let $\cal S$ denote the closure of the semigroup generated by these three matrices. We first show that $dI_{2\times 2} \in {\cal S}$ for every $d\geq 0$. Choose sequences of positive integers $k_i,l_i$ so that $b^{k_i}c^{l_i} \rightarrow d/a$. Then $$\nonumber
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & d \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
=\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty}\begin{pmatrix}
c^{l_i} & b^{k_i}c^{l_i}a \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix} =\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty}
\begin{pmatrix}
c^{l_i} & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
1 & a \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & b^{k_i}
\end{pmatrix} \in {\cal S},$$ and so $dI_{2\times 2} =[0,d;1,0]^2 \in {\cal S}$. Next, let $X$ be any $2\times 2$ matrix with nonnegative entries and $\mu=\rm{det}(X) \neq 0$. Let $\hat F=F/\sqrt{\rm{det}(F)}$ for an invertible matrix, and let $\hat {\cal S}=\{\hat F, F \in {\cal S}\}$. By Lemma \[thethree\], there exists $D_i \in \hat {\cal S}$ so that $D_i \rightarrow \hat X$ as $i \rightarrow \infty$. Choose $d_i$ so that $d_iD_i \in {\cal S}$. Since we showed that $(\sqrt{\mu}/d_i)I_{2 \times 2} \in {\cal S}$, we have $$X=\sqrt{\mu} \hat X=\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\sqrt{\mu}}{d_i}(d_iD_i) \in {\cal S},$$ and so $\cal S$ contains every $2 \times 2$ matrix with nonnegative entries.
The following corollary is an immediate consequence of Corollary \[cormat1\].
\[matcor\] Let $a>0$ and $b>1>c>0$ so that $\ln c / \ln b \notin \mathbb{Q}$. Then the semigroup generated by the matrices $$\label{thremat2}
\begin{pmatrix}
-c & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -b
\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}
1 & a \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ is dense in the set of $2 \times 2$ real matrices.
Now, we construct an explicit example of two $2\times 2$ matrices that generate a dense semigroup in the set of $2\times 2$ matrices in the real case:
\[exr\] The semigroup of matrices generated by $$A=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1/2 \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}~\mbox{and}~B=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -8/3
\end{pmatrix},$$ is dense in the set of $2\times 2$ real matrices.
One verifies that $ABA^3BA=[-2/9,0;0,1]=C$, and so $\langle A,B \rangle=\langle A,B,C \rangle$, which is dense in the set of $2\times 2$ real matrices by Corollary \[matcor\].
The complex case
================
In this section, we consider the set of $2\times 2$ complex matrices and prove a result analogous to Corollary \[matcor\] in the complex case. At the end of this section, we prove the existence of examples of 2-generator dense subsemigroups of $2\times2$ complex matrices. In the sequel $i=\sqrt{-1}$.
\[matcomp\] Let $a,b,c, u\in \mathbb{C}$ such that the following conditions hold:
- $a,u \neq 0$,
- $b=r\,i$ with $r>1>|c|$, and
- the three numbers $1, \ln|c|/\ln|b|, \arg(c)/2\pi$ are rationally independent.
Then the semigroup generated by the matrices $$\label{thremat}
C=\begin{pmatrix}
c & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}, B=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & b
\end{pmatrix}, A=\begin{pmatrix}
u & a \\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ is dense in the set of $2 \times 2$ complex matrices.
The argument presented in the proof of Lemma \[first\] works in the complex case for $R(x)=u+a/x$ and $S(x)=x/b$, as long as $a,u \neq 0$ and $|b|>1$. For every complex number $s$ there exists a sequence $\{\alpha_j\}_{j=1}^\infty$ of integers so that $sa=\sum_{j=1}^k b^{\alpha_j}$. To see this, we note that every positive real number can be written as a series with terms of the form $b^{4k}$, $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, while every negative real number can be written as a series with the terms of the form $b^{2k}$, $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Similarly, every purely imaginary number $t\,i$ can be written as a series with terms of the form $b^{4k+1}$, if $t>0$, or terms of the form $b^{4k+3}$ if $t<0$. It then follows from \[tu\] that $T_s(x)=x/(sx+1) \in \bar \Lambda$ for all $s \in \mathbb{C}$. Now, the argument in Lemma \[imp\] can be used to show that $(\alpha x + \beta)/(\gamma x+1) \in \bar \Lambda$ for every $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in \mathbb{C}$ (since this time the equations are always solvable if $\beta, \alpha-\beta \gamma \neq 0$. The cases where $\beta=0$ or $\alpha-\beta \gamma=0$ can be dealt with by taking limits).
So far we have shown that the semigroup generated by $R(x)=u+a/x$ and $S(x)=x/b$ is dense in the set of Möbius transformations (which is isometric to $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$). The argument in Corollary \[cormat1\] can be used to show that the semigroup generated by $A,B$, and $C$ is dense, if we show that the set $\langle b,c \rangle =\{b^mc^n: m,n \in \mathbb{N}\}$ is dense in $\mathbb{C}$. Let $z$ be an arbitrary nonzero complex number. It follows from condition (iii) and the multidimensional Kronecker’s approximation Theorem [@2kr §23.6] that for any $\epsilon>0$ there exist positive integers $m,n$ and an integer $L$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kr1}
\left |n\left ( \frac{\arg(c)}{2\pi} \right )-\left (\frac{\arg(z)}{2\pi} \right )+L \right |&<&\epsilon,\\ \label{kr2}
\left | n \left (\frac{\ln |c|}{\ln |b|^4} \right )-\left (\frac{\ln|z|}{\ln |b|^4}\right )+m \right |&<&\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from the inequalities and that $|\ln |c^nb^{4m}| - \ln |z||<\epsilon |b|^{4}$ and $|\arg(c^nb^{4m})-\arg(z)+2\pi L|<2\pi \epsilon$. Since $\epsilon$ was arbitrary, we conclude that $\langle b,c \rangle$ is dense in $\mathbb{C}$, and the proof is completed.
We are now ready to prove the existence of examples of 2-generator dense subsemigroups of complex $2\times 2$ matrices. Recall that a set $F$ is called *cocountable* in $E$ if $E \backslash F$ is countable.
\[exc2\] For $r> 3$, let $$\begin{aligned}
b&=& r\,i, \\
u&=&-\left( \frac{1}{2b} \right)^{1/5} \left (8+2b+b^2+4\sqrt{4+b^2}+b\sqrt{4+b^2} \right )^{1/5},\\
a&=& u^2(-2-b+\sqrt{4+b^2})/(2b),\\
c&=& \frac{1}{2}\left ( 2+b^2+\sqrt{4+b^2} -b-b\sqrt{4+b^2} \right ).\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists a cocountable subset $F \subseteq (3,\infty)$ so that, for every $r \in F$, the semigroup generated by the matrices $A=[u,a;1,0]$ and $B=[1,0;0,b]$ is dense in the set of $2\times 2$ complex matrices.\
\
*Proof*. We have selected $a,b,c,$ and $u$ so that $ABA^3BA=C$ i.e., $\langle A,B,C \rangle=\langle A,B \rangle$. Thus, we only need to verify the conditions of Corollary \[matcomp\] for $a,b,c$, and $u$. Clearly $a,u \neq 0$ and $|b|=r>1$. By direct computation, we have $$|c|^2=\frac{1}{2}(r^4-3r^2+r\sqrt{r^2-4}-r^3 \sqrt{r^2-4}) \in (0,1),$$ for all $r>3$.
Now, $f(r)=\arg(c)/2\pi$ and $g(r)=\ln|c|/\ln|b|$ are both analytic functions of $r \in (3,\infty)$. Let $\cal H$ denote the set of $r>3$ so that $1,f(r),g(r)$ are rationally dependent. We need to show that $\cal H$ is a countable set. On the contrary, suppose that $\cal H$ is uncountable. For each $r \in {\cal H}$, there exists a triplet of integers $(A(r),B(r),C(r)) \neq (0,0,0)$ so that $$A(r)+B(r)f(r)+C(r)g(r)=0.$$ The function $r \mapsto (A(r),B(r),C(r))$ maps the uncountable set $\cal H$ to the countable set $\mathbb{Z}^3\backslash \{(0,0,0)\}$. It follows that there exist uncountably many values of $r$ that are mapped to the same triplet $(A,B,C)\neq (0,0,0)$, and so the equation $$H(r)=A+Bf(r)+Cg(r)=0,$$ has uncountably many solutions for $r>3$. Since $f$ and $g$ are analytic functions of $r$, it follows that $H$ is an analytic function of $r$, and so $H(r) \equiv 0$ for all $r>3$. On the other hand, as $r \rightarrow \infty$, one shows that $f(r) \rightarrow 1/4$ and $g(r) \rightarrow -1$, and so $A+B/4-C=0$. If $C \neq 0$, then $h(r)=(g(r)+1)/(1/4-f(r))=B/C$, but it is easy to check that $h(r)$ is not constant (or alternatively check that $\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} h(r)=0$, which gives $B=0$, and then because $g$ is not a constant function, it follows that $A=C=0$). Hence $C=0$, which in turn implies that $A=B=0$, since $f$ is not a constant function either. This is a contradiction, and the proof is completed. $\square$
[30]{}
W. Cao, *Discrete and dense subgroups acting on complex hyperbolic space*, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 78 (2008), no. 2, 211–224.
M. Javaheri, *Topologically transitive semigroup actions of real linear fractional transformations*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 368 (2010), 587–603.
M. Javaheri, *Semigroups of matrices with dense orbits*. To appear in Dynamical Systems.
G.H. Hardy and E.M. Wright, *An introduction to the theory of numbers*, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1979, 5th ed.
T. Jørgensen, *A note on subgroups of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$*, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 28 (1977), no. 110, 209–211.
C. Kitai, *Invariant closed sets for linear operators*, Thesis, Univ. of Toronto, Toronto, 1982.
S. Rolewicz, *On orbits of elements*, Studia Math. 32 (1969), 17–22.
X. Wang, *Dense subgroups of $n$-dimensional Möbius groups*, math. Z. 243 (2003), no. 4, 643–651.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In many stochastic dynamical systems, ordinary chaotic behavior is preceded by a full-dimensional phase that exhibits 1/f-type power-spectra and/or scale-free statistics of (anti)instantons such as neuroavalanches, earthquakes, *etc.* In contrast with the phenomenological concept of self-organized criticality, the recently found approximation-free supersymmetric theory of stochastics (STS) identifies this phase as the noise-induced chaos (N-phase), *i.e.*, the phase where the topological supersymmetry pertaining to all stochastic dynamical systems is broken spontaneously by the condensation of the noise-induced (anti-)instantons. Here, we support this picture in the context of neurodynamics. We study a 1D chain of neuron-like elements and find that the dynamics in the N-phase is indeed featured by positive stochastic Lyapunov exponents and dominated by (anti)instantonic processes of (creation)annihilation of kinks and antikinks, which can be viewed as predecessors of boundaries of neuroavalanches. We also construct the phase diagram of emulated stochastic neurodynamics on Spikey neuromorphic hardware and demonstrate that the width of the N-phase vanishes in the deterministic limit in accordance with STS. As a first result of the application of STS to neurodynamics comes the conclusion that a conscious brain can reside only in the N-phase.'
author:
- 'Igor V. Ovchinnikov'
- Wenyuan Li
- Yuquan Sun
- 'Robert N. Schwartz'
- 'Andrew E. Hudson'
- Karlheinz Meier
- 'Kang L. Wang'
bibliography:
- 'Crit\_vs\_SUSY.bib'
title: 'Criticality or Supersymmetry Breaking ?'
---
Introduction
============
It is well established by now that many stochastic dynamical systems close to the ”egde of chaos” spontaneously exhibit features of long-range dynamical behavior such as 1/f power spectra or the scale-free statistics of instantonic or avalanche-like processes – the phenomenon that can be found in all branches of modern science, including astrophysics [@XYZ], finance [@Preis10052011], geophysics [@GEO], and evolutionary biology, [@BIO] collective human and animal [@Flocking_Birds; @Flocking_Birds_2] behavior and many others including neurodynamics (ND) [@ChialvoLoh; @Beggs02062004; @Beggs03122003; @EEG; @Levina1].
Such a spontaneous long-range dynamical behavior, which we loosely call dynamical complexity (DC), is a rather peculiar feature that calls for an explanation. One of the potential explanations of DC is ”criticality”. Namely, the very fact that DC is typically found on the border of chaos points to the possibility that the long-range features associated with DC may be attributed to the phase transition into chaos.
The phase transition picture of DC has one insoluble problem. On phase diagrams, which are spaces of externally controllable parameters that dynamical systems cannot change by themselves, power-law correlators are manifested in the long-wavelength limit only by models that flow to unstable fixed points of the renormalization group (RG) flow. Such models occupy lower-dimensional boundaries between full-dimensional phases. On the contrary, DC occupies full-dimensional phases. Any model within a full-dimensional phase eventually flows to a stable fixed point (or other attractor) and such point represents a state with finite correlation length/time and consequently it cannot exhibit power-laws. Thus, DC occupying full-dimensional phases cannot be explained within the paradigm of classical critical phenomena theory.
To circumvent this problem with the criticality scenario for DC, it was proposed to believe that some stochastic dynamical systems have a mysterious tendency to fine tune themselves into the phase transition into chaos[^1] – the approach known as self-organized criticality (SOC) [@Bak1; @Jensen_1; @Zapperi_1; @A_recent_review_on_SOC; @PruessnerBook; @XYZ; @Frigg2003613; @XYZ; @PruessnerBook; @PhysRevLett.78.4793; @PhysRevLett.75.4528; @ChristensenBook], which is particularly popular in the neurodynamics (ND) community (for review see, *e.g.*, Ref. [@10.3389/fnsys.2015.00022; @10.3389/fnsys.2014.00176; @10.3389/fnsys.2014.00166; @10.3389/fnsys.2014.00154] and Refs. therein). After 25 years of the history of SOC, it is still unclear what SOC is exactly from a theoretical point of view (see Ref.[@A_recent_review_on_SOC] for a review on various interpretations of SOC) and whether ND in a healthy brain can be characterized as SOC (see, *e.g.*, Refs. [@PhysRevLett.97.118102; @10.3389/fphys.2012.00302; @10.3389/fnsys.2014.00108; @Zare201380; @10.3389/fnsys.2014.00151] and Refs. therein).
It was understood [@GoldstoneMode_1; @GoldstoneMode_2] that a more rigorous theoretical picture of DC could be based on the Goldstone theorem stating that a spontaneous breakdown of a global continuous symmetry must lead to the long-range behavior in full-dimensional phases. The ubiquitous character of DC suggests that the Goldstone scenario for DC can work only if all (or at least most of) stochastic dynamical systems possess a common global continuous symmetry. The existence of such symmetry and the idea that its spontaneous breakdown is the theoretical essence of DC was proposed in Ref.[@Goldstone_Mechanism] and further work in this direction [@chaos_2] resulted in the formulation of the approximation-free supersymmetric theory of stochastics (STS) [@e18040108] viewing DC [@Resolution] as the spontaneous breakdown of topological supersymmetry (TS) (see, *e.g.*, Refs. [@TFT_BOOK; @Labastida_1989; @Witten1; @Witten2; @Blau]) that all stochastic differential equations (SDEs) possess.
The presence of TS in all SDEs is the algebraic representation of the fact that any infinitesimally close points in phase space remain close during the (finite-time) evolution even in the presence of discontinuous noise [@Slavik]. In other words, TS is the preservation of the proximity of points in phase space during evolution. This interpretation makes it particularly clear that the spontaneous breakdown of TS must be viewed as the stochastic generalization of dynamical chaos.[@Kang; @Max] Indeed, the spontaneous breakdown of TS must imply that initially close points may not be close anymore after infinitely long evolution, when the system is described by a non-supersymmetric ground state. In the deterministic limit, this is nothing other than the famous ”butterfly effect” [@Lorenz].
On a more technical level, TS in the deterministic limit can be spontaneously broken only by the non-integrability of the flow vector field (FVF) [^2], which is one of the definitions of deterministic dynamical chaos [@Gilmore]. In the presence of noise, yet another mechanism of spontaneous breakdown of TS exists. This mechanism is known in the high-energy physics as the dynamical supersymmetry breaking [@Witten_Dyn_SUSY_Br] and, in the context of stochastic dynamics, it can be explained as the condensation of the noise-induced tunneling processes. Earthquakes, solar flares, neuroavalanches, *etc*. are examples of such noise-induced tunneling processes and that phase with the (anti)instanton-induced breakdown of TS must be associated with DC. Furthermore, the noise-induced character of the tunneling processes requires that this phase disappear in the deterministic limit. In result, the phase of thermal equilibrium (unbroken TS, T-phase) and the phase of ordinary chaos (non-integrability, C-phase) can be separated (at weak noises) by the noise-induced chaos (TS broken by (anti)instantons, N-phase) as presented in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_1\]a.
In this paper, we support this picture in two ways. First, we numerically investigate an overdamped stochastic 1D sine-Gordon model, which can be thought of as a coarse grained version of a 1D chain of neuron-like elements, and demonstrate that the stochastic Lyapunov exponents are positive in the N-phase. This confirms that TS is indeed spontaneously broken and the N-phase can indeed be identified as the noise-induced chaos. We also demonstrate that dynamics in the N-phase is dominated by the (anti)instantonic processes of the creation/annihilation of solitonic configurations (kinks-antikink pairs). Second, using 1/f noise as the experimental signature of the spontaneous breakdown of TS, we construct the rudimentary phase diagram of ND using emulation on *Spikey* neuromorphic hardware.[@Karlheinz1; @Karlheinz2] Our experimental results reconfirm that the width of the N-phase vanishes in the deterministic limit. As a first non-trivial result from the application of STS to ND, we present arguments supporting the conclusion that a healthy brain can only reside in the N-phase.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec.\[STS\_explanation\], we briefly present the key elements of STS. In Sec.\[sine\_Gordon\], we introduce an overdamped stochastic 1D sine-Gordon model and present our results proving that the N-phase must indeed be recognized as the noise-induced chaos with instanton-induced TS breaking. In Sec.\[Emulation\], we present our results on the emulation of stochastic ND using *Spikey* neuromorphic hardware reconfirming that the width on the N-phase vanishes in the deterministic limit. In Sec.\[Conclud\], we conclude with a brief discussion of potentially fruitful directions for further investigation.
Key elements of STS {#STS_explanation}
===================
In this section, we would like to briefly discuss the key elements of STS, while the details on this theory can be found in Ref.[@e18040108]. The main object of interest is the general form of a SDE that can be given as, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot x(t) = F(x(t)) + (2\Theta)^{1/2}e_a(x(t))\xi^a(t) \equiv {\tilde F}(t).\label{SDE}\end{aligned}$$ Here and in the following, summation is assumed over repeated indices, $x\in X$ is a point in the phase space, $X$, which is a smooth topological manifold, $F\in TX$ is a FVF representing deterministic equations of motion from the tangent space of the phase space, $e_a\in TX$ is a set of vector fields describing how noise is coupled to the system, $\Theta$ is the intensity or the temperature of the noise, $\tilde F$ is introduced for later convenience, and $\xi^a\in \mathbb{R}^{Dim X}$ is a set of noise variables that are assumed Gaussian white with the probability of configurations given by, $$\begin{aligned}
P(\xi)\propto e^{- \int_{t'}^td\tau \xi^2(\tau)/2}.\label{prob}\end{aligned}$$
From SDE to topological field theory
------------------------------------
The Parisi-Sourlas approach [@ParSour; @ZinnJustin1986] provides pathintegral representation to Langevin SDEs, which are almost exclusively studied in the context of supersymmetry and stochastics (see, *e.g.*, Ref.[@Drummond_Horgan_2012]). STS can be looked upon as the generalization of the Parisi-Sourlas approach to the SDEs of arbitrary form. More specifically, one can construct the following functional, $$\begin{aligned}
{ W} = \left\langle \int_{p.b.c.} Dx\prod_\tau \delta(\dot x(\tau) - { \tilde F}(\tau)){Det}\frac{\delta(\dot x - { \tilde F} )}{\delta x}\right\rangle.\label{PathIntWittenIndex}\end{aligned}$$ The pathintegral here is over closed paths in $X$ as indicated by the subscript p.b.c. denoting periodic boundary conditions, $x(t)=x(t')$, the infinite-dimensional determinant is the Jacobian of the preceding $\delta$-functional, which, in turn, limits the functional integration to summation over the solutions of the SDE. The angled brackets denote stochastic averaging over the noise configurations, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A(\xi) \rangle = \left(\int D \xi P(\xi)\right)^{-1}\int D \xi A(\xi) P(\xi), \end{aligned}$$ with $A(\xi)$ being an arbitrary functional of $\xi(\tau)$ and the probability $P$ given in Eq.(\[prob\]).
To exponentiate the bosonic $\delta$-functional and its determinant in Eq. (\[PathIntWittenIndex\]) one can use the standard technique of introducing additional fields: the Lagrange multiplier, $B_i$, and the pair of Faddeev-Popov ghosts, $\chi^i$ and $\bar\chi_i$, with $1\le i\le Dim X$. This procedure leads from Eq. (\[PathIntWittenIndex\]) to, $$\begin{aligned}
{ W} = \left\langle \int_{p.b.c.} D\Phi e^{\{ Q, i\int_{t'}^t d\tau \bar \chi(\tau)(\dot x(\tau)-\tilde F(\tau))\} } \right\rangle,\label{Witten_Path_1}\end{aligned}$$ and after integrating out the noise $$\begin{aligned}
{ W} = \int_{p.b.c.} D\Phi \; e^{\{{ Q},\Psi\}}.\label{Witten_Path}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Phi=(x,B,\chi,\bar\chi)$ denotes the collection of all the fields, periodic boundary conditions are assumed, $\Phi(t)=\Phi(t')$, and the operator of the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) symmetry is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\{ { Q}, A\} = \int_{t'}^t d\tau \left(\chi^i(\tau)\frac{\delta }{\delta x^i(\tau)} + B_i(\tau)\frac{\delta }{\delta \bar\chi_i(\tau)}\right) A, \label{Q_pathint}\end{aligned}$$ with $A$ being an arbitrary functional of $\Phi$, and $\Psi = \int^{t}_{t'} \left(i \bar\chi_j(\tau) \dot x^j(\tau) - \bar d(\Phi(\tau))\right)d\tau$ being the so-called gauge fermion with $$\begin{aligned}
\bar d(\Phi) = i\bar\chi_j\left(F^j - \Theta e_a^j \{{ Q}, i\bar \chi_ke_a^k\}\right), \label{Current_Op_Path}\end{aligned}$$ which can be loosely identified as a probability current operator. The Guassian integration over $\xi$ in Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\_1\]) leads to a term in the Lagrnagian $\propto \{Q, i\bar\chi_je_a^j \}\{Q, i\bar \chi_ke_a^k\}$ which is $Q$-exact, due to the nilpotency of BRST symmetry. Namely, $\{ Q, \{Q , A \} \}=0, \forall A $ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\{Q, i\bar\chi_je_a^j \}\{Q, i\bar \chi_ke_a^k\}
= \{Q, i\bar\chi_je_a^j \{Q, i\bar \chi_ke_a^k\}\}.\label{Q_Exact}\end{aligned}$$ This is the reason why integrating out the noise in Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]) leaves the action of the model $Q$-exact.
In gauge theories, $Q$-exact pieces in actions are essentially gauge fixing tools. It is typically said that BRST symmetry, as a symmetry transformation, generates (fermionic versions of) gauge transformations and its overall effect on the pathintegral representation of the theory is to fix the gauge. This interpretation applies to Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]), too – the BRST generates all possible (fermionic) deformations of the path, $\delta x(\tau)=\chi(\tau)$, and out of all the possible closed paths in $X$, it leaves only the solutions of SDE (\[SDE\]) as can be best seen from Eq.(\[PathIntWittenIndex\]).
Identification of the stochastic quantization procedure as gauge fixing has a hidden danger. Indeed, in gauge theories, $Q$-exact pieces, as the one in Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]), appear in generating functionals (or partition functions) that can be used to calculate various observables including responses of the model to external perturbations. Therefore, it may be tempting to believe that Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]) is the generating functional of the SDE. This assumption is a common mistake. The point is that Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]) is not a generating functional. It is actually a topological invariant, which is not responsive to external perturbations. Any response correlator calculated within it vanishes.
This brings us to the topological field theory [@TFT_BOOK] side of the story of STS. Namely, the BRST symmetry in Eq.(\[Q\_pathint\]) can be also rightfully identified as a TS; the integrand in Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]) as a member of the mathematical construction called the Mathai-Quillen class [@Blau]; and the model itself as a member of the Witten-type topological or cohomological field theories [@Witten2; @Witten1], the models whose actions look like gauge fixing of an empty theory and that have intrinsic connection to Morse theory [@Witten_1982; @Labastida_1989].
Operator representation
-----------------------
Object $W$ in Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]) is the famous Witten index. It is of topological character that can be established using the operator representation of the theory. The later is achieved in a standard matter. First, one rewrites $$\begin{aligned}
{ W} = \int_{p.b.c.} D\Phi \; e^{\int^t_{t'} d\tau (i \dot x^j B_j+ i \dot{\chi^j}\bar{\chi}_j - H(\Phi(\tau))},\label{Witten_Pre_Oper}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H(\Phi) = \left\{ {Q}, \bar{d}(\Phi) \right \},\label{SEO_Path}\end{aligned}$$ with $\bar{d}(\Phi)$ defined in Eq.(\[Current\_Op\_Path\]). It is clear from Eq.(\[Witten\_Pre\_Oper\]) that $B$ and $\bar\chi$ are momenta fields that must (anti-)commute with $x$ and $\chi$ in the operator representation, $$\begin{aligned}
[i\hat B_j , \hat x^k] = [i\hat {\bar \chi}_j , \hat \chi^k] = \delta^k_j, \end{aligned}$$ where square brackets denote bi-graded commutator, which is an anticommutator when both operators are fermionic and a commutator otherwise.
Now, working in the representation where operators $\hat x^i$ and $\hat \chi^i$ are diagonal ($\hat x^i\equiv x^i, \; \hat \chi^i\equiv \chi^i$) so that $i\hat B_j = \partial/\partial x^j$ and $i\hat {\bar \chi}_j = \partial/\partial \chi^j$, and using Wick symmetrization rule in order to bypass the operator ordering ambiguity, [^3] one finds the following operator version of Eq.(\[Witten\_Pre\_Oper\]), $$\begin{aligned}
{ W} = Tr (-1)^{\hat k} e^{-(t-t')\hat H}, \label{Witten_Oper}\end{aligned}$$ with, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat k = \chi ^j\frac\partial{\partial \chi^j},\end{aligned}$$ being the fermion number operator and the (infinitesimal) stochastic evolution operator (SEO) defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H = \hat { L}_F - \Theta \hat { L}_{e_a}\hat { L}_{e_a},\end{aligned}$$ where ${ L}$’s are the Lie derivatives along the subscript vector fields. The number of fermions commutes with the SEO, $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat k, \hat H] = 0,\label{k_H}\end{aligned}$$ which implies that stochastic evolution preserves the number of fermions.
Recalling the Cartan formula, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{ L}_{F} = [\hat d, \frac{\partial}{\partial \chi^j} F^j ],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat d = \chi^j \frac\partial{\partial x^j}, \end{aligned}$$ is the exterior derivative, one can recast the SEO into the explicitly supersymmetric form, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H = [\hat d, \hat {\bar d}],\label{SUSY}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat {\bar d} = \frac\partial{\partial \chi^j} \left(F^j - \Theta e_a^j\hat { L}_{e_a}\right).\label{Current_Op}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs.(\[SUSY\]) and (\[Current\_Op\]) are the operator versions of Eqs.(\[SEO\_Path\]) and (\[Current\_Op\_Path\]) respectively. This understanding also suggests that the (bi-graded) commutation with $\hat d$ is the operator version of the TS: $\{ {Q},A(\Phi)\} \to [\hat d, A(\hat \Phi)]$. The exterior derivative is indeed a (super)symmetry of the model because it is commutative with SEO, $$\begin{aligned}
[\hat d, \hat H]=0.\end{aligned}$$ This follows from $\hat d$-exactness of $\hat H$ in Eq.(\[SUSY\]) and nilpotency of the exterior derivative, $\hat d^2=0$, which implies, in particular, that $[\hat d, [\hat d,\hat A]]=0, \forall \hat A$ (c.f. Eq.(\[Q\_Exact\])).
Eigensystem
-----------
The SEO is a real operator. Therefore, it is pseudo-Hermitian [@Mos023]. As a pseudo-Hermitian operator, SEO has a complete bi-orthogonal eigensystem with the left (bras) and right (kets) eigenstates such that, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle n| \hat H = \langle n | {E}_n, \; \; \hat H |n \rangle = {E}_n | n\rangle,\label{BrasKets}\\
\langle n | k \rangle = \delta_{nk}, \; \; \sum\nolimits_{n} |n\rangle\langle n | = \hat 1_{\Omega},\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Omega$ is the Hilbert space of the model, which is the exterior algebra of $X$. Namely, in the representation where $\hat x$ and $\hat \chi$ are diagonal, a wavefucntion is a function of the position on the phase space, $x\in X$, and a Grassmann variable, $\chi$. The later can be viewed [@Witten_1982] as differentials of differential forms, $\chi^l\chi^m = - \chi^m\chi^l \sim - dx^m\wedge dx^l=dx^l\wedge dx^m$. A general wavefunction can then be given as, $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(x\chi) = \sum\nolimits_{k}\psi^{(k)}(x\chi),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{(k)}(x) &=& k!^{-1}\psi_{i_1..i_k}(x)\chi^i...\chi^k
\nonumber \\
&\equiv& k!^{-1}\psi^{(k)}_{i_1...i_k}(x) dx^{i_1} \wedge ...\wedge dx^{i_k} \in \Omega^k(x),\end{aligned}$$ are differential forms on $X$ of degree $k$.
It must be stressed that unlike in quantum mechanics with Hermitian evolution operator, the relation between bras and kets in Eq.(\[BrasKets\]) is not trivial due to the pseudo-Hermiticity of SEO.
The presence of TS divides all eigenstates into two groups. The majority of states belong to the first group of non-supersymmetric doublets or pairs of eigenstates, $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha\rangle \; \textmd{and} \; |\alpha'\rangle = \hat d|\alpha\rangle.\label{NonSusyDoublet}\end{aligned}$$ Eigenstates within each doublet have the same eigenvalue. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
{E}_{\alpha} |\alpha\rangle = \hat H|\alpha \rangle \to {E}_{\alpha} \hat d |\alpha\rangle = \hat d \hat H|\alpha \rangle = \hat H (\hat d|\alpha \rangle). \end{aligned}$$ Note that Eq.(\[k\_H\]) implies that the operator $\hat k$ can be diagonalized together with the SEO, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat k |n\rangle = k_n | n \rangle. \end{aligned}$$ In other words, each eigenstate has a well-defined number of fermions, $k_n$. Further, since the exterior derivative raises the number of fermions by one, the following is true, $k_{\alpha'}=k_\alpha+1$ for supersymmetric doublets in Eq.(\[NonSusyDoublet\]). This implies that the contribution from pairs of non-supersymmetric states cancel out in Eq.(\[Witten\_Oper\]). $W$ receives a contribution only from supersymmetric singlets – the eigenstates that obey, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat d |\theta\rangle=0, \;|\theta\rangle\ne \hat d |x\rangle, \forall |x\rangle. \label{susy_states}\end{aligned}$$ The key property of supersymmetric eigenstates is the vanishing expectation values for all $\hat d$-exact operators, $\langle \theta | [\hat d, \hat A] |\theta \rangle, \forall \hat A$. The SEO is a $\hat d$-exact operator. Therefore, the $\theta$’s have strictly zero eigenvalue. In result, $$\begin{aligned}
{ W} = \sum\nolimits_{\theta} (-1)^{k_{\theta}}. \label{Euler}\end{aligned}$$ It must be pointed out that condition (\[susy\_states\]) is essentially the requirement for a state to be non-trivial in de Rahm cohonology. For compact $X$, each de Rahm cohomology must provide one supersymmetric eigenstate – otherwise the eigensystem of $\hat H$ would be incomplete. Therefore, Eq.(\[Euler\]) equals the Euler characteristic of $X$. This completes the demonstration of the topological character of the Witten index, $W$.
Dynamical partition function, supersymmetry breaking, and chaos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The alternating sign factor in Eqs.(\[Witten\_Oper\]) and (\[Euler\]) appears due to the unconventional periodic boundary conditions for fermionic fields in Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]) – normally, one would expect antiperiodic boundary conditions for fermionic fields. As we already said before, $W$ is a not a generating functional and/or dynamical partition function (DPF) of the model. The later can be obtained from Eq.(\[Witten\_Path\]) by switching to the anti-periodic boundary conditions (a.p.b.c.) for the fermionic fields. This removes the alternating sign factor in the operator representation of the DPF, $$\begin{aligned}
{ Z} = \int_{a.p.b.c.} D\Phi \;e^{\{{ Q},\Psi\}} = Tr e^{-(t-t')\hat H}.\end{aligned}$$
In the long time limit, $t-t'\to\infty$, only eigenstates, $p$, with the lowest real part of their eigenvalues, $Re {E}_p=-\Gamma_g$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_g=-\min_n Re {E}_n \ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ contribute into the DPF, $$\begin{aligned}
\left. {Z}\right|_{t-t'\to\infty} \propto e^{(t-t')\Gamma_g}\cos (t-t') Im {E}_g.\label{Growth}\end{aligned}$$ These eigenstates can be identified as physical states, whereas one of the physical states can be declared the ground state of the model. Among the three possible types of SEO spectra given in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_1\]b-d, the two spectra with non-zero $\Gamma_g>0$ have TS broken spontaneously because the corresponding ground state have non-zero eigenvalue and thus it is non-supersymmetric.
We would also like to note that both types of supersymmetry broken SEO spectra are realizable. This follows from the recently established relation [@Torsten] between STS and the astrophysical phenomenon of the kinematic dynamo [@Li20108666; @KD_1; @KD_2; @Old_KD_Results; @Ott1998] and the fact that the evolution operator in the theory of the kinematic dynamo is known to have both kinds of spectra with the real and the complex ground states.
Unlike the Witten index, the DPF contains vital information about the dynamical properties of the model. In particular, it can also be shown that for a wide class of models and in the long-time limit, DPF provides a lower bound for the stochastically averaged number of periodic solutions of SDE, $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \textit{Z}\right|_{t-t'\to\infty} \le \langle \#(\textmd{periodic\; solutions})\rangle = e^{(t-t')S},\label{Top_Entrop}\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ is the stochastic generalization of the topological entropy of dynamical system [@Adler] – the measure of “complexity” of dynamics. Positiveness of $S$ is considered the key feature of dynamical chaos. From Eqs.(\[Top\_Entrop\]) and (\[Growth\]) it follows that $\Gamma_g$ provides the lower bound for $S$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_g \le S.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, when TS is broken spontaneously, $\Gamma_g$ together with $S$ are positive and it immediately follows that the phenomenon of the spontaneous breakdown of TS must be associated with the stochastic generalization of dynamical chaos [@Kang].
Yet another proof that spontaneous TS symmetry breaking must be indeed identified as the stochastic generalization of dynamical chaos is the Goldstone theorem stating that a model with spontaneously broken TS must exhibit a long-range dynamical behavior, which can be interpreted as the emergent dynamical memory of initial conditions widely known as the ”butterfly effect” of chaos.
In numerical experiments, this infinitely-long memory can be characterized by positive Lyapunov exponents and we will use this well-established approach in Sec.\[sine\_Gordon\]. In real experiments, the spontaneous TS breaking can reveal itself via emergent 1/f-type power-spectra that we will use in Sec.\[Emulation\] as the signature of the TS breaking in emulated ND.
The phase diagram
-----------------
The phase diagram in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_1\] can now be understood as follows. In the deterministic limit, the spontaneous TS breaking is equivalent to the concept of deterministic chaos. Further, in the limit of strong noise, $\Theta\to\infty$, the SEO is dominated by the diffusion Laplacian, $\hat L_{e_a}\hat L_{e_a}$, and diffusion alone should not break TS.[^4] In other words, the TS will be eventually restored as one rises the intensity of the noise. The above two observations leave only two possible forms of the ”border of chaos”. One is that the TS broken phase monotonously shrinks with the increase of $\Theta$ until it disappears completely. The other, more interesting possibility is presented in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_1\]a, where the TS broken phase first grows with $\Theta$ giving rise to the N-phase with integrable FVF and spontaneously broken TS.
An important question is the mechanism of spontaneous TS breaking in the N-phase. In deterministic limit, the TS is broken by non-integrability of the FVF, which is one of the definitions of deterministic chaos [@Gilmore]. In the N-phase, the FVF is integrable so that some other mechanism must be responsible for the TS breakdown. There are two known candidates. The first is the anomaly or perturbative corrections that in the context of stochastic dynamics represent fluctuations due to noise. This mechanism of TS breaking is very unlikely due to what is known as non-renormalization theorems. Therefore, it must be the other remaining known mechanism that must be responsible for the TS breaking in the N-phase. This mechanism is the condensation of (anti)instantonic processes. This mechanism is known in the high-energy physics as dynamical supersymmetry breaking. [@Witten_Dyn_SUSY_Br] In the case of stochastic dynamics, the antiinstantoic processes are essentially the noise-induced tunneling processes between, *e.g.*, different attractors of the FVF. The nose-induced character of the tunneling processes explains why the N-phase disappears in the deterministic limit.
Yet another important issue is the N-C boundary. At low temperatures, when an external observer can tell one tunneling process from another, the N-C boundary must behave as a phase transition or, rather, as the sharp onset of ordinary chaotic behavior. At higher temperatures, the N-C boundary must be smeared into a crossover because the tunneling processes must overlap in time (and space) and an external observer will not be able to tell one tunneling process from the other. The disappearance of the sharp N-C boundary does not contradict any symmetry-based argument because the N-C boundary is not the TS symmetry breaking in the first place.
1D chain of stochastic neuron-like elements {#sine_Gordon}
===========================================
Our goal in this section is twofold. First, we would like to demonstrate numerically that the N-phase can indeed be identified as a noise-induced chaotic dynamics. This goal will be achieved by revealing positiveness of the stochastic Lyapunov exponents in the N-phase. Second, we would also like to demonstrate that dynamics in the N-phase is indeed dominated by (anti)instantons. Instantons are easily recognizable when they have a well-defined spatio-temporal structure (creation/annihilation of kink-antikink pairs, see below), which is realized in spatially extended models on lattices. Guided by this understanding and by the additional intension to make connection to ND in the next section, here we study neuron-like elements on the simplest lattice - a 1D chain.
Each neuron-like element is described by a dynamical variable $x\in \mathbb{S}^1$. In isolation and in the absence of noise, its dynamics is governed by the following ordinary differential equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot x(t) = \alpha - \sin(x(t) + x_0).\label{ODE_1}\end{aligned}$$ Here, constant $x_0 = \sin^{-1}\alpha$ is introduced for convenience so that $x=x_s=0$ is the stable critical point (for $\alpha<1$ see below). There is also an unstable critical point at $x = x_u = \pi - 2x_0$. Locally, the FVF can be viewed as a gradient of the potential function, $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha - \sin(x + x_0) = - \partial U(x)/\partial x, \; U(x) = - \alpha x - \cos(x+x_0),\label{potential}\end{aligned}$$ as displayed in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_2\]a. This figure also depicts the fundamental tunneling process of the model. This process has two stages called antiinstanton ($x_s\to x_u$) and instanton ($x_u \to x_s = 2\pi \sim x_s$). In general, antiinstantons are processes of going against the FVF, *i.e.*, the r.h.s of Eq.(\[ODE\_1\]). Therefore, antiinstantons can only happen as a result of the influence of noise, unlike instantons that exist even in the deterministic limit.
The above neuron-like elements are now arranged into a 1D chain with the coupling between nearest neighbors. The resulting model can be coarse-grained into a continuous-space model defined by the following SDE, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t x(rt) = \alpha - \frac{\delta V_{sG}}{\delta x}(rt)+ (2\Theta)^{1/2}\xi(rt),\label{SDE_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $r$ is a spatial dimension, the noise $\xi$ is Gaussian white, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \xi(rt) \rangle = 0, \langle \xi(rt)\xi(r't') \rangle = \delta(t-t')\delta(r-r'), \end{aligned}$$ and $\Theta$ is the noise intensity. The sine-Gordon potential in Eq.(\[SDE\_1\]) is defined as, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta V_{sG}}{\delta x}(rt) = -\partial_r^2 x(rt) + \sin(x(rt) + x_0), \\
V_{sG}(x) = \int dr \left((\partial_r x )^2/2 - \cos(x - x_0)\right).\end{aligned}$$ In addition to being a coarse-grained version of the 1D chain of neuron-like elements, the above model can also be viewed as the overdamped limit of a stochastic sine-Gordon equation [@sine_Gordon_Kink_Bath; @Classics; @Josephson_general] or Frenkel-Kontorova equation [@Review_Frenkel_Kontorova]. Furthermore, in the theory of 1D chains of Josephson junctions, the model describes the temporal evolution of the voltage.[@PhysRevB.54.1234]
At $\alpha>1$, the vacuum, $x(rt)=0$, looses its stability. This is the onset of the C-phase. We note that in the general case, the loss of stability of a stable vacuum does not necessarily suggest the onset of chaotic behavior. Instability may as well mean a bifurcation. It does, however, indicate the onset of chaotic behavior in our case as can be seen from positive Lyapunov exponents for $\alpha>1$ at zero temperature (Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_3\]a).
At the end of the previous section, the relation between topological entropy and spontaneous TS breaking was discussed. It is also known that topological entropy is related to the Lyapunov exponents via, *e.g.*, the Pesin formula [@Pesin] saying that $S$ is a sum of positive Lyapunov exponents. This is actually the very reason why we use the stochastic Lyapunov exponents (see, *e.g.*, Ref.[@Arnold1988; @Grassberger1988]) as an indication of the spontaneous breakdown of TS. It is likely that more analytical work has to be done before an exact relation between stochastic Lyapunov exponents and spontaneous TS breaking is rigorously established. Nevertheless, as can be seen in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_3\]a, stochastic Lyapunov exponents do reproduce the weak-noise regime of the STS phase diagram in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_1\]. Thus, stochastic Lyapunov exponents in our case support the idea that the N-phase must be identified as noise-induced chaos.
Yet another important result in this section is the demonstration of the instantoic character of stochastic dynamics in the N-phase. As can be seen in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_4\], the dynamics in the N-phase is qualitatively different from that in the other two major phases (T- and C-) and just as expected (see Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_2\]d) is clearly dominated by (anti-)instantoic processes of creation and annihilation of solitonic configurations, the kink and antikinks.
Emulation of stochastic ND {#Emulation}
==========================
In this section, we make one more step toward ND – one of the most interesting and promising potential applications for STS in the future. More specifically, we construct the STS phase diagram using emulation of stochastic ND on neuromorphic hardware [@Karlheinz1; @Karlheinz2]. In a certain sense, the neuromorphic hardware bridges numerical models and real brains and it offers a few advantages over both. Indeed, unlike experiments in the real brain, neuromorphic hardware provides control over many parameters including the intensity of the noise, which is crucial for our purposes as the noise intensity is one of the key parameters of stochastic dynamics. In addition, as compared to the model in the previous section, the neuromorphic hardware allows for any topology of the network as compared to the oversimplified 1D lattice.
As we already stated before, the reason why the simplest possible network topology was used in the previous section is the spatio-temporal structure of instantonic processes – the predecessors of neuroavalanches – that revealed the instantonic character of the dynamics in the N-phase. In real neuronal networks, due to the intricate pattern of interneuronal connections, neuronal avalanches do not have a clear spatial structure of a propagating boundary separating postfired from prefired neurons. [^5] This lack of a clear spatial structure of neuroavalanches makes it difficult to study them experimentally. Therefore, in this section, we will use the 1/f noise characteristic to differentiate between the fundamental dynamical phases. We note that in the literature, avalanche statistics is used more often for this particular purpose (see, *e.g.*, Ref.[@Levina1]). There is no conflict here. Both, the $1/f$ noise and the scale-free avalanche statistics can be viewed as signatures of the spontaneous TS breaking. In fact, the very concept of SOC and the associated scale-free statistics was originally introduced as an explanation for $1/f$ noise [@Bak1].
Before we proceed with our emulation results, a few words are in order about the feasibility of the concept of a ND phase diagram. Anesthesiologists use drugs to render the brain transiently unconscious during surgical procedures. From a physicist’s point of view, this means that the blood concentration of the anesthetic is an externally controllable parameter that is being used to draw the brain out of the dynamical phase consistent with consciousness. This physical picture of brain activity is supported by experiments under anesthesia showing that the collective neuronal behavior changes suddenly at certain transition points as one changes, via the gradual change of the concentration of a pharmacological agent such as isoflurane, the single-neuron parameters such as the resting potential [@Hudson24062014; @Ries01041999]. This experimentally demonstrates the existence of qualitatively different dynamical phases in the real brain with sharp transitions separating them, which clearly validates the concept of the ND phase diagram.
Emulation results
-----------------
In this section we present our results of emulation of ND using the *Spikey* neuromorphic hardware [@Karlheinz1; @Karlheinz2]. The chip is a configurable mixed-signal CMOS implementation of 384 leaky-integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons with a maximum of 256 synapses each. It features short- and long-term synaptic plasticity and operates in an accelerated mode approximately 10,000 times faster than real-time. Each neuron is configured to have a fixed number of pre-synaptic partners that are randomly selected from the set of available neurons. The intensity of the noise is controlled by a parameter representing the average time interval between two consecutive noise stimuli uniformly distributed within the time interval of the emulation (1000 ms). In other words, this parameter is the reciprocal of the noise intensity $\Theta$ introduced in Eq.(\[SDE\]).
In Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_5\], the power-spectra of a membrane potential of one neuron are given for different firing threshold potentials and noise intensities and in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_6\], we plot the characteristic representing the overall “intensity” of dynamics, $\int |f(\omega)|^2 d\omega$; here $f(\omega)$ is the Fourier component of the membrane potential. As can be seen, the results clearly reproduce the three-part phase diagram: the subthreshold T-phase with no conspicuous dynamics, the N-phase, featured by a $1/f$ power spectrum, and the C-phase with the $1/f$ power spectrum superimposed with equidistant peaks reflecting the approximate time-periodicity of permanent firing above threshold.
It must be noted that, just like in the real brain, the topology of neuronal network is random and neuroavalanches do not have a well-defined spatial structure similar to the spatial propagation of solitons discussed in the previous section. Therefore, revealing this structure is not among our goals in this section. Our main objective here is to reveal that the N-phase collapses onto the border of the C-phase in the deterministic limit. This objective is the reason why the ND emulation is conducted over a broad range of noise intensity.
We would also like to point out that it was known previously that the presence of noise often leads to the emergence of power-laws in dynamical systems near the border of chaotic activity and this fact was proposed to be viewed as the reason behind power-laws in ND [@ThresholdProcesses]. The STS picture of the N-phase dynamics provides a solid theoretical explanation why this happens.
In the real brain, however, the intensity of the noise is not an externally controllable parameter unless, of course, one views the sensory input also as a part of the noise. We find it more physically appealing, however, to view stimulii as a perturbation of the ground state of the brain, and the response to this perturbation is the essence of information processing within ND. Thus, the noise in our approach represents the (intractable) bio-chemo-electric influence from the host body only. Therefore, the intensity of the noise is not an externally controllable parameter of the ND in the real brain.
At the same time, there are many other externally controllable single-neuron parameters relevant to the ND in the brain. One of the parameters is the neuron repolarization time. In fact, we believe that, to a good approximation, the firing threshold and the repolarization time are the two major externally controllable parameters of the collective ND in the real brain. For this reason, we also constructed the phase diagram of the emulated ND on the plane of these two parameters. As is expected and seen in Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_7\], at fixed noise intensity, the N-phase is sandwiched between the T- and the C-phases.
Neurodynamic meaning of the three phases
----------------------------------------
The TS breaking picture of chaotic dynamics puts the phenomenon of chaotic dynamics in the brain into a new and promising perspective. The point is that the spontaneous breakdown of various symmetries is known in physics as ”ordering” (crystalline order, ferromagnetic order, *etc.*). Therefore, the true essence of chaotic dynamics is quite opposite to semantics of the word “chaos” and the common perception of this phenomenon. Unlike “chaos”, this new understanding, which can be dubbed the dynamical long-range order (DLRO), has a positive rather than negative connotation in the context of information processing in the brain and it allows one to make a first step in what seems to be a new view on the functionality of brain activity.
Namely, in behavioral sciences and psychology, there is a concept of a short-term memory operating on the order of seconds. We find it natural to believe that the short term memory must be directly connected or rather based on the spontaneous ND memory associated with the spontaneous TS breaking. After all, why should nature not take advantage of the fact that DLRO provides effortless long-range dynamical information storage within the brain for short-term memory purposes ? This argument is especially convincing in light of the fact that this advantage comes at no extra cost from the bio-chemical point of view, *i.e.*, there is no need to invoke some specialized bio-chemical process(es) that would be responsible for it.
The reasoning in the previous paragraph suggests that a conscious brain can reside only in either the N- or C- phases, where the TS is spontaneously broken and/or the DLRO is present. Given that, the non-stop firing of neurons in the C-phase is very reminiscent of the ND phenomenon of epileptic seizure [@seizure], therefore, the possibility that a conscious brain is in the C-phase can be ruled out. As a result, one is left with the conclusion that a conscious brain can reside only in the N-phase, which thus can be identified as a ”conscious-like” phase. Accordingly, the T- and the C- phases can be dubbed as the ”coma-like”[^6] and the ”seizure-like” phases, respectively.
We find it likely that somewhere on the right hand side of the ND phase diagram, *i.e.*, on the side of the high resting potentials well above the firing threshold, there may exist a phase of synchronized persistent neuronal oscillations. The transition from this phase to the C-phase would correspond to what is known in the literature as the period doubling route to chaos. This transition may be an interesting object of future studies.
We would like to point out that the importance of noise for healthy brain operation has been discussed previously [@Beck201230; @Deco20091; @Rolls2012212]. In our case, this importance is taken to the extreme – the “conscious-like” phase does’nt even exist without the noise.
Fine structure
--------------
The phase diagram in this paper is very rudimentary, which is a fair price for its generality. It is understood that the ND phase diagram of a real brain must have a fine-structure on top of the three-phase picture discussed here (see Fig.\[Fig\_\_\_8\]). This fine structure must resolve various types of interactions between different parts of a real inhomogeneous brain [^7]. Even though our understanding of the fine-structure of the ND phase diagram is qualitative, it may be already possible to use this concept for visualization of the effect of a pharmacological agent on the collective ND during a typical anesthesiological cycle. As the blood concentration of the agent gradually changes, the ND moves on the phase diagram and changes qualitatively as it occasionally crosses the critical boundaries between subphases.[@Hudson24062014]
Conclusion {#Conclud}
==========
The recently proposed approximation-free supersymmetric theory of stochastics, spontaneous breakdown of topological supersymmetry that all stochastic differential equations possess is the stochastic generalization of the concept of dynamical chaos. The theory also offered an explanation for the pre-chaotic phase known previously as self-organized criticality. As it turns out, at non-zero noises, ordinary chaos is preceded by a noise-induced chaotic phase where the topological supersymmetry is broken by the condensation of noise-induced (anti)instantonic configurations. In this paper, we supported this picture by numerical studies of a 1D chain of neuron-like elements and experimental emulation of stochastic neurodynamics using neuromorphic hardware. We demonstrated that the stochastic Lyapunov exponents are positive in the N-phase, the dynamics is indeed dominated by the (anti)instantnoic processes, and the ”width” of the N-phase vanishes in the deterministic limit.
The novel supersymmetry breaking understanding of chaotic dynamics suggests that studies of the corresponding spontaneous dynamical order in neurodynamics can be the right venue toward understanding the high level functionalities and the fundamental principles of information processing in the brain. More specifically, one of the most fruitful directions for further research could be the development of low-energy effective theories (LEET) for N-phases. Unlike in the Wilson-Cowan [@WILSON19721] and others approaches to neurodynamics (for a review, see, *e.g.*, Ref.[@WSBM:WSBM1348]), the LEET for the spontaneous dynamical order must be written for a fermionic field, which must be the order parameter for the spontaneously broken fermionic symmetry. Although at this moment we do not know much about the details of such an LEET, we find it reasonable to believe that if a computational paradigm at least remotely related to the principles of the information processing/encoding by neurodynamics already exists, it is most likely the topological or fault-tolerant quantum computing [@TopQuant]. After all, the supersymemtric theory of stochastics is a rightful member of the family of the Witten-type topological field theories.
We would like to conclude our discussion by pointing out that the application of supersymemtric theory of stochastics to neurodynamics bridges mathematical physics and anesthesiology and further work in this direction may result in fruitful cross-fertilization between science and medicine.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
K.L.W. would like to acknowledge the support of the endowed Raytheon professorship. A.E.H. would like to acknowledge the support of the Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Mentored Research Training Grant. The neuromorphic hardware and software is partially supported by EU Grant 269921 (BrainScaleS), and EU Grant 604102 (Human Brain Project, HBP). We would like to thank Thomas Pfeil for his support of the neuromorphic hardware system.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: Note that at the moment of this proposition, there existed no stochastic generalization of the concept of dynamical chaos.
[^2]: There are different types of integrability in mathematics. The integrability in the sense of dynamical systems means that the FVF has well-defined global unstable manifolds of all dimensions. When this is not true, the deterministic dynamical system is said to be non-integrable in the sense of dynamical systems of chaotic.
[^3]: It can be shown [@e18040108] that Wick symmetrization rule is equivalent to the Stratonovich interpretation of SDEs. It can also be shown that the most natural mathematical interpretation of the finite-time stochastic evolution operator, $e^{-(t-t')\hat H}$, is the stochastically averaged pullback induced by the SDE-defined diffeomorphisms of the phase space. This interpretation unambiguously resolves the Ito-Stratonovich dilemma [@ISD_1; @ISD_2; @ISD_3] in favor of the Stratonovich approach.
[^4]: This is certainly true for those models where the diffusion Laplacian equals the Hodge-Laplacian that has real non-negative eigenvalues.
[^5]: To be more accurate, this spatial structure of neuronal avalanches can be revealed by embedding the neuronal network into a lattice of sufficiently high dimensionality such that all the directly-connected neurons are neighbors on this lattice. For a square lattice, the number of neighbors is $2D$ with $D$ being the dimensionality of the embedding space. Thus, any given network can be embedded into a square lattice with sufficiently high $D$.
[^6]: Note that coma is a behavioral state of unresponsiveness, not a brain state, like seizure. That is, one can have localized seizures in the brain that result in a coma. Therefore, “quiescent”-like may be a better identifier for the T-phase of ND. Nevertheless, We will use “coma-like” phase as in the everyday language; “coma” reflects better the characteristics of the T-phase.
[^7]: For example, the ”real conscious” phase and the ”sleeping phase” may as well be two different neighboring subphases of the N-phase; the subphases that are separated by a phase-transition-like boundary.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study focal points and Maslov index of a horizontal geodesic $\gamma:I\to M$ in the total space of a semi-Riemannian submersion $\pi:M\to B$ by determining an explicit relation with the corresponding objects along the projected geodesic $\pi\circ\gamma:I\to B$ in the base space. We use this result to calculate the focal Maslov index of a (spacelike) geodesic in a stationary space-time which is orthogonal to a timelike Killing vector field.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica,Politecnico di Bari, Via Orabona 4, 70125, Bari, Italy'
- 'Departamento de Geometría y Topología. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Granada. Campus Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain'
- 'Departamento de Matemática,Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão 1010,CEP 05508-900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil'
author:
- Erasmo Caponio
- Miguel Angel Javaloyes
- Paolo Piccione
date: 'January 8th, 2010'
title: 'Maslov index in semi-Riemannian submersions'
---
\[section\] \[teo\][Proposition]{} \[teo\][Lemma]{} \[teo\][Corollary]{} \[teo\][Definition]{} \[teo\][Remark]{} \[teo\][Example]{}
[Introduction]{}\[sec:intro\] Riemannian submersions were introduced in the sixties by B. O’Neill and A. Gray (see [@Gra67; @One66; @One67]) as a tool to study the geometry of a Riemannian manifold with an additional structure in terms of certain components, that is, the fibers and the base space. A Riemannian submersion is a map $\pi:M\to B$ whose differential $\mathrm d\pi_p:T_pM\to T_{\pi(p)}B$ is surjective for all $p$, and such that its restriction to the space orthogonal to the fibers is an isometry with $T_{\pi(p)}B$. The notion of Riemannian submersion can be naturally extended to the case where the metric tensor is not positive definite, i.e., to the semi-Riemannian case. The novelty here is that both the total space and the base may have non positive definite metric tensors, and the interesting observation is that the fibers of the submersion, which are embedded submanifolds of the total space, are automatically non-degenerate. Most of the results for Riemannian submersions, whose proofs involve only the relations between the Levi–Civita connections of the metrics of $M$ and of $B$ can be reproduced in the semi-Riemannian case by adapting carefully the Riemannian proofs. For instance, a well known result by Hermann characterizes which Riemannian fibrations are fiber bundles (see [@Herman60]); a similar result can be obtained in the semi-Riemannian case with suitable modifications of Hermann’s original proof (see Proposition \[hermanngener\]). The situation becomes a little more involved when it gets to conjugate or focal points, or to questions involving Morse index. Note in fact that conjugate/focal points may accumulate in semi-Riemannian geometry (see [@PiTa03]), the Morse index is always infinite, and its natural substitute, the *Maslov index*, is not computed directly using the multiplicities of the conjugate/focal points. In one of the classical papers by O’Neill (see [@One67]), the author shows a correspondence between horizontal geodesics in the total space of a submersion and geodesics in the base manifold, as well as relations between Jacobi fields, conjugate points and Morse index of the two families of geodesics. This analysis cannot be carried over to the general semi-Riemannian case with the techniques of [@One67], and the goal of the present paper is to extend the results in [@One67] to semi-Riemannian submersions. Our motivation for this kind of analysis comes from specific examples of semi-Riemannian submersions, namely, stationary and Kaluza-Klein spacetimes.
By a recent result of Javaloyes and Sánchez (see [@JS08]) a distinguishing stationary spacetime has a *standard form*, i.e. given any complete timelike Killing vector field, there exists a global spacetime decomposition of the form $S\times {\mathds R}$, with Killing field tangent to the fiber ${\mathds R}$ and $S$ a spacelike hypersurface. In this case, the projection onto $S$ is a semi-Riemannian submersion, and the base space is Riemannian, thus one can prove a Riemannian global behavior for the spacelike Lorentzian geodesics that are orthogonal to some complete timelike Killing vector field (see Proposition \[thm:applstationary\]). On the other hand, in its most general setting, the geometry of a Kaluza-Klein spacetime can be described as a semi-Riemannian submersion $\pi\colon \tilde M\to M$, where $M$ is the four dimensional spacetime, while $\tilde M$ is the multidimensional one. We will show that conjugate points in a horizontal causal geodesic determine conjugate points in its projection (see Proposition \[thm:applKaluzaKlein\]).
The central issue in this paper is to study the Maslov index of a horizontal geodesic. The Maslov index of a semi-Riemannian geodesic can be thought as an algebraic count of the singularities of the exponential map along the geodesic. It was A. Helfer (see [@Hel94]) the first one to apply the abstract notion of the Maslov index, that is, an intersection number in the Lagrangian Grassmannian of a symplectic space, to the context of semi-Riemannian geodesics. This has been an essential tool in the development of Morse theory and bifurcation theory for the strongly indefinite semi-Riemannian geodesic problem (see for instance [@MerPicTau02; @PiPoTa04]). The main result of this paper is that the Maslov index of a horizontal geodesic $\gamma$ in the total space of a semi-Riemannian submersion $\pi:M\to B$, and relative to an initial orthogonal manifold $\mathcal Q=\pi^{-1}(\mathcal P)$, is equal to the Maslov index of the projected geodesic $\pi\circ\gamma:I\to B$ relative to the initial orthogonal submanifold $\mathcal P$. Under a certain (generic) non-degenerate situation, this is proved directly by showing that corresponding conjugate points on $\gamma$ and on $\pi\circ\gamma$ give the same contribution to the Maslov index (Proposition \[contribution\]). For the general, i.e., possibly degenerate, case (Theorem \[thm:eqMaslovindices\]) the proof is obtained by comparing the Lagrangian curves arising from the Jacobi equations along the geodesics, and establishing a certain decomposition property of the Lagrangian curve associated to the horizontal geodesic.
The Maslov index of a geodesic is computed using a trivialization of the tangent bundle along the geodesic. In the standard literature, it is customary to define this index using parallel trivializations along the geodesic. However, in order to prove the equality between the Maslov indexes of a horizontal geodesic and its projection, parallel trivializations do not work, because the projection onto the base does not preserve parallelism. This forces us to use more general trivializations, and some preliminary results on the independence of the Maslov index by arbitrary trivializations are necessary (see Section \[PreMaslov\]).
A second problem to be studied is the question of lifting curves in the base to horizontal curves in the total space, and lifting vector fields along curves in the base to infinitesimally horizontal vector fields along horizontal curves. In Section \[sec:horizontalgeo\] we study this problem, giving a geometric characterization for the *derived vector field*, introduced by O’Neill in [@One67]. A vector field along a horizontal curve is infinitesimally horizontal if it is the variational vector field of a variation by other horizontal curves. The study of these fields goes through an analysis of the tangent bundle to an abstract distribution $\mathcal D$ on a manifold $M$ endowed with a connection, seen as a submanifold of the tangent bundle $TM$ (see Subsection \[sub:horinfhor\]). This analysis uses the notion of second fundamental form of a distribution, which in the case of the horizontal distribution of a semi-Riemannian submersion is computed in terms of the fundamental tensors of the submersion (Subsection \[sub:fundtensors\]). The relation between the second fundamental form of a semi-Riemannian submanifold in the base and the second fundamental form of its lift to the total space is studied in Proposition \[prop:secondfund\].
In the last part of the paper we study the index forms along a horizontal geodesic and its projection (Theorem \[indexrelation\]), and we discuss a few applications of our results in stationary and Kaluza-Klein spacetimes and in bifurcation theory of geodesics (Subsection \[sub:applications\]).
[Preliminaries]{}\[PreMaslov\] The literature on the notion of Maslov index and its applications is extremely rich, see for instance references [@Gosson; @Gosson2; @Morvan; @RobbinSalamon; @SalamonZehnder]. We will give here a short account of the basics needed for our purposes. The goal is proving an invariance property of the Maslov index of a semi-Riemannian geodesic by arbitrary changes of trivialization of the tangent bundle along the geodesic (Proposition \[thm:changeoftrivialization\]).
The Maslov index
----------------
Let us consider a symplectic space $(V,\omega)$, with ${\mathrm{dim}}(V)=2n$; we will denote by ${\mathrm{Sp}}(V,\omega)$ the *symplectic group* of $(V,\omega)$, which is the closed Lie subgroup of ${\mathrm{GL}}(V)$ consisting of all isomorphisms that preserve $\omega$. A subspace $X\subset V$ is *isotropic* if the restriction of $\omega$ to $X\times X$ vanishes identically; an $n$-dimensional (i.e., maximal) isotropic subspace $L$ of $V$ is called a *Lagrangian subspace*. We denote by $\Lambda$ the Lagrangian Grassmannian of $(V,\omega)$, which is the collection of all Lagrangian subspaces of $(V,\omega)$, and is a compact differentiable manifold of dimension $\frac12n(n+1)$. A real-analytic atlas of charts on $\Lambda$ is given as follows. Given a Lagrangian decomposition $(L_0,L_1)$ of $V$, i.e., $L_0,L_1\in\Lambda$ are transverse Lagrangians, so that $V=L_0\oplus L_1$, then denote by $\Lambda^0(L_1)$ the open and dense subset of $\Lambda$ consisting of all Lagrangians $L$ transverse to $L_1$. A diffeomorphism $\varphi_{L_0,L_1}$ from $\Lambda^0(L_1)$ to the vector space ${\mathrm{B_{\mathrm{sym}}}}(L_0)$ of all symmetric bilinear forms on $L_0$ is defined by $\varphi_{L_0,L_1}(L)=\omega(T\cdot,\cdot)\vert_{L_0\times L_0}$, where $T:L_0\to L_1$ is the unique linear map whose graph in $L_0\oplus L_1=V$ is $L$. The kernel of $\varphi_{L_0,L_1}(L)$ is the space $L\cap L_0$.
Let us now briefly recall the notion of Maslov index for a continuous path $\ell:[a,b]\to\Lambda$. More details on the theory can be found in [@PiTa08]. For a fixed Lagrangian $L_0\in\Lambda$, the *$L_0$-Maslov index* $\mu_{L_0}(\ell)$ of $\ell$ is the half-integer characterized by the following properties:
- $\mu_{L_0}$ is fixed-endpoint homotopy invariant;
- $\mu_{L_0}$ is additive by concatenation;
- if $\ell\big([a,b])\subset\Lambda^0(L_1)$ for some Lagrangian $L_1$ transverse to $L_0$, then $$\mu_{L_0}(\ell)=\tfrac12{\mathrm{sign}}\big[\varphi_{L_0,L_1}\big(\ell(b)\big)\big]-
\tfrac12{\mathrm{sign}}\big[\varphi_{L_0,L_1}\big(\ell(a)\big)\big].$$
The Maslov index is invariant by symplectomorphisms, i.e., given two symplectic spaces $(V_1,\omega_1)$, $(V_2,\omega_2)$, a continuous Lagrangian path $\ell:[a,b]\to\Lambda(V_1,\omega_1)$, a fixed Lagrangian $L_0\in\Lambda(V_1,\omega_1)$ and a symplectomorphism $\phi_0:(V_1,\omega_1)\to(V_2,\omega_2)$, then setting $\widetilde\ell(t)=\phi_0\big(\ell(t)\big)$ and $\widetilde L_0=\phi_0(L_0)$, one has $\mu_{L_0}(\ell)=\mu_{\widetilde L_0}(\widetilde\ell)$. Moreover, the Maslov index is additive by direct sums of symplectic spaces in the following sense. Let $(V,\omega)=(V_1\oplus V_1,\omega_1\oplus\omega_2)$ be a decomposition of $(V,\omega)$ as the direct sum of the symplectic subspaces $(V_1,\omega_1)$ and $(V_2,\omega_2)$. Let $L_0$ and $\ell(t)$ be Lagrangians of $(V,\omega)$ such that $L_0^i=L_0\cap V_i$ and $\ell^i(t)=\ell(t)\cap V_i$ are Lagrangians of $(V_i,\omega_i)$ for $i=1,2$ and $t\in[a,b]$. Then $$\mu_{L_0}(\ell)=\mu_{L_0^1}(\ell^1)+\mu_{L_0^2}(\ell^2).$$
\[symplec\] Let $(V,\omega)$ and $(\tilde{V},\tilde{\omega})$ be two symplectic spaces, $L_0$ a Lagrangian of $(V,\omega)$, $[a,b] \ni t\rightarrow {\ell}(t)$ a Lagrangian path in $(V,\omega)$ and $\phi_t:V\rightarrow \tilde{V}$ with $t\in [a,b]$ a continuous family of symplectomorphisms such that $\phi_t(L_0)$ is constantly equal to $\tilde{L}_0$. Consider the Lagrangian path in $ (\tilde{V},\tilde{\omega})$ defined as $[a,b]\ni t\rightarrow\tilde{\ell}(t)=\phi_t(\ell (t))$. Then the Maslov index $\mu_{L_0}(\ell)$ coincides with $\mu_{\tilde{L}_0}(\tilde{\ell})$.
An easy homotopy argument, see [@PiTa08 Proposition 5.4.3, Proposition 5.4.5]
Symplectic systems
------------------
Consider the symplectic space $V={\mathds R}^n\oplus{{\mathds R}^n}^*$ endowed with the symplectic form $\omega\big((v,\alpha),(w,\beta)\big)=\beta(v)-\alpha(w)$. Let ${\mathrm{Sp}}(2n,{\mathds R})$ denote the symplectic group, i.e., the group of all isomorphisms $T:V\to V$ that preserve $\omega$, and let ${\mathrm{sp}}(2n,{\mathds R})$ denote its Lie algebra. Written in $n\times n$ blocks, an endomorphism $\begin{pmatrix}A&B\cr C&D\end{pmatrix}$ belongs to ${\mathrm{sp}}(2n,{\mathds R})$ if and only if $B$ and $C$ are symmetric and $D=-A^*$.
A *symplectic system* is a system of differential equations: $$\label{eq:defsymplsystem}
\begin{pmatrix}v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix}'=X(t)\begin{pmatrix}v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix},$$ where $X:[a,b]\to{\mathrm{sp}}(2n,{\mathds R})$ is a continuous map. The *flow* of the symplectic system is the $C^1$-curve $\Phi:[a,b]\to{\mathrm{Sp}}(2n,{\mathds R})$ satisfying $\Phi'(t)=X(t)\Phi(t)$ and $\Phi(a)=\mathrm{Id}$.
Let $\Lambda$ denote the Lagrangian Grassmannian of $(V,\omega)$ and set $L_0=\{0\}\oplus{{\mathds R}^n}^*$; one has a curve $\ell:[a,b]\to\Lambda$ of class $C^1$ given by $\ell(t)=\Phi(t)\big[L_0\big]$. We define the *Maslov index* of the symplectic system to be the $L_0$-Maslov index $\mu_{L_0}(\ell)$ of the curve $\ell$.
Consider two continuous maps $X_1,X_2:[a,b]\to{\mathrm{sp}}(2n,{\mathds R})$, with: $$X_1=\begin{pmatrix}A_1&B_1\cr C_1&-A_1^*\end{pmatrix},\quad
X_2=\begin{pmatrix}A_2&B_2\cr C_2&-A_2^*\end{pmatrix};$$ the corresponding symplectic systems are *isomorphic* if there exists a $C^2$-map $Z:[a,b]\to{\mathrm{GL}}({\mathds R}^n)$ and a $C^1$-map $W:[a,b]\to\mathrm{Lin}({\mathds R}^n,{{\mathds R}^n}^*)$ of symmetric linear operators such that: $$\label{eq:ABC}
\begin{aligned}
&A_2=ZA_1Z^{-1}-ZB_1WZ^{-1}+Z'Z^{-1},\\
&B_2=ZB_1Z^*,\\
&C_2={Z^*}^{-1}(WA_1+C_1-WB_1W+A_1^*W+W')Z^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ It is proved in [@london Proposition 2.10.2] that isomorphic symplectic systems have the same Maslov index, under an (unnecessary) assumption that the final instant is non-conjugate. The proof for the general case is obtained easily using the following facts:
- if $\ell_1,\ell_2:[a,b]\to\Lambda$ denote the curve of Lagrangians associated to the isomorphic symplectic systems above, then the following relation holds: $$\label{eq:elltildeell}
\ell_2(t)=\phi_0(t)\big[\ell_1(t)\big],\quad\forall\,t\in[a,b],$$ where $\phi_0(t)$ is the symplectomorphism: $$\label{eq:phi0}
\phi_0(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z(t)&0\\ { Z(t)^*}^{-1}W(t)&{
Z(t)^*}^{-1}\end{array}\right).$$
- $\phi_0(t)$ preserves $L_0$ for all $t\in[a,b]$.
- If $\phi_0$ is a continuous path of symplectomorphisms that preserve a Lagrangian $L_0$ and $\ell$ is any continuous curve in $\Lambda$, then the $L_0$-Maslov index of $\ell$ equals the $L_0$-Maslov index of the curve $t\mapsto\phi_0(t)\big[\ell(t)\big]$ (see Lemma \[symplec\]).
We observe that is equivalent to $X_2=\phi'_0\phi^{-1}_0+\phi_0 X_1\phi^{-1}_0$. Moreover, if $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are the flows of the symplectic systems described by $X_1$ and $X_2$, then is also equivalent to $\Phi_2=\phi_0\Phi_1$.
The symplectic system associated to a semi-Riemannian geodesic {#independence}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Let now $(M,g)$ be an $n$-dimensional semi-Riemannian manifold with Levi–Civita connection $\nabla$, and let $\gamma:[a,b]\to M$ be a geodesic. For all $t\in[a,b]$, let $\mathbf R_t:T_{\gamma(t)}M\to T_{\gamma(t)}M$ be the $g$-symmetric endomorphism $R\big(\dot\gamma(t),\cdot\big)\dot\gamma(t)$, where $R$ is the curvature tensor of $\nabla$ chosen with the sign convention $R(X,Y)=[\nabla_X,\nabla_Y]-\nabla_{[X,Y]}$. Consider any smooth ($C^2$) trivialization $$\label{eq:trivialization}
p(t):{\mathds R}^n\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow T_{\gamma(t)}M$$ of the pull-back bundle $\gamma^*TM$. Associated to this setup, we have the following objects:
- a continuous path $\widetilde g_t$ of non-degenerate symmetric bilinear forms on ${\mathds R}^n$ defined as the pull-back $\widetilde g_t=p(t)^*g_{\gamma(t)}$;
- a continuous path of endomorphisms $\widetilde R(t):{\mathds R}^n\to{\mathds R}^n$ defined by the commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{T_{\gamma(t)}M\ar[r]^{\mathbf R_t}&T_{\gamma(t)}M\cr{\mathds R}^n\ar[u]^{p(t)}\ar[r]_{\widetilde R(t)}&{\mathds R}^n\ar[u]_{p(t)}}$$ For all $t$, $\widetilde R(t)$ is $\widetilde g_t$-symmetric.
- A continuous map $\varpi:[a,b]\to\mathrm{gl}({\mathds R}^n)$ that relates the covariant derivative of vector fields along $\gamma$ with the corresponding curves in ${\mathds R}^n$ by the following formula: $$\label{covdev}
{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}\big[p(t)\widetilde v(t)\big]=p(t)\widetilde v'(t)+p(t)\varpi(t)\widetilde v(t),$$ for all curve $\widetilde v:[a,b]\to{\mathds R}^n$ of class $C^1$. Here ${\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}$ is the covariant derivative along $\gamma$. From an abstract viewpoint, $\varpi$ is the pull-back by $p:[a,b]\to\mathrm{FR}(TM)$ of the connection form of the $\mathrm{GL}(n,{\mathds R})$-principal fiber bundle of all frames of $TM$.
The functions $\widetilde g$ and $\varpi$ are related by the following equality: $$\label{eq:relvarpitildeg}
\widetilde g'=\widetilde g\varpi+\varpi^*\widetilde g.$$ Note that if the trivialization is orthogonal, then $\widetilde g$ is constant, and if is parallel, then $\varpi=0$.
Given a smooth curve $\widetilde v:[a,b]\to{\mathds R}^n$, the corresponding vector field $v$ along $\gamma$ defined by $v(t)=p(t)\widetilde v(t)$ is Jacobi if and only if $\widetilde v$ satisfies the second order linear equation: $$\label{eq:JacobiRn}
{\tfrac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dt}}\big[\widetilde v'+\varpi\widetilde v\big]+\varpi\widetilde v'+\varpi^2\widetilde v+\widetilde R\widetilde v=0.$$ Setting $$\label{alfa}
\alpha=\widetilde g\big[\widetilde v'+\varpi\widetilde v\big]:[a,b]\to{{\mathds R}^n}^*$$ Eq. can be rewritten as the system: $$\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix}'=\begin{pmatrix}-\varpi&\widetilde g^{-1}\cr
-\widetilde g\widetilde R&\widetilde g'\widetilde g^{-1}-\widetilde g\varpi\widetilde g^{-1}\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix},$$ and using this is the symplectic system: $$\label{eq:symplsystemassociatedgamma}
\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix}'=\begin{pmatrix}-\varpi&\widetilde g^{-1}\cr
-\widetilde g\widetilde R&\varpi^*\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix}.$$
\[thm:changeoftrivialization\] The Maslov index of the symplectic system does *not* depend on the choice of the trivialization $p$ in .
Assume that two trivializations $p(t):{\mathds R}^n\to T_{\gamma(t)}M$ and $q(t):{\mathds R}^n\to T_{\gamma(t)}M$ are given, and denote by: $$\label{eq:duesistemi}
\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix}'=\begin{pmatrix}-\varpi&\widetilde g^{-1}\cr
-\widetilde g\widetilde R&\varpi^*\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde v\cr\alpha\end{pmatrix}, \quad
\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde w\cr\beta\end{pmatrix}'=\begin{pmatrix}-\tau&\widetilde h^{-1}\cr
-\widetilde h\widetilde S&\tau^*\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde w\cr\beta\end{pmatrix}$$ the corresponding symplectic systems. Denote by $K(t):{\mathds R}^n\to{\mathds R}^n$ the isomorphism $K(t)=q(t)^{-1}p(t)$; then, one computes easily: $$\begin{aligned}
&\widetilde g_t\!=\!K(t)^*\widetilde h_tK(t),\\
&\varpi(t)\!=\!K(t)^{-1}K'(t)+K(t)^{-1}\tau(t)K(t),\\
&\widetilde R(t)\!=\!K(t)^{-1}\widetilde S(t)K(t).\end{aligned}$$ for all $t$. Then it is easy to see that the symplectic systems in are isomorphic (with $Z=K^{-1}$ and $W\equiv0$), and they have the same Maslov index.
A totally analogous statement holds for the Maslov index of a geodesic relatively to an initial orthogonal submanifold $\mathcal P$.
[Semi-Riemannian submersions and lifts]{}\[lifts\]
Semi-Riemannian submersions
---------------------------
Let $M$ and $B$ be differential manifolds having dimensions $n$ and $m$ respectively. A submersion is a $C^\infty$ mapping $\pi:M\to B$ such that $\pi$ is of maximal rank. The implicit function theorem implies that $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is a closed submanifold of $M$ for each $x\in B$, that we call a *fiber* of the submersion. When $M$ and $B$ are semi-Riemannian manifolds it is convenient to consider a special class of submersions, where one can relate in a good way the geometry of $M$ with the geometry of the fibers and of $B$. In particular, we assume that the fibers are non-degenerate submanifolds, so that for every point $p\in M$ one has a decomposition of the tangent space $T_pM$ as an orthogonal direct sum: $$\label{eq:defcalVcalH}
T_pM={\mathcal{V}}T_pM+{\mathcal{H}}T_pM.$$ Here ${\mathcal{V}}T_pM$ denotes the subspace of vectors tangent to the fiber through $p$ and ${\mathcal{H}}T_pM$ the orthogonal vectors to ${\mathcal{V}}T_pM$. These subspaces are respectively called *vertical* and *horizontal* subspaces, and we will denote by ${\mathcal{V}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}$ the projections to the vertical and horizontal subspaces; ${\mathcal{V}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}$ are smooth sections of the vector bundle $\mathrm{Lin}(TM)$ of endomorphisms of $TM$.
Let $M$ and $B$ be semi-Riemannian manifolds, with metric tensors $g$ and $h$ respectively. A semi-Riemannian submersion is a submersion $\pi:M\rightarrow B$ such that[^1] for every $p\in M$ (see [@One83 p. 212])
1. the fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is non degenerate ($ x=\pi(p)$)
2. the differential map ${{\rm d}}\pi$ restricted to the horizontal subspace $${{\rm d}}\pi_p:{\mathcal{H}}T_pM\rightarrow T_xB$$ is an isometry.
There are very many situations where one has a natural semi-Riemannian submersion structure in a geometrical problem; we will be interested in the following two examples.
\[exa:statspacetimesubm\] Let $(M,g)$ be a [*Lorentzian manifold*]{}, that is, a semi-Riemannian metric $g$ of index $1$. We say that $M$ is [*stationary*]{} when there exists a timelike Killing field $Y$, i.e., a vector field $Y$, with $g(Y,Y)<0$ and ${\mathcal L}_Yg=0$, where ${\mathcal L}_Y$ is the Lie derivative with respect to $Y$. The vector field $Y$ gives a timelike orientation to $(M,g)$, so that it becomes a spacetime. We will consider the class of *standard* stationary spacetimes, that is, those that can be written as $(S\times{\mathds R},g)$ with $$g\big((\xi,\tau),(\xi,\tau)\big)=g_0(\xi,\xi)+2\tau g_0(\delta,\xi)-\beta \tau^2,$$ where $\xi\in TS$, $\tau\in {\mathds R}$, $g_0$ is a Riemannian metric in $S$ and $\beta$ and $\delta$ are respectively a positive function and a vector field in $S$. In this case, the timelike vector field $Y$ is $\partial_t$ (where $t$ is the variable of ${\mathds R}$). If the stationary spacetime does not have too bad causal properties (more precisely, if it is *distinguishing*) and the timelike Killing field is complete, then it admits a standard splitting (see [@JS08]). We always can associate a semi-Riemannian submersion to a standard stationary spacetime $(S\times{\mathds R},g)$. Indeed, the projection $\pi:(S\times{\mathds R},g)\rightarrow (S,\tilde{g})$ is a semi-Riemannian submersion, where $\tilde{g}$ is the *Riemannian* metric defined by $\tilde{g}(\xi,\xi)=g_0(\xi,\xi)+\frac{1}{\beta} g_0(\xi,\delta)^2$ for every $\xi\in TS$.
\[exa:kk\] Let $\pi\colon M\to B$ be a smooth principal $G$-bundle, $h$ a Lorentzian metric on $B$, $\bar g$ a $G$-invariant Riemannian metric on the model space of the fibers, then by using a connection on $M$, a [*Kaluza-Klein metric*]{} $g$ on $M$ is given by $$g(X,X)= h({{\rm d}}\pi(X),{{\rm d}}\pi(X))+\bar g(V,V),$$ where $V$ is the vertical component of $X$ (see [@Bourgu89]). The projection $\pi\colon (M,g)\to (B,h)$ is a Lorentzian submersion.
It is well known (see [@Herman60]) that if $(M,g)$ is a connected complete Riemannian manifold and $\pi\colon (M,g) \to (B,h)$ is a smooth surjective Riemannian submersion, such that all the fibers are totally geodesic submanifolds, then all the fibers are isometric and $\pi$ is a smooth $G$-bundle with structure group $G$, the Lie group of the isometries of the fiber. That result has been used to study “Riemannian” Kaluza-Klein theory taking a submersion as starting point (see [@Hogan84 §4] and also [@Bourgu89 p.152-153]). It would be interesting to get a similar geometric characterization of a Kaluza-Klein spacetime (i.e. when $\pi \colon (M,g)\to (B,h)$ is a Lorentzian submersion as in Example \[exa:kk\]). Clearly if any curve in $B$ can be lifted to a globally defined horizontal curve, then $\pi$ is a fiber bundle and one can repeat the proof in [@Herman60] to get that $\pi$ is actually a smooth $G$-bundle.
\[hermanngener\] Let $(M,g)$ and $(B,h)$ be two connected semi-Riemannian manifolds and let $\pi\colon (M,g) \to (B,h)$ be a smooth surjective semi-Riemannian submersion such that, for any $x\in B$, $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is totally geodesic. Assume that either one of the following two assumptions is satisfied:
1. $(M,g)$ is geodesically complete,
2. the fibers $\pi^{-1}(x)$ are compact and connected, for each $x\in B$.
Then $\pi$ is a smooth $G$-bundle.
As commented in the above remark, the only conditions necessary to repeat the Riemannian proof of Hermann [@Herman60] in the semi-Riemannian context is the global definition of horizontal liftings. Assuming condition $(1)$ in the proposition, this can be shown by approximating a given curve $\beta$ in $B$ by piecewise geodesics that, by the geodesic completeness, can be lifted to $M$. The sequence of lifts converges, up to consider a subsequence, to the horizontal lift of $\beta$. When assuming condition $(2)$, we can use a result by Ehresmann [@Ehresm51 p.31] to show the existence of horizontal global lifts. To show that the fibers are isometric, for any vertical curve $\alpha$ we can consider a variation $(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\ni s\mapsto \alpha_s$ defined by a horizontal variational vector field. Analogously to the proof of [@Herman60 Proposition 3.3] we can see that the energy of the curves $\alpha_s$ in the variation is constant and as a consequence the fibers are isometric.
Fundamental tensors of a submersion {#sub:fundtensors}
-----------------------------------
In [@One66], B. O’Neill introduced the fundamental tensors $T$ and $A$ associated to a semi-Riemannian submersion $\pi:M\to B$, defined as follows. We denote by $\nabla$ the Levi-Civita connection of $M$ and $\nabla^*$ the Levi-Civita connection of $B$. Then for vectors fields $E$ and $F$ in ${\mathfrak X}(M)$, $$\label{eq:deftensorT}
T_E(F)={\mathcal{H}}\nabla_{{\mathcal{V}}E}({\mathcal{V}}F)+{\mathcal{V}}\nabla_{{\mathcal{V}}E}({\mathcal{H}}F).$$ The other tensor can be thought as a dual tensor of $T$. In fact, it can be obtained by reversing the role of ${\mathcal{V}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}$. Explicitly, $$\label{eq:deftensorA}
A_E(F)={\mathcal{H}}\nabla_{{\mathcal{H}}E}({\mathcal{V}}F)+{\mathcal{V}}\nabla_{{\mathcal{H}}E}({\mathcal{H}}F).$$ The main properties of the fundamental tensors are the following:
1. $T_E$ and $A_E$ are skew-symmetric operators on $T_pM$ for every $p\in M$,
2. $T$ is symmetric for vertical vector fields $V$ and $W$, i.e., $T_V(W)=T_W(V)$ and $A$ is alternating for horizontal vector fields $X$ and $Y$, i.e., $A_X(Y)=-A_Y(X)$,
3. when restricted to vertical vector fields $T$ coincides with the second fundamental form of the fibers, while $A$ coincides with the integrability tensor of the horizontal distribution of $M$ when restricted to pairs of horizontal vectors.
The tangent space to a non-degenerate distribution
--------------------------------------------------
Let us recall a few generalities on distributions. For $v\in TM$, consider the decomposition of $T_v(TM)=\mathrm{Hor}_v\oplus\mathrm{Ver}_v$ into the horizontal and vertical subspaces determined by the Levi–Civita connection of $g$.[^2] Assume that $\mathcal D\subset TM$ is any non-degenerate distribution (i.e., $g\vert_{\mathcal D\times\mathcal D}$ is non-degenerate), and denote by $\mathcal S^\mathcal D:TM\times\mathcal D\to\mathcal D^\perp$ its *second fundamental form*, defined by: $$\mathcal S_x^\mathcal D(v,w)=\mathbf p^\perp\big(\nabla_vW),$$ where $x\in M$, $v\in T_xM$, $w\in\mathcal D_x$, $W$ is any extension of $w$ to a local section of $\mathcal D$ and $\mathbf p^\perp$ is the projection onto the orthogonal of $\mathcal D$. Let now $x_0\in M$ and $v_0\in\mathcal D_{x_0}$ be fixed; we want to determine the tangent space $T_{v_0}\mathcal D$, where $\mathcal D$ is considered merely as a submanifold of $TM$. If $\left]-\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right[\ni t\mapsto v(t)\in\mathcal D$ is any smooth curve with $v(0)=v_0\in\mathcal D_{x_0}$ and $x(t)=\pi^M\big(v(t)\big)$ is its projection onto $M$, then the horizontal and the vertical component of the tangent vector $\dot v(0)\in T_{v_0}(TM)=\mathrm{Hor}_{v_0}\oplus\mathrm{Ver}_{v_0}$ are given respectively by $\dot x(0)$ and ${\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}v(0)$, where ${\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}$ is the covariant derivative along the curve $x$. Here, $\pi^M:TM\to M$ denotes the canonical projection. By definition, $$\mathbf p^\perp\big({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}v(0)\big)=\mathcal S_{x_0}^\mathcal D\big(\dot x(0),v_0\big).$$
\[thm:tangdistr\] For $v_0\in\mathcal D_{x_0}$, the tangent space $T_{v_0}\mathcal D$ is given by: $$\label{eq:tangentdistribution}
T_{v_0}\mathcal D=\big\{(u_1,u_2)\in\mathrm{Hor}_{v_0}\oplus\mathrm{Ver}_{v_0}:\mathbf p^\perp(u_2)=\mathcal S_{x_0}^\mathcal D(u_1,v_0)\big\}.$$
Denote by $C_{v_0}\subset T_{v_0}(TM)$ the right-hand side of . We have shown above the inclusion $T_{v_0}\mathcal D\subset C_{v_0}$. Counting dimensions one obtains immediately $T_{v_0}\mathcal D=C_{v_0}$.
Horizontal curves and infinitesimally horizontal vector fields {#sub:horinfhor}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now consider the case of a distribution $\mathcal D$ which is the horizontal distribution of a semi-Riemannian submersion $\pi:M\to B$. In this case, the projection operator $\mathbf p^\perp$ coincides with the operator $\mathcal V$ defined in , and using and one obtains easily the following equality: $$\label{eq:secffAT}
\mathcal S^\mathcal D(v,w)=A_v(w)+T_v(w)$$ for all $v\in TM$ and all $w\in\mathcal D$.
Given a $C^1$ curve $\beta:[a,b]\to B$, a *horizontal lift* of $\beta$ is a curve $\gamma:[a,c]\subset [a,b]\to M$ such that $\pi\circ\gamma=\beta$ and $\dot\gamma(s)$ is horizontal for all $s\in [a,c]$.
\[thm:exlift\] Let $\pi:M\to B$ be a semi-Riemannian submersion and let $\mathcal D={\mathrm{Ker}}(\mathrm d\pi)^\perp$ be the horizontal distribution of $\pi$. Given any $C^1$-curve $\beta:[a,b]\to B$ and any $p\in\pi^{-1}\big(\beta(a)\big)$, there exists a unique maximal horizontal lift $\gamma:\left[a,c\right[\to M$ of $\beta$, with $c\le b$, satisfying $\gamma(a)=p$. Such $\gamma$ has the same regularity as $\beta$.
Using the local form of a submersion, for the local lifting problem it is not restrictive to assume that $M=U\times V$ is the product of an open subset $U\subset{\mathds R}^k$, $k=n-m$ and an open subset $V\subset{\mathds R}^m$, such that $B=V$ and $\pi:U\times V\to V$ is the projection onto the second factor. The horizontal distribution of the submersion is a distribution $\mathcal D$ on $U\times V$ such that, at each point $(x,y)\in U\times V$, $\mathcal D_{(x,y)}$ is a subspace of ${\mathds R}^n$ which is complementary to ${\mathds R}^k\oplus\{0\}^m$, hence it is the graph of a linear map $F(x,y):{\mathds R}^m\to{\mathds R}^k$. The map $U\times V\ni(x,y)\mapsto F(x,y)\in\mathrm{Lin}({\mathds R}^m,{\mathds R}^k)$ is smooth. Given a curve $x:[a,b]\to V$, a lifting of $x$ is a curve $(x,y):[a,b]\to U\times V$ where $y$ satisfies the following ODE: $$y'(t)=F\big(x(t),y(t)\big) x'(t).$$ The thesis follows easily using standard existence and uniqueness results for ODE’s in ${\mathds R}^n$.
Let us study the problem of lifting horizontally a $1$-parameter family of curves by considering the following situation.
Let us assume we are given a $C^1$-map $\Psi:[a,b]\times\left]-\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right[\to B$ and a $C^1$-curve $\eta:\left]-\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right[\to M$ such that $\pi\circ\eta=\Psi(a,\cdot)$. Proposition \[thm:exlift\] gives us the existence of a map $\Gamma:\mathcal A\to M$ defined on an open subset $\mathcal A$ of ${\mathds R}^2$ that contains the segment $\{a \}\times\left]-\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right[$ such that $\pi\big(\Gamma(t,s)\big)=\Psi(t,s)$ for all $(t,s)\in\mathcal A$, and with the property that the curve $t\mapsto\Gamma(t,s)$ is of class $C^1$ for all $s\in\left]-\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right[$. Such map $\Gamma$ is defined by the property that for every $s\in\left]-\varepsilon,\varepsilon\right[$, the map $t\mapsto\Gamma(t,s)$ is a maximal horizontal lift of the curve $t\mapsto\Psi(t,s)$ satisfying $\Gamma(a,s)=\eta(s)$. Let us denote by $\gamma$ the curve $t\mapsto\Gamma(t,0)$.
\[thm:varhoriz\] With the notations above, we have:
- the map $\Gamma$ is $C^1$ in $\mathcal A$.
If $\mathcal A$ contains the segment $[a,b]\times\{0\}$, then:
- $\mathcal A$ contains the rectangle $[a,b]\times[-\delta,\delta]$ for some $\delta\in\left]0,\varepsilon\right[$;
- the variational vector field $E=\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\big\vert_{s=0}\Gamma(t,s)$ along $\gamma$ satisfies the identity: $$\label{eq:infhorizontality}
{\mathcal{V}}{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E=\mathcal S_{\gamma(t)}^\mathcal D\big(E(t),\dot\gamma(t)\big)=A_E(\dot\gamma)+T_{E}(\dot\gamma)=
A_{{\mathcal{H}}E}(\dot\gamma)+T_{{\mathcal{V}}E}(\dot\gamma).$$
Part (a) follows from standard smooth dependence results on the data for solutions of ODE’s. Also part (b) is obtained easily from standard continuity results for ODE’s. For part (c), observe that $\frac\partial{\partial t}\Gamma(t,s)\in\mathcal D_{\Gamma(t,s)}$, and thus $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Big\vert_{s=0}
\frac\partial{\partial t}\Gamma(t,s)=
\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Big\vert_{s=0}\Gamma,\frac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm ds}\Big\vert_{s=0}\frac\partial{\partial t}\Gamma(t,s)\Big)
\\=\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\Big\vert_{s=0}\Gamma,\frac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}\frac{\partial}{\partial s}
\Big\vert_{s=0}\Gamma(t,s)\Big)=\big(E,{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E\big)\in T_{\dot\gamma(t)}\mathcal D.\end{gathered}$$ The conclusion follows now from Lemma \[thm:tangdistr\] and formula .
Basic horizontal vector fields
------------------------------
A horizontal vector field is *basic* when it is $\pi$-related with a vector field on $B$. The following result can be found in [@One66 Lemmas 1 and 3].
\[nablas\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be horizontal vector fields and $V$ a vertical vector field. Then the following identities hold:
1. $\nabla_VX={\mathcal{H}}\nabla_VX+T_V(X)$ (if $X$ basic, ${\mathcal{H}}\nabla_VX=A_X(V)$).
2. $\nabla_XV=A_X(V)+{\mathcal{V}}\nabla_XV$.
3. $\nabla_XY={\mathcal{H}}\nabla_XY+A_X(Y)$.
4. ${\mathcal{H}}\nabla_XY$ is basic and is $\pi$-related to $\nabla^*_{{{\rm d}}\pi(X)}({{\rm d}}\pi(Y))$.
Given a submanifold ${\mathcal P}\subset B$, the total lift ${\mathcal Q}=\pi^{-1}({\mathcal P})$ of ${\mathcal P}$ by the submersion $\pi$ is a submanifold of $M$, as it can be proven using the inverse mapping theorem. If the submersion is semi-Riemannian, the total lift of a non degenerate submanifold is also non degenerate. Namely, for $p\in \mathcal Q$, the tangent space $T_p\mathcal Q$ is the sum of the orthogonal subspaces $\mathcal VT_pM$ and $\mathrm d\pi_p^{-1}\big(T_{\pi_p}\mathcal P\big)\cap\mathcal HT_pM$. They are both non-degenerate subspaces of $T_pM$, thus $T_p\mathcal Q$ is non-degenerate.
The differential ${{\rm d}}\pi$ gives an identification of horizontal vectors in $M$ with tangent vectors to the space $B$. Such identification will be use implicitly throughout the paper. We observe that with this identification, horizontal tangent vectors to $\mathcal Q$ correspond to tangent vectors to $\mathcal P$.
We want to show that there is a relation between the second fundamental form of ${\mathcal P}$ and the second fundamental form of its total lift. In fact, we will consider the tensor ${\mathcal S}^{\mathcal P}:T{\mathcal P}\times T{\mathcal P}^\bot\to T{\mathcal P}$ defined as $${\mathcal S}^{\mathcal P}_x(v,w)=(\nabla_vW)^{\mathrm t},$$ where $x\in {\mathcal P}$, $v\in T_x{\mathcal P}$, $w\in (T_x{\mathcal P})^\bot$, $W$ is any extension of $w$ to a orthogonal vector field to $\mathcal P$ and the superscript $\mathrm t$ denotes the tangent part to ${\mathcal P}$. Analogously, we define ${\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}:T{\mathcal Q}\times T{\mathcal Q}^\bot\to T{\mathcal Q}$.
\[prop:secondfund\] If $V$ is a vertical vector and $X$ and $Z$ are in ${\mathcal{H}}(T{\mathcal Q})$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ver}
{\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(V,Z)&=T_V(Z)+A_Z(V)^{\mathrm t},\\
\label{hor}
{\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(X,Z)&=A_X(Z)+{\mathcal S}^{\mathcal P}(X,Z),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm t$ denotes the tangent part to $\mathcal P$ for vectors in $TB$ and the tangent part to $\mathcal Q$ for vectors in $TM$.
By part $(1)$ in Lemma \[nablas\] we see that $${\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(V,Z)=({\mathcal{H}}\nabla_VZ)^{\mathrm t}+T_V(Z).$$ From this expression we deduce that $({\mathcal{H}}\nabla_VZ)^{\mathrm t}$ is tensorial in $V$ and $Z$, so we can assume that $Z$ is basic, and using again part $(1)$ in Lemma \[nablas\] we obtain $({\mathcal{H}}\nabla_VZ)^{\mathrm t}=A_Z(V)^{\mathrm t}$, which concludes the proof of . Equation follows directly from $(3)$ and $(4)$ in Lemma \[nablas\].
[Horizontal geodesics]{}\[sec:horizontalgeo\] Our aim in this section is to reformulate some of the main results in [@One67], with some minor modifications that clarify the role of the derived vector field introduced in Definition \[thm:defderivedvectorfield\].
The derived vector field
------------------------
Given a vector field $E$ along a curve $\alpha$ in $M$, we will denote $E_*$ its projection by ${{\rm d}}\pi$, which is a vector field along the curve $\pi\circ\alpha$. Moreover, we will use the same notation for a vector in $\pi\circ \alpha$ and its horizontal lift in $\alpha$. It is important to clarify, as we will use the same notation for the covariant derivative in $M$ and $B$, that ${\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E_*$, when identified with a vector field on $\alpha$, denotes the horizontal lift of the covariant derivative in $B$ of $E_*$. Even if the results of [@One67] are stated and proved only in the case of Riemannian submersions, most of them are still valid in the semi-Riemannian context. We will shortly recall in this section a few basic facts from [@One67], stated for semi-Riemannian submersions.
It will be useful to introduce the following notation. Given a smooth curve $\alpha$ in $M$ and a smooth vector field $E$ along $\alpha$, write $E=H+V$, with $H={\mathcal{H}}E$ and $V={\mathcal{V}}E$.
\[covariant\] Let $\pi:M\rightarrow B$ be a semi-Riemannian submersion, and let $E=H+V$ be a vector field on a curve $\alpha$ in $M$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}}({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E)&={\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E_*+A_H({\mathcal{V}}\dot\alpha)+A_{{\mathcal{H}}\dot\alpha}(V)+T_{{\mathcal{V}}\dot\alpha}(V),\\
{\mathcal{V}}({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E)&=A_{{\mathcal{H}}\dot\alpha}(H)+T_{{\mathcal{V}}\dot\alpha}(H)+{\mathcal{V}}({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}V).\end{aligned}$$
See [@One67 Theorem 1].
Let $\alpha$ be a curve in $M$ with $X={\mathcal{H}}\dot\alpha$ and $U={\mathcal{V}}\dot\alpha$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}}({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}\dot\alpha)&={\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}\dot\alpha_*+2A_X(U)+T_U(U),\\
{\mathcal{V}}({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}\dot\alpha)&=T_U(X)+{\mathcal{V}}({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}U),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}\dot\alpha_*$ is the horizontal lift to $\alpha$ of the acceleration of $\pi\circ\alpha$ in $B$.
The projection of a horizontal geodesic in $M$ is a geodesic in $B$.
\[geohor\] Let $\pi:M\rightarrow B$ be a semi-Riemannian submersion. If $\gamma$ is a geodesic of $M$ that is horizontal at some point, then it is always horizontal (hence $\pi\circ\gamma$ is a geodesic of $B$).
See [@One67 Corollary 2].
\[thm:defderivedvectorfield\] The *derived* vector field of $E=H+V$, denoted by $D(E)$, is the smooth vector field along $\gamma$ defined by: $$D(E)={\mathcal{V}}\left({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}V\right)-T_V(\dot\gamma)+2A_{\dot\gamma}(H).$$
\[lem:D=0\] Let $\gamma$ be a horizontal curve in $M$. Given a vector field $P$ on $\pi\circ\gamma$ and a vector $z\in T_{\gamma(t_0)}M$, there exists a unique vector field $E$ on $\gamma$ such that
1. $E_*=P$,
2. $D(E)=0$,
3. $E(t_0)=z$.
Analogous to Lemma 1 in [@One67].
Infinitesimally horizontal vector fields
----------------------------------------
An immediate calculation using and shows that equality is satisfied if and only if $D(E)=0$. Thus, we have the following:
\[d=0\] Let $\gamma$ be a smooth horizontal curve in $M$ and let $E$ be a smooth vector field. Then, $E$ is *infinitesimally horizontal*, i.e., it is the variational vector field along $\gamma$ corresponding to a smooth variation of $\gamma$ by horizontal curves, if and only if $D(E)=0$.
The proof of Proposition \[thm:varhoriz\] and the second equation in Theorem \[covariant\] show that equation , equivalent to $D(E)=0$, is precisely the linearization of the horizontality condition for variations of $\gamma$. Thus, if $s\mapsto\gamma_s$ is a smooth variation of $\gamma$ by horizontal curves, then necessarily the variational vector field $E=\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\big\vert_{s=0}\gamma_s$ satisfies $D(E)=0$. Conversely, assume that $D(E)=0$, and consider the projection $P=E_*$. We can choose a variation of $\pi\circ\gamma$ in $B$ with variational vector field $P$, and by Proposition \[thm:varhoriz\] we can lift such variation to a variation of $\gamma$ in $M$ by horizontal curves. Moreover, we can prescribe the initial value of the corresponding variational field $\widetilde P$ to be equal to the value of $E$. Thus, by the first part of the proof, $\tilde P$ is an infinitesimally horizontal vector field that projects onto $P$, and it coincides with $E$ at the initial instant, therefore, by Lemma \[lem:D=0\], $\widetilde P=E$ everywhere.
We recall briefly the notion of Jacobi fields. Given a geodesic $\gamma$ in $M$, a field $E$ on $\gamma$ is Jacobi iff satisfies the Jacobi equation $\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2} E=R(\dot\gamma,E)\dot\gamma$, where $R$ is the curvature tensor of $M$. Analogously, given a geodesic $x$ in $B$, a field $F$ on $x$ is Jacobi iff satisfies $\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2}F= R_*(\dot x,F)\dot x$, where $R_*$ is the curvature tensor of $B$.
Let $E$ be a vector field on a horizontal geodesic $\gamma$ in $M$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{H}}\big(\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2}E- R(\dot\gamma,E)\dot\gamma\big)&=\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2} E_*- R_*(\dot\gamma,E_*)\dot\gamma+2A_{\dot\gamma}(D),\\
{\mathcal{V}}\big(\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2}E- R(\dot\gamma,E)\dot\gamma\big)&={\mathcal{V}}({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}D)+T_D(\dot\gamma),\end{aligned}$$ where $D=D(E)$ is the derived vector field of $E$ and $R$ and $ R_*$ are the curvature tensors of $M$ and $B$, and $\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2} E_*- R_*(\dot\gamma,E_*)\dot\gamma$ denotes the horizontal lift to $\gamma$ of the vector field $\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2} E_*-R_*(\dot x,E_*)\dot x$, along the curve $x=\pi\circ\gamma$.
See [@One67 Theorem 2].
\[relacionajacobi\] A field $E$ on a horizontal geodesic in $M$ with derived vector field $D(E)=0$ is Jacobi if and only if $P=E_*$ is a Jacobi field of $\pi\circ\gamma$ in $B$.
[Maslov index of horizontal geodesics]{} We will now relate the Maslov index of a horizontal geodesic in a semi-Riemannian submersion with the Maslov index of its projection on the base of the submersion. We emphasize that, unlike the standard Riemannian case, establishing a correspondence between Jacobi fields on the horizontal geodesic and on its projection is not sufficient in order to prove equality of the Maslov indexes. Namely, the Maslov index does not depend only on the dimension of the space of Jacobi fields that are zero in the origin and in the conjugate instant.
Throughout this section, we will consider the following setup:
- $\pi: (M,g)\to (B,h)$ is a semi-Riemannian submersion;
- $\gamma:[a,b]\to M$ is a horizontal geodesic;
- $x:[a,b]\to B$ is the projected geodesic in $B$: $x=\pi\circ\gamma$;
- $\mathcal P\subset B$ is a non-degenerate submanifold of $B$ with $x(a)\in\mathcal P$ and $\dot x(a)\in T_{x(a)}\mathcal P^\perp$;
- $\mathcal S^\mathcal P$ is the second fundamental form of $\mathcal P$ at the point $x(a)$ in the direction $\dot x(a)$;
- $\mathcal Q=\pi^{-1}(\mathcal P)$;
- $\mathcal S^\mathcal Q$ is the second fundamental form of $\mathcal Q$ at the point $\gamma(a)$ in the direction $\dot\gamma(a)$.
$\mathcal Q$-Jacobi fields
--------------------------
Consider the initial (or final) orthogonal submanifold $\mathcal Q$ for the geodesic $\gamma$. One has the notion of a *$\mathcal{Q}$-Jacobi field*, that is, a Jacobi field $E$ along $\gamma$ such that $E(a)\in T_{\gamma(a)}\mathcal{Q}$ and $$\label{pjacobi}
\left({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E(a)\right)^{\mathrm t}={\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(E(a),\dot\gamma(a)).$$ The $\mathcal{Q}$-Jacobi fields are precisely the variational vector fields corresponding to variations of $\gamma$ given by geodesics that start orthogonally to $\mathcal{Q}$ (see [@One83 Chapter 10]). When a non-null $\mathcal{Q}$-Jacobi field is zero at an instant $t_0>a$, we say that $\gamma(t_0)$ is a *$\mathcal Q$-focal point* or that $t_0$ is a [*$\mathcal Q$-focal instant*]{} of the geodesic $\gamma$. The idea behind the name is that there exists a continuum of geodesics departing orthogonally from the submanifold $\mathcal{Q}$ and focusing at $\gamma(t_0)$, but this holds only up to first order infinitesimals.
We will use several families of Jacobi fields, and it will be useful to introduce the following notation. Let ${\mathcal{J}}$ be the linear space of all Jacobi fields along $\gamma$ and ${\mathcal{J}}_*$ be the linear space of Jacobi fields along $x$, then we define $${\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})=\big\{E\in {\mathcal{J}}_* : \text{$E$ is a ${\mathcal{P}}$-Jacobi field}\big\}$$ and $${\mathcal{J}}_\delta({\mathcal{P}})=\big\{E\in{\mathcal{J}}:D(E)=0,\,E_*\in {\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})\big\}.$$ In particular, ${\mathcal{J}}_\delta(x(a))$ are the Jacobi fields $J$ along $\gamma$ that are zero in $\gamma(a)$ and $D(J)=0$, and ${\mathcal{J}}_*(x(a))$, the Jacobi fields along $x$ that are zero in $x(a)$.
\[lem:equiv\] A vector field $E$ on $\gamma$, such that $E(a)\in T_{\gamma(a)}\mathcal Q$, satisfies $$\label{boundaryconditions}
\left({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E(a)\right)^{\mathrm t}-{\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(E(a),\dot\gamma(a))=\left({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E_*(a)\right)^{\mathrm t}-{\mathcal S}^{\mathcal P}(H(a),\dot\gamma(a))+ D(E)(a),$$ where $H={\mathcal{H}}E$. Moreover, $E$ is a $\mathcal{Q}$-Jacobi field iff $E\in {\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})$.
From and , we get $$\label{segundaforma}
{\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(E(a),\dot\gamma(a))=T_{V}(\dot\gamma)(a)+ A_{\dot\gamma}(V)^{\mathrm t}(a)+A_H (\dot\gamma)(a)+{\mathcal S}^{\mathcal P}(H(a),\dot\gamma(a)),$$ where $V={\mathcal{V}}E$, and from Theorem \[covariant\] and Definition \[thm:defderivedvectorfield\], we deduce the equation $$\label{edea}
{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E={\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E_*+A_{\dot\gamma}(V)-A_{\dot\gamma}(H)+T_V(\dot\gamma)+D(E).$$ Equation follows from and by taking into account that $A$ is alternating for horizontal vectors. For the second part, we observe that implies that condition for $E$ to be a ${\mathcal Q}$-Jacobi field is equivalent to $$\label{ultimate}\left({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E_*(a)\right)^{\mathrm t}={\mathcal S}^{\mathcal P}(H(a),\dot\gamma(a))
-D(E)(a).$$ If $E$ is a ${\mathcal Q}$-Jacobi field, then it is the variational vector field of a variation of $\gamma$ by geodesics that are horizontal at least at the origin, but by Theorem \[geohor\] they have to be horizontal wherever. Applying Proposition \[d=0\] we obtain that $D(E)=0$, so that Eq. and Corollary \[relacionajacobi\] imply that $E_*$ is $\mathcal{P}$-Jacobi. For the converse, observe that using and Corollary \[relacionajacobi\] we deduce that every $E$ in ${\mathcal{J}}_\delta({\mathcal P})$ is a $\mathcal{Q}$-Jacobi field.
$\mathcal Q$-Maslov index
-------------------------
The $\mathcal{Q}$-Maslov index of a geodesic is an algebraic count of the $\mathcal{Q}$-focal points obtained as follows. Consider a smooth trivialization $$p(t):{\mathds R}^n\stackrel\cong\longrightarrow T_{\gamma(t)}M$$ of the tangent bundle $TM$ along the geodesic $\gamma$. Define $$\label{LQ}
L_{\mathcal Q}=\{(v,w)\in {\mathds R}^n\times{{\mathds R}^n}^*: (p(a) [w] )^{\mathrm t}={\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(p(a)[v] ,\dot\gamma(a))\},$$ and let $[a,b]\ni t\to\Phi(t)$ be the flow of the symplectic system considering the symplectic space $V={\mathds R}^n\oplus{{\mathds R}^n}^*$ endowed with the symplectic form $\omega\big((v,\alpha),(w,\beta)\big)=\beta(v)-\alpha(w)$. Then, the $\mathcal Q$-Maslov index of $\gamma$ is the Maslov index of the Lagrangian path $t\to \Phi(t)[L_{\mathcal Q}]$ with respect to the Lagrangian $L_0=\{0\}\times {{\mathds R}^n}^*$. As in Section \[independence\] it is possible to show that the $\mathcal Q$-Maslov index does not depend on the trivialization $p$.
As a first step, we will show that there is a correspondence between the non-degenerate $\mathcal{Q}$-focal and $\mathcal{P}$-focal points of $\gamma$ an $x$ and the contribution to the Maslov index.
\[lem:suma\] Consider the following subspaces of $T_{\gamma(t_0)}M$ and $T_{x(t_0)}B$ respectively, ${\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})[t_0]=\big\{J(t_0): J\in J_\delta(\mathcal{P})\big\}$ and ${\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})[t_0]=\big\{J(t_0): J\in {\mathcal J}_*(\mathcal{P})\big\}$ for every $t_0\in\left(a,b\right]$. Then $$\label{adition}
{\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})[t_0]={\mathcal{V}}T_{\gamma(t_0)}M+{\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})[t_0].$$
Fix $J_*\in{\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})$, then by Lemma \[lem:D=0\] and Corollary \[relacionajacobi\], there exists a Jacobi field $ J_v$ in ${\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})$ such that $J_v(t_0)=J_*(t_0)+v$ for every $v\in \mathcal{V}T_{\gamma(t_0)}M$. Conversely, if $J\in{\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})$, then $J_*\in {\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})$ and $J(t_0)=J_*(t_0)+v$ for some $v\in \mathcal{V}T_{\gamma(t_0)}M$.
\[contribution\] Let $\pi:M\rightarrow B$ be a semi-Riemannian submersion and $\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M$ a horizontal geodesic. Then, an instant $t_0$ is a $\mathcal{Q}$-focal instant of $\gamma$ if and only if it is a $\mathcal{P}$-focal instant of the curve $x=\pi\circ\gamma$. Furthermore, if $t_0$ is a non-degenerate focal instant of $\gamma$, then so it is of $x$ and the contribution to the Maslov index given by $\gamma(t_0)$ coincides with the one of $x(t_0)$.
We recall that $t_0$ is a $\mathcal P$-focal instant of $x$ when ${\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})[t_0]^\bot$ is not equal to $\{0\}$ and that in such a case, its contribution to the Maslov index coincides with the signature of $h$ restricted to the subspace ${\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})[t_0]^\bot$ (see for instance [@MerPicTau02]). Moreover, by Lemma \[lem:equiv\], the $\mathcal Q$-focal points of $\gamma$ are just the instants where ${\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})[t_0]^\bot$ is non trivial, and its contribution, the signature of $g$ restricted to such a space. Lemma \[lem:suma\] implies that ${\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})[t_0]^\bot$ is isometric to ${\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})[t_0]^\bot$, so that the thesis of the proposition follows.
We proceed now to prove the equality between the Maslov indexes in the general case.
\[thm:eqMaslovindices\] Let $\pi:(M,g)\rightarrow (B,h)$ be a semi-Riemannian submersion, $\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M$ a horizontal geodesic and $\mathcal{P}$ a submanifold of $B$ through $x (a)$ orthogonal to $x$. Then, the $\mathcal{Q}$-Maslov index of $\gamma$ coincides with the ${\mathcal P}$-Maslov index of the geodesic $x$.
Consider an orthonormal frame $$p(t)=\{E^1(t),\dots,E^m(t), F^1(t),\dots,F^{n-m}(t)\}$$ along $\gamma$ such that $E^1(t),\dots,E^m(t)$ are horizontal and $F^1(t),\dots,F^{n-m}(t)$ are vertical for every $t\in[a,b]$. Clearly, $p_*(t)=\{E^1_*(t),\dots,E^m_*(t)\}$ is an orthonormal frame along $x$. Define $\mathcal{V}=\{0\}\times{\mathds R}^{n-m}\subset {\mathds R}^n$, $\mathcal{H}={\mathds R}^m\times\{0\}\subset {\mathds R}^n$. We recall that $J$ is $\mathcal{Q}$-Jacobi iff $D(J)=0$ and $J_*\in{\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})$ (see Lemma \[lem:equiv\]). Now define the Lagrangian path $$\begin{aligned}
\ell(t)=\big\{\big(p(t)^{-1}(J(t)), p(t)^*g_{\gamma(t)}[{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}J(t)]\big)\in {\mathds R}^n\times {{\mathds R}^n}^*:J\in{\mathcal{J}}_\delta(\mathcal{P})\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in[a,b]$. The $\mathcal Q$-Maslov index of $\gamma$ is equal to $\mu_{L_0}(\ell)$ (see , , , and Lemma \[lem:equiv\]). In the following, we will make an abuse of notation omitting $p(t)$ and $p^*(t)$ to avoid cluster. Using that $D(J)=0$, and Lemma \[lem:suma\] we deduce that $$\begin{gathered}
\ell(t)=\big\{(J_*(t)+V,g_{\gamma(t)}\left[{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}J_*(t)-A_{\dot\gamma}(J_*(t))\right.\\\left.+A_{\dot\gamma}(V)+T_V(\dot\gamma) \right])\in {\mathds R}^n\times {{\mathds R}^n}^*:J_*\in{\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P});V\in\mathcal{V}\big\}.\end{gathered}$$ On the other hand, let us define $$\ell_*(t)=\big\{(J_*(t),h_{x(t)}\left[{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}J_*(t)\right])\in{{\mathds R}^m}\times{{\mathds R}^m}^*:J_*\in{\mathcal{J}}_*(\mathcal{P})\big\},$$ (here we also omit $p_*(t)$ and $p_*(t)^*$). The $\mathcal{P}$-Maslov index of $x$ is equal to the Maslov index of the Lagrangian path $t\to \ell_*(t)$ relatively to the Lagrangian $\{0\}\times{{\mathds R}^m}^*$. Now define the map $\varphi_t:({\mathds R}^n\times{{\mathds R}^n}^*,\omega)\rightarrow ({\mathds R}^n\times{{\mathds R}^n}^*,\omega)$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi_t(H_1+V_1,H_2+V_2)=(H_1+V_1,H_2+V_2\\+g_{\gamma(t)}\left[T_{V_1}(\dot\gamma(t))+A_{\dot\gamma(t)}(V_1))-A_{\dot\gamma (t)}(H_1)\right]),\end{gathered}$$ where $H_1\in\mathcal{H}$, $H_2\in\mathcal{H}^*$, $V_1\in\mathcal{V}$ and $V_2\in\mathcal{V}^*$. It is easy to prove, using the symmetry properties of $T$ and $A$ (see Section \[lifts\]), that $\varphi_t$ is a symplectomorphism for every $t\in[a,b]$, and that it is continuous in $t$. Moreover, if $\tilde{\ell}(t)=\ell_*(t)+\mathcal{V}\times\{0\}$, then $\varphi_t(\tilde{\ell}(t))=\ell(t)$ and $\varphi_t(L_0)=L_0$, so that applying Lemma \[symplec\] we obtain that $\mu_{L_0}(\ell)=\mu_{L_0}(\tilde{\ell})$. As $({\mathds R}^n\times{{\mathds R}^n}^*,\omega)=(\mathcal{H}\times\mathcal{H}^*,\omega_1)\oplus
(\mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{V}^*,\omega_2)$, where $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are the restrictions of $\omega$, by the additivity property of the Maslov index, $\mu_{L_0}(\tilde{\ell})$ is equal to the Maslov index of the path $t\to\tilde{\ell}(t)\cap (\mathcal{H}\times\mathcal{H}^*)=\ell_*(t)$ relatively to the Lagrangian $L_0\cap(\mathcal{H}\times\mathcal{H}^*)=\{0\}\times\mathcal{H}^*$, which equals the $\mathcal P$-Maslov index of $x$, and the Maslov index of $$t\longrightarrow\tilde{\ell}(t)\cap( \mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{V}^*)=\mathcal{V}\times\{0\}$$ relatively to $L_0\cap( \mathcal{V}\times\mathcal{V}^*)=\{0\}\times\mathcal{V}^*$, which is zero. This concludes the proof.
[Index form]{}\[sub:indexform\] Let us now relate the index form of the horizontal geodesic with the index form of the projected geodesic in the base manifold. We recall that the index form $I_{\{\gamma,\mathcal{Q}\}}$ is the symmetric bilinear form on the space of vector fields along the geodesic obtained as the second variation of the energy functional restricted to curves departing from $\mathcal{Q}$ and arriving to a fixed point $\gamma(b)\in M$. It is defined for vector fields along $\gamma$ of Sobolev class $H^1$ that are tangent to $\mathcal{Q}$ in $a$ and zero in $b$ and it is given by $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\{\gamma,\mathcal{Q}\}}(E,F)=\int_a^b \left[g({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E,{\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}F)+g(R(\dot\gamma,E)\dot\gamma,F)\right]{{\rm d}}t- g({\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(E(a),\dot\gamma(a)),F(a)).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, when the vector fields are of class $C^2$, one can use partial integration to obtain the following expression for the index form: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\{\gamma,\mathcal{Q}\}}(E,F)=\int_a^b \left[g(-\tfrac{\mathrm D^2}{\mathrm dt^2}E\right.&\left.
+R(\dot\gamma,E)\dot\gamma,F)\right]{{\rm d}}t\\&
+g({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E(a),F(a))- g({\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(E(a),\dot\gamma(a)),F(a)).\end{aligned}$$
Let $\gamma:[a,b]\to M$ be a horizontal geodesic and $\mathcal{P}$ a non-degenerate submanifold through $x(a)$ orthogonal to $x$. Then $$I_{\{\gamma,{\mathcal Q})\}}(E,F)=I_{\{x,\mathcal{P}\}}(E_*,F_*)+\int^b_ag(D(E),D(F)){{\rm d}}t$$
From we get $$\begin{gathered}
g({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E(a),F(a))-g({\mathcal S}^{\mathcal Q}(E(a),\dot\gamma(a)),F(a))\\
=g(D(E)(a),F(a))+g({\tfrac{\mathrm D}{\mathrm dt}}E_*(a),F_*(a))-g({\mathcal S}^{\mathcal P}(E(a),\dot\gamma(a)),F(a)),\end{gathered}$$ for any vector field $F$ along $\gamma$ such that $F(a)\in T_{\gamma(a)}\mathcal Q$. Having in mind this equation the proof follows the same lines of the proof of [@One67 Theorem 3].
The relation between the index forms will be especially interesting in the case when $M$ and $B$ are *Lorentzian* manifolds, that is, manifolds endowed with a semi-Riemannian metric of index $1$, and when $\gamma$ is a horizontal *causal* geodesic (that is $g(\dot\gamma,\dot\gamma)\leq 0$), because in that case we can use the Lorentzian Morse index theorem (see [@PiTau99 Theorem II.5] and also [@BEE Theorems 10.27 and 10.77]). We define $\omega(\gamma)=\dim \{J\in {\mathcal{J}}:J(a)=J(b)=0\}$ and $\omega_\delta(\gamma)=
\dim \{J\in {\mathcal{J}}_\delta (x(a)) :J(a)=J(b)=0\}$ and $\omega_n(\gamma)=\omega(\gamma)-
\omega_\delta(\gamma)$. Moreover, $i(\gamma)$ (resp. $i(x)$) denotes the index of the index form restricted to the orthogonal vector fields to $\gamma$ (resp. to $x$) vanishing in $a$ and $b$ if $\gamma$ is timelike (i.e. $g(\dot\gamma,\dot\gamma)<0$) and to the orthogonal vector fields to $\gamma$ modulo vector fields collinear to $\dot \gamma$ if $\gamma$ is lightlike (i.e. $g(\dot\gamma,\dot\gamma)=0$).
\[indexrelation\] Let $\pi:M\rightarrow B$ be a Lorentzian submersion and let $\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M$ be a causal horizontal geodesic segment. Then $$\label{desigual}i(x)\geq i(\gamma)+\omega_n(\gamma).$$
Totally analogous to proof of [@One67 Theorem 5].
We observe that by Theorem \[thm:eqMaslovindices\] and the equality between the Maslov index of $x$ and $i(x)$ (cf. [@PiTa02]), the index $i(x)$ coincides with the ${\mathcal{V}}(a)$-Maslov index $i_{{\mathcal{V}}(a)}(\gamma)$, where ${\mathcal{V}}(a)=\pi^{-1}(x(a))$. We have $i(x)=i_{{\mathcal{V}}(a)}(\gamma)\geq i(\gamma)$, because the index form for conjugate points coincides with the restriction of the index form for focal points to vector fields vanishing in $a$ and $b$. Then, from the Lorentzian index theorem, focal points along $\gamma$ occur before than conjugate points along $x$. In the case of Lorentzian submersions the situation is more rigid. If there exists a conjugate instant $t_0$ of $\gamma$ that is not ${\mathcal{V}}(a)$-focal, then implies that the total number of ${\mathcal{V}}(a)$-focal instants in $]a,t_0[$ is strictly bigger than the total number of conjugate points along $\gamma$ in $]a,t_0[$. We observe that, unlike the Riemannian or the causal Lorentzian case, there is in general no obvious relation between the distribution of conjugate and focal instants along a semi-Riemannian geodesic (see for instance [@JavPic08]).
Applications {#sub:applications}
------------
Recalling Example \[exa:statspacetimesubm\], Proposition \[contribution\] and Theorem \[thm:eqMaslovindices\] give us the following information on spacelike geodesics in stationary spacetimes:
\[thm:applstationary\] Let $(S\times{\mathds R},g)$ be a standard stationary spacetime, $\gamma=(x,t):[a,b]\rightarrow S\times{\mathds R}$ a geodesic orthogonal to the flow lines of the Killing field $\partial_t$ and $\mathcal L$ the vertical line through $x(a)$. Then
- the $\mathcal L$-focal instants of $\gamma$ in $(S\times{\mathds R}, g)$ coincide with the conjugate instants of $x$ in $(S,\tilde g)$ and they give the same contribution to the Maslov index (in particular the number of $\mathcal L$-focal instant of $\gamma$ is finite);
- the $\mathcal L$-focal instants of $\gamma$ are isolated and their contribution to the Maslov index is positive, so that they are always bifurcation points (see [@PiPoTa04]).
We observe that the $\mathcal L$-focal points of $\gamma$ are in particular pseudo focal points as defined in [@JMP07].
From Example \[exa:kk\], Proposition \[contribution\] and Theorems \[thm:eqMaslovindices\] and \[indexrelation\] we obtain the following results for Kaluza-Klein spacetimes.
\[thm:applKaluzaKlein\] Let $(M,g)$ be a Kaluza-Klein spacetime, as in Example \[exa:kk\]. Consider a geodesic $x:[a,b]\rightarrow B$ in $(B,h)$ and let $\gamma$ be a horizontal lift of $x$ in $(M,g)$. If $\mathcal L$ is the fiber through $x(a)$, then
- the $\mathcal L$-focal instants of $\gamma$ in $(M, g)$ coincide with the conjugate instants of $x$ in $(B,h)$ and they give the same contribution to the Maslov index.
- if $\gamma$ is causal, then at least one $\mathcal L$-focal point occurs before than a conjugate point of $\gamma$. In particular, from , conjugate points in $\gamma$ determine conjugate points in $x$.
We recall that if the contribution to the Maslov index of a focal instant is non null and the instant is isolated and non-degenerate, then it generates bifurcation (see [@PiPoTa04]). As a consequence of Proposition \[contribution\] and Theorem \[thm:eqMaslovindices\] we get the following.
Let $\pi:M\rightarrow B$ be a semi-Riemannian submersion with $B$ Riemannian or Lorentzian. If $\gamma$ is a horizontal geodesic such that the projection $x$ is Riemannian or causal, the ${\mathcal Q}$-focal points always generate bifurcation.
On the other hand, focal points are always isolated in an analytic manifold. As a consequence:
Let $\pi:M\rightarrow B$ be a semi-Riemannian submersion with $B$ analytic. Then a horizontal geodesic $\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M$ admits just a finite number of $\mathcal Q$-focal points.
[10]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. K. Beem, P. E. Ehrlich, K. Easley</span>, *Global Lorentzian Geometry*, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker Inc., N.Y., 1996.
, [*A mathematician’s visit to [K]{}aluza-[K]{}lein theory*]{}, [Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino]{}, special issue (1989), pp. 143–163.
, [*La définition de l’indice de Maslov sans hypothèse de transversalité*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, Sér. I Math., 310 (5) (1990), 279–282.
, [*The structure of $q$-symplectic geometry*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl., 71 (1992), 429–453.
, [*Les connexions infinitésimales dans un espace fibré différentiable*]{}, [Colloque de topologie (espaces fibrés), [B]{}ruxelles, 1950]{}, [Georges Thone, Liège, 1951]{}, pp. 29–55.
, [*Pseudo-[R]{}iemannian almost product manifolds and submersions*]{}, J. Math. Mech., 16 (1967), pp. 715–737.
, [*Conjugate points on spacelike geodesics or pseudo-selfadjoint [M]{}orse-[S]{}turm-[L]{}iouville systems*]{}, Pacific J. Math., 164 (1994), pp. 321–350.
, [*A sufficient condition that a mapping of [R]{}iemannian manifolds be a fibre bundle*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 11 (1960), pp. 236–242.
, [*Kaluza-[K]{}lein theory derived from a [R]{}iemannian submersion*]{}, J. Math. Phys., 25 (1984), pp. 2301–2305.
, [*Pseudo focal points along Lorentzian geodesics and Morse index*]{}, Adv. Nonlinear Stud., 10 (2010), pp. 53–82.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. A. Javaloyes and P. Piccione</span>, *Comparison results for conjugate and focal points in semi-Riemannian geometry via Maslov index*, Pacific J. Math., 243 (2009), no. 1, 43–56.
, [*A note on the existence of standard splittings for conformally stationary spacetimes*]{}, Classical Quantum Gravity, 25 (2008), no. 16, 168001, 7 pp.
, [*Stability of the conjugate index, degenerate conjugate points and the [M]{}aslov index in semi-[R]{}iemannian geometry*]{}, Pacific J. Math., 206 (2002), pp. 375–400.
, [*Maslov, Duistermaat, Conley-Zehnder invariants in Riemannian Geometry*]{}, In: Geometry and Topology of Submanifold, V (Leuven/Brussels, 1992), pp. 174–200.
, [*The fundamental equations of a submersion*]{}, Michigan Math. J., 13 (1966), pp. 459–469.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Submersions and geodesics*]{}, Duke Math. J., 34 (1967), pp. 363–373.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Semi-[R]{}iemannian geometry*]{}, vol. 103 of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Academic Press Inc. \[Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers\], New York, 1983. With applications to relativity.
, [*Spectral flow, [M]{}aslov index and bifurcation of semi-[R]{}iemannian geodesics*]{}, Ann. Global Anal. Geom., 25 (2004), pp. 121–149.
, [*A note on the [M]{}orse index theorem for geodesics between submanifolds in semi-[R]{}iemannian geometry*]{}, J. Math. Phys., 40 (1999), pp. 6682–6688.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*An Index Theorem for Non Periodic Solutions of Hamiltonian Systems*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc., 83 (2001), pp. 351–389.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*The [M]{}orse index theorem in semi-[R]{}iemannian geometry*]{}, Topology, 41 (2002), pp. 1123–1159.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*On the distribution of conjugate points along semi-[R]{}iemannian geodesics*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom., 11 (2003), pp. 33–48.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, *A Students’ Guide to Symplectic Spaces, Grassmannians and Maslov Index*, Publicações Matemática do IMPA, Instituto de Matemática Pura e Aplicada (IMPA), Rio de Janeiro, 2008. ISBN: 978-85-244-0283-8.
, [*The Maslov index for paths*]{} Topology 32(4), (1993), 827–844.
, [*Morse theory for periodic solutions of Hamiltonian systems and the Maslov index*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 45 (10) (1992), 1303–1360.
[^1]: Observe that, in fact, (S2) implies (S1); namely, if $\mathrm d\pi$ is an isometry, then the horizontal subspaces ${\mathcal{H}}T_pM$ are non-degenerate, and this implies that also the vertical subspaces, which are their orthogonal, are non-degenerate. However, keeping in mind the non-degeneracy of the fibers is important, and it is useful to maintain (S1) in the definition of semi-Riemannian submersions.
[^2]: Note that this notion of horizontality and verticality of vectors in $TTM$ should not be confused with the notion of horizontality of vectors in $TM$ associated to the distribution ${\mathcal{H}}T_pM$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Olivier BENOIST
title: 'Degrés d’homogénéité de l’ensemble des intersections complètes singulières'
---
Introduction
============
On travaille sur un corps de base $K$, qui sera souvent sous-entendu. Par exemple, $\mathbb{P}^N=\mathbb{P}^N_K$.
Une formule classique de Boole montre que, si $K$ est de caractéristique $0$, l’ensemble des hypersurfaces singulières de degré $d$ dans $\mathbb{P}^N$ est un diviseur de degré $(N+1)(d-1)^N$ dans l’espace projectif de toutes les hypersurfaces. On obtient ici des formules analogues pour des intersections complètes de codimension et de degrés quelconques dans $\mathbb{P}^N$, en toute caractéristique.
Énoncé du théorème principal {#situation}
----------------------------
On fixe $1\leq c\leq N+1$ et $1\leq d_1,\ldots,d_c$ des entiers. On notera $e_i=d_i-1$. On va s’intéresser aux intersections complètes de codimension $c$ dans $\mathbb{P}^N$, solutions d’équations homogènes de degrés $d_1,\ldots,d_c$ : on notera $n=N-c$ leur dimension.
Pour cela, on considère $V=\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq c}H^0(\mathbb{P}^N,\mathcal{O}(d_i))$. Les éléments de $V$ sont la donnée de $c$ polynômes homogènes de degrés $d_1,\ldots,d_c$ en $N+1$ variables $X_0,\ldots,X_N$. Soit $D$ le fermé de $V$ constitué des $(F_1,\ldots,F_c)$ tels que $\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}$ ne soit pas lisse de codimension $c$ dans $\mathbb{P}^N$. On le munit de sa structure réduite. Par le lemme \[irred\], la variété $D$ est irréductible. Notons $\Delta$ une de ses équations (par convention, $\Delta=1$ si $\operatorname{codim}_V(D)>1$). On appellera $D$ le lieu discriminant et $\Delta$ le discriminant.
\[remdef\] Les lemmes \[nondef\] et \[def\], au vu du corollaire \[cridef\], montreront que $\operatorname{codim}_V(D)>1$ exactement quand $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$.
Le discriminant est visiblement homogène en les coefficients de chacune des équations $F_i$. Le but de ce texte est de calculer ces degrés d’homogénéité partiels. Soyons plus précis.
Plusieurs transformations de $V$ laissent $D$ invariant. C’est le cas des actions $\rho$ et $\rho_i$ de $\mathbb{G}_m$ et $\rho'$ de $GL_{N+1}$ décrites ci-dessous : $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\rho(\lambda):(F_1,\ldots,F_c)&\mapsto(\lambda F_1,\ldots,\lambda F_c) \nonumber\\
\rho_i(\lambda):(F_1,\ldots,F_c)&\mapsto(F_1,\ldots,F_{i-1},
\lambda F_{i},F_{i+1},\ldots,F_c) \label{action}\\
\rho'(M):(F_1,\ldots,F_c)&\mapsto(F_1\circ M^{-1},\ldots,F_c\circ M^{-1}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Les actions duales induites sur $\operatorname{Sym}^{\bullet}V^*$ préservent la droite $\left\langle \Delta\right\rangle$. Ces actions sur $\left\langle \Delta\right\rangle$ se font via un caractère du groupe. Il existe donc des entiers $\deg$, $\deg_i$ et $\deg_{var}$ tels que $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\rho(\lambda).\Delta&=\lambda^{-\deg}\Delta \nonumber\\
\rho_i(\lambda).\Delta&=\lambda^{-\deg_i}\Delta \label{defdeg}\\
\rho'(M).\Delta&=\det(M)^{\deg_{var}}\Delta.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Par exemple, $\deg$ est le degré total du polynôme homogène $\Delta$. Les autres nombres s’interprètent comme des degrés d’homogénéité partiels. Les identités $\rho(\lambda)=\rho_1(\lambda)\circ\ldots\circ\rho_c(\lambda)$ et $\rho'(\lambda^{-1}\operatorname{Id})=\rho_1(\lambda)^{\circ d_1}\circ\ldots\circ\rho_c(\lambda)^{\circ d_c}$ montrent qu’ils sont liés par les relations : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg &=\sum_{i=1}^{c} \deg_i \label{deg}\\
(N+1)\deg_{var}&=\sum_{i=1}^{c} d_i\deg_i\label{degvar}\end{aligned}$$ Le résultat principal de ce texte est le suivant :
\[princ\] On a les égalités suivantes : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg_i =\frac{1}{\mu}d_1\ldots\hat{d}_i\ldots d_c&\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_i^{N+1}-e_l^{N+1}}{e_i-e_l}\right)\label{degi} \\
\deg_{var}=\frac{1}{\mu}d_1\ldots d_c&\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{e_l^N}{\prod_{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\label{var}\end{aligned}$$ où $\mu=1$ si $K$ n’est pas de caractéristique $2$ ou si $n$ est impair, et $\mu=2$ si $K$ est de caractéristique $2$ et $n$ est pair.
Il faut interpréter cet énoncé, comme tous les énoncés similaires de ce texte, de la manière suivante : le terme de gauche est une fonction polynômiale en les $d_l$ dont le polynôme est donné par le terme de droite. Que le terme de droite soit un polynôme en les $d_l$ est conséquence du lemme \[polyn\] $(i)$.
\[remconv\] Dans l’égalité (\[degi\]), il faut interpréter $\frac{e_i^{N+1}-e_i^{N+1}}{e_i-e_i}$ comme une notation pour le polynôme $(N+1)e_i^N$.
Par (\[deg\]), on peut également calculer $\deg$. Cependant, on ne peut simplifier avantageusement l’expression obtenue. Même pour $c=2$, l’exemple \[c2\] montre que la formule pour $\deg$ est nettement moins élégante que celles pour $\deg_{var}$, $\deg_1$ et $\deg_2$.
On déduira de ce théorème le résultat qui suit :
\[princ2\] Soit $K=\mathbb{Q}$, de sorte qu’on peut considérer le discriminant $\Delta$ comme un polynôme irréductible à coefficients entiers. Soit $p$ un nombre premier. Alors la réduction modulo $p$ de $\Delta$ est irréductible si $p\neq 2$ ou si $n$ est impair. C’est le carré d’un polynôme irréductible si $p=2$ et $n$ est pair.
Quelques exemples
-----------------
On commence par illustrer le théorème \[princ\]. On suppose pour simplifier que $\mu=1$. Par exemple, on peut prendre $K$ de caractéristique différente de $2$.
Quand $c=1$, $D$ est l’ensemble des équations d’hypersurfaces singulières de degré $d_1$ dans $\mathbb{P}^N$ : $\Delta$ est donc le discriminant usuel. Les formules (\[degi\]) et (\[var\]) montrent qu’on a alors : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg_1 &=(N+1)e_1^N\\
\deg_{var}&=e_1^N.\end{aligned}$$ On retrouve la formule classique de Boole, qu’on pourra par exemple trouver dans [@GKZ] Chap.1, 4.15 et Chap.9, 2.10a.
Quand $c=N+1$, $D$ est l’ensemble des $N+1$-uplets d’équations homogènes admettant une solution commune dans $\mathbb{P}^N$ : $\Delta$ est donc le résultant usuel.
Pour évaluer la formule (\[degi\]) dans ce cas, on peut remarquer que la quantité $\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_i^{N+1}-e_l^{N+1}}{e_i-e_l}\right)$ est un polynôme de degré $0$ en les $d_j$, c’est-à-dire une constante. Pour la calculer, on peut faire par exemple $d_j=j$, de sorte que $\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})=(-1)^{N+1-l}(l-1)!(N+1-l)!$ . L’expression obtenue s’évalue facilement à l’aide de la formule du binôme. Tous calculs faits, cette constante vaut $1$, et on obtient : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg_i &=d_1\ldots\hat{d}_i\ldots d_{N+1}\\
\deg_{var}&=d_1\ldots d_{N+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Là encore, ces formules sont classiques. On peut les trouver dans [@GKZ] Chap.13, 1.1.
Quand $d_1=\ldots=d_c=d$, $D$ est l’ensemble des systèmes linéaires de degré $d$ et de dimension $c-1$ dont le lieu de base est singulier.
Dans ce cas particulier également, les formules générales se simplifient nettement. Comme, par symétrie, tous les $\deg_i$ sont égaux, il suffit par (\[degvar\]) et (\[deg\]) de calculer $\deg_{var}$. Dans l’expression (\[var\]), $\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{e_l^N}{\prod_{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}$ est un polynôme homogène de degré $N-c+1$ en les $e_j$. Par conséquent, $\deg_{var}=\lambda d^c e^{N-c+1}$ où $\lambda$ est une constante à calculer. On évalue cette constante en faisant $d_l=l\varepsilon$ dans le polynôme $\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{e_l^N}{\prod_{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}$, en calculant cette quantité à l’aide de la formule du binôme, puis en faisant tendre $\varepsilon$ vers $0$. Tous calculs faits, $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg_i &=\binom{N+1}{c}d^{c-1}(d-1)^{N-c+1}\\
\deg_{var}&=\binom{N}{c-1}d^{c}(d-1)^{N-c+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Ces formules auraient aussi pu être obtenues à l’aide de résultats de [@GKZ], par exemple de Chap.13, 2.5.
Supposons de plus $d=1$ et $c<N+1$. Les degrés s’annulent : cela correspond aux cas où $D$ est de codimension $>1$ dans $V$ (voir la remarque \[remdef\]).
Supposons enfin $d=1$ et $c=N+1$, le polynôme $\Delta$ est le déterminant usuel d’une matrice de taille $N+1$ ; on retrouve son degré total $\deg=N+1$.
\[c2\]
Spécialisons maintenant les formules (\[degi\]) et (\[var\]) au cas d’intersections complètes de codimension $2$, c’est-à-dire $c=2$. Il vient : $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\deg_1 &=d_2(e_2^{N+1}+2e_1e_2^{N}+\ldots+Ne_1^{N-1})\\
\deg_2 &=d_1(e_1^{N+1}+2e_2e_1^{N}+\ldots+Ne_2^{N-1})\\
\deg_{var}&=d_1d_2\frac{e_2^N-e_1^N}{e_2-e_1}.\end{aligned}$$
Illustrons enfin le théorème \[princ2\] en explicitant un cas particulier classique :
Quand $N=1$ et $c=1$, $\Delta$ est le discriminant usuel d’un polynôme en une variable, vu comme un polynôme homogène en deux variables. Sa description classique en fonction des racines de ce polynôme (voir par exemple [@Prasolov] 1.3.2) montre que ce polynôme est irréductible en caractéristique différente de $2$, et le carré d’un polynôme irréductible en caractéristique $2$. Comme $n=0$ est pair, c’est ce que prédit le théorème \[princ2\].
Signalons le cas particulier bien connu où $d=2$. Le discriminant du polynôme $aX^2+bX+c$ est $b^2-4ac$. C’est toujours irréductible, sauf en caractéristique $2$, $b^2$ étant visiblement un carré.
Stratégie de la démonstration
-----------------------------
Dans la preuve du théorème \[princ\], on peut, quitte à le remplacer par une clôture algébrique, choisir $K$ algébriquement clos. On commence de plus par supposer $K$ de caractéristique $0$.
La proposition \[descridual\] permet d’interpréter $D$ comme la variété duale d’une variété torique lisse convenable. Dans leur livre [@GKZ], Gelfand, Kapranov et Zelevinsky ont étudié ces variétés ; ils obtiennent notamment une formule combinatoire permettant de calculer le degré de la variété duale d’une variété torique lisse ([@GKZ] Chap.9, 2.8).
Dans la deuxième partie de ce texte, on généralise cet énoncé pour obtenir une formule analogue calculant des degrés d’homogénéité partiels : c’est l’objet du théorème \[char\]. On utilise de manière cruciale les résultats de [@GKZ].
Dans la troisième partie de ce texte, on démontre le théorème \[princ\] en caractéristique $0$ en évaluant cette formule dans notre cas particulier. Les calculs sont menés dans les propositions \[premprinc\] et \[deuxprinc\].\
Finalement, on explique dans la quatrième partie les modifications à apporter à la preuve du théorème \[princ\] pour qu’elle fonctionne en toute caractéristique.
Le seul obstacle que l’on rencontre sont les spécificités de la théorie de la dualité projective en caractéristique finie, qui ont été étudiées tout d’abord par Wallace [@Wallace], et au sujet desquelles on pourra consulter le survey [@Kleiman] de Kleiman. Elles ont pour conséquence que le résultat de [@GKZ] que nous utilisons a besoin d’être légèrement modifié pour valoir en caractéristique finie. Cette modification effectuée, la preuve est identique.
Il convient de remarquer que si ces arguments supplémentaires sont indispensables en toute caractéristique finie, le théorème \[princ\] ne voit son énoncé modifié qu’en caractéristique $2$.
Enfin, le théorème \[princ2\] se déduit aisément du théorème \[princ\].
Duale d’une variété torique {#part1}
===========================
Dans cette partie, $K$ est supposé algébriquement clos de caractéristique $0$.
L’objectif est de montrer le théorème \[char\]. Étant donnée une variété torique projective lisse, on calcule combinatoirement l’action du tore sur l’équation de sa variété duale.
Notations
---------
On commence par fixer des notations.
Soit $0\to\mathbb{G}_m\to\tilde{T}\to T\to 0$ une suite exacte courte de tores, $\tilde{T}$ étant de dimension $k\geq1$ et $T$ de dimension $k-1$. Soit $0\to \mathfrak{X}(T)\to \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})\stackrel{h}{\rightarrow}\mathbb{Z}\to 0$ la suite exacte courte de leurs groupes de caractères. On notera $\mathfrak{X}_1=h^{-1}(1)$ : c’est un espace principal homogène sous $\mathfrak{X}(T)$.
Soit $A=\{\chi_1,\ldots,\chi_{|A|}\}\subset \mathfrak{X}_1$ un sous-ensemble fini engendrant $\mathfrak{X}_1$ comme espace affine. On notera $\tilde{X}_A\subset(K^A)^*$ la variété torique affine de tore $\tilde{T}$ associée. C’est, par définition, l’adhérence des $(\chi_1(t),\ldots,\chi_{|A|}(t))$, $t\in\tilde{T}$. La variété $\tilde{X}_A$ est un cône ; on peut considérer son projectivisé $X_A\subset\mathbb{P}((K^A)^*)$ qui est une variété torique projective de tore $T$. Le polytope correspondant est l’enveloppe convexe $Q$ de $A$ dans $\mathfrak{X}_{1,\mathbb{R}}=\mathfrak{X}_1\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}$.
Notons $X^{\vee}_A\subset\mathbb{P}(K^A)$ la variété duale de $X_A$ munie de sa structure réduite et $\tilde{X}^{\vee}_A\subset K^A$ son cône affine. On note $\Delta_A$ une équation homogène de $X^{\vee}_A$ (par convention, $\Delta_A=1$ si $X_A$ est défective, c’est-à-dire si $\operatorname{codim}_{\mathbb{P}(K^A)}(X^{\vee}_A)>1$). Le tore $\tilde{T}$ agit sur $(K^A)^*$ en préservant $\tilde{X}_A$. Par conséquent, l’action duale $t\cdot \sum c_a\chi_a\mapsto\sum c_a\chi_a^{-1}(t)\chi_a$ de $\tilde{T}$ sur $K^A$ préserve $\tilde{X}^{\vee}_A$. L’action induite de $\tilde{T}$ sur $\operatorname{Sym}^{\bullet}(K^A)^*$ préserve donc la droite $\left\langle\Delta_A \right\rangle$ ; cette action se fait via un caractère de $\tilde{T}$ que l’on notera $\Xi_A$ : $t\cdot\Delta_A=\Xi_A(t)\Delta_A$. Ainsi, on a : $$\label{defxi}
\Delta_A(\sum c_a\chi_a(t)\chi_a)=\Xi_A(t)\Delta_A(\sum c_a\chi_a).$$ En spécialisant cette identité à des sous-groupes à un paramètre convenables, on peut calculer les degrés d’homogénéité partiels de $\Delta_A$. Par exemple, en spécialisant au sous-groupe à un paramètre correspondant au cocaractère $h$, il vient $\Delta_A(\lambda f)=\lambda^{h(\Xi_A)}\Delta_A(f)$ pour tout $f\in K^A$, soit $$\deg(\Delta_A)=h(\Xi_A).$$
Équation de la duale
--------------------
Le théorème [@GKZ] Chap. 9, 2.8 dû à Gelfand, Kapranov et Zelevinsky permet de calculer $\deg(\Delta_A)=h(\Xi_A)$ en fonction du polytope $Q$ si $X_A$ est lisse. Nous allons généraliser cet énoncé en obtenant une formule pour $\Xi_A$. La démonstration est très proche de celle de [@GKZ], et utilise à fond les résultats de ce livre. En particulier, elle repose sur une formule pour $\Delta_A$ que nous rappelons dans ce paragraphe.
Si $\Gamma$ est une face de $Q$, on considèrera $\tilde{\Gamma}$ le cône sur $\Gamma$ de sommet $0$ dans $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})_{\mathbb{R}}$, $\Gamma^0$ et $\tilde{\Gamma}^0$ leurs intérieurs relatifs, $\Gamma_{\mathbb{R}}$ et $\Gamma_{\mathbb{C}}$ les sous-espaces affines réels et complexes de $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})_{\mathbb{R}}$ et $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})_{\mathbb{C}}$ engendrés par $\Gamma$, ainsi que $\tilde{\Gamma}_{\mathbb{R}}$ et $\tilde{\Gamma}_{\mathbb{C}}$ les sous-espaces vectoriels réels et complexes de $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})_{\mathbb{R}}$ et $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})_{\mathbb{C}}$ engendrés par $\tilde{\Gamma}$. L’espace affine $\Gamma_{\mathbb{R}}$ est muni du réseau naturel $\Gamma_{\mathbb{R}}\cap \mathfrak{X}_1(T)$ ; on notera $\mu_{\Gamma}$ la mesure de Lebesgue sur $\Gamma_{\mathbb{R}}$ normalisée de sorte à ce que le simplexe unité soit de mesure $1$.
On note $S$ le semi-groupe de $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})$ engendré par $A$. Si $u\in S$, on note $\tilde{\Gamma}(u)$ la plus petite face de $\tilde{Q}$ contenant $u$. Si $l\geq 0$, on notera $S_l$ (resp. $\tilde{\Gamma}_l$) l’ensemble des $u\in S$ (resp. des $u\in \tilde{\Gamma}$) tels que $h(u)=l$. Gardons en mémoire que : $$\label{restr}
S_l=\tilde{Q}_l\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})\text{ pour }l\gg0.$$ En effet c’est la traduction combinatoire de la surjectivité de l’application de restriction $H^0(\mathbb{P}((K^A)^*),\mathcal{O}(l))\to H^0(X_A,\mathcal{O}(l))$, elle-même conséquence du théorème d’annulation de Serre.
On pose : $$C^i(A,l)=\bigoplus_{u\in S_{i+l}}\bigwedge^i(\tilde{\Gamma}(u)_{\mathbb{C}}).$$ Si $f=\sum c_a\chi_a\in K^A$, on définit des applications liéaires $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\partial_f:C^i(A,l)&\to C^{i+1}(A,l)\\
(u,\omega)&\mapsto-\sum c_a(u+\chi_a,\chi_a\wedge\omega),\end{aligned}$$ de sorte que $(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_f)$ soit un complexe. Soit de plus $e=(e(i))$ la donnée de bases de chacun des $C^i(A,l)$.
\[discri\] On suppose $X_A$ lisse. Alors, si $l\gg0$, on a $$\Delta_A(f)=\det(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_f,e)^{(-1)^k},$$ où chacun des deux termes est bien défini à une constante multiplicative non nulle près.
Pour la définition du déterminant d’un complexe exact muni de bases, on renvoie à [@GKZ] App.A. On rappelle seulement ci-dessous la proposition facile [@GKZ] App.A 9, car nous en aurons besoin pour la suite, et que les signes sont malheureusement faux dans [@GKZ].
\[basechange\]
Soit $(W^{\bullet},d)$ un complexe exact, et $e=(e(i))$, $e'=(e'(i))$ deux jeux de bases.
Soient $M(i)$ les matrices de transition : $e(i)_p=\sum_{q=1}^{\dim W_i}M(i)_{p,q}e'(i)_q$. Alors, $$\det(W^{\bullet},d,e')=\det(W^{\bullet},d,e)\prod_i\det(M(i))^{(-1)^{i}}.$$
Action du tore
--------------
Énonçons enfin la formule pour $\Xi_A$ et démontrons-la.
\[char\] $$\Xi_A=\sum_{\Gamma\subset Q}(-1)^{\operatorname{codim}(\Gamma)}(\dim(\Gamma)+1)\int_{\Gamma}ud\mu_{\Gamma}(u).$$
Soit $t\in\tilde{T}$. On introduit les applications linéaires : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}\label{gilt}
g^{i,l}_t:C^i(A,l)&\to C^{i}(A,l)\\
(u,\omega)&\mapsto u(t)(u,\omega)\notag.\end{aligned}$$ On a un diagramme commutatif : $$\xymatrix @C=20mm {
C^i(A,l)\ar[d]_{g^{i,l}_t}\ar[r]^{\partial_f} &C^{i+1}(A,l)\ar[d]_{g^{i+1,l}_t}
\\
C^i(A,l)\ar[r]^{\partial_{t^{-1}\cdot f}}&C^{i+1}(A,l) }
\label{commute}$$ de sorte que $g_t^{\bullet,l}:(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_f)\to(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_{t^{-1}\cdot f})$ est un morphisme de complexes. Par la proposition \[basechange\], notant $(e'(i))=(g_t^{i,l})^{-1}(e(i))$, on obtient : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\det(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_{t^{-1}\cdot f},e)&=\det(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_f,e')\\
&=\det(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_f,e)\prod_i\det(g^{i,l}_t)^{(-1)^i}.\end{aligned}$$ Par le théorème \[discri\], ceci se réécrit : $$\Delta_A(t^{-1}\cdot f)^{(-1)^k}=\Delta_A(f)^{(-1)^k}\prod_i\det(g^{i,l}_t)^{(-1)^i}
\text{ pour }l\gg0.$$ La définition (\[defxi\]) de $\Xi_A$ montre alors que : $$\Xi_A(t)=\prod_{i\geq0}\det(g^{i,l}_t)^{(-1)^{i+k}}\text{ pour }l\gg0.$$ Utilisant la définition (\[gilt\]) de $g_t^{i,l}$, on calcule alors : $$\Xi_A(t)=\prod_{i\geq0}\prod_{u\in S_{i+l}}u(t)^{(-1)^{i+k}\dim\bigwedge^i(\tilde{\Gamma}(u)_{\mathbb{R}})}\text{ pour }l\gg0,$$ ce qui se réécrit : $$\Xi_A=\sum_{i\geq0}\sum_{u\in S_{i+l}}(-1)^{i+k}\dim\bigwedge^i(\tilde{\Gamma}(u)_{\mathbb{R}})\cdot u\text{ pour }l\gg0.$$ On change alors l’ordre de sommation en regroupant les $u$ suivant la plus grande face de $\tilde{Q}$ à laquelle ils appartiennent. En prenant de plus (\[restr\]) en compte, on obtient : $$\Xi_A=\sum_{\Gamma\subset Q}\sum_{i\geq0}(-1)^{i+k}\binom{\dim(\Gamma)+1}{i} \sum_{u\in\tilde{\Gamma}_{i+l}^0\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})}u\text{ pour }l\gg0.$$ Appliquant alors les lemmes \[sommalt\] et \[poly\], il vient : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Xi_A&=\sum_{\Gamma\subset Q}(-1)^{\dim(\Gamma)+1+k}(\dim(\Gamma)+1)\int_{\Gamma}ud\mu_{\Gamma}(u)\\
&=\sum_{\Gamma\subset Q}(-1)^{\operatorname{codim}(\Gamma)}(\dim(\Gamma)+1)\int_{\Gamma}ud\mu_{\Gamma}(u).\end{aligned}$$
Le lemme ci-dessous est connu et est par exemple conséquence de [@BrionVergne] 4.5. Cependant, en l’absence de référence où il apparaît sous une forme directement utilisable, j’en donne une preuve rapide utilisant la polynômialité de la fonction d’Ehrhart (voir par exemple [@Ezra] 12.2).
\[poly\] Soit $\Gamma$ une face de $Q$. Alors, pour $l\geq0$, la fonction $$l\mapsto\sum_{u\in\tilde{\Gamma}_{l}^0\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})}u$$ est polynômiale de terme dominant $\frac{l^{\dim(\Gamma)+1}}{\dim(\Gamma)!}\int_{\Gamma}ud\mu_{\Gamma}(u)$.
Montrons d’abord qu’il s’agit d’un polynôme de degré $\leq\dim(\Gamma)+1$ pour $l\geq0$. En raisonnant par récurrence sur la dimension de $\Gamma$ et en appliquant une formule d’inclusion-exclusion pour les faces de $Q$ incluses dans $\Gamma$, on voit qu’il suffit de montrer cette propriété pour la fonction $l\mapsto\sum_{u\in\tilde{\Gamma}_{l}\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})}u$.
Il faut montrer que pour toute forme linéaire entière $\psi$ sur $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})$, l’application $P_{\psi}(l)=\sum_{u\in\tilde{\Gamma}_{l}\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})}\psi(u)$ est polynômiale pour $l\geq0$. Si $\psi=h$, cette fonction est $P_{h}(l)=\sum_{u\in\tilde{\Gamma}_{l}\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})}l=l\operatorname{Card}(\tilde{\Gamma}_{l}\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T}))$, soit $l$ fois la fonction d’Erhart de $\Gamma$, et est donc polynômiale en $l$ de degré $\leq\dim(\Gamma)+1$.
Autrement, quitte à ajouter à $\psi$ un multiple de $h$, on peut supposer $\psi$ positive sur $Q$. La fonction $P_\psi$ est alors la fonction d’Ehrhart du polytope auxilliaire $\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}\oplus \mathfrak{X}_{1,\mathbb{R}}|y\in Q, 0\leq x\leq\psi(y)\}$, et est donc polynômiale en $l$ de degré $\leq\dim(\Gamma)+1$.
Il reste à calculer le coefficient dominant. C’est : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\lim_{l\to\infty}\frac{1}{l^{\dim(\Gamma)+1}}\sum_{u\in\tilde{\Gamma}_{l}^0\cap \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})}u&=
\lim_{l\to\infty}\frac{1}{l^{\dim(\Gamma)}}\sum_{u\in\tilde{\Gamma}_{l}^0\cap \frac{1}{l}\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})}u \\
&=\frac{1}{\dim(\Gamma)!}\int_{\Gamma}ud\mu_{\Gamma}(u),\end{aligned}$$ où l’on a identifié dans la dernière égalité une intégrale et une limite de sommes de Riemann en prenant en compte la normalisation que nous avons avons choisie : la mesure du cube unité est $\dim(\Gamma)!$ .
Le lemme suivant est facile et classique :
\[sommalt\] Soit $N\geq0$ et $P$ un polynôme de degré $N$ et de coefficient dominant $a_N$. Alors $$\sum_{i=0}^{N}(-1)^i\binom{N}{i}P(X+i)=(-1)^NN!a_N.$$
Soit $\Phi:P(X)\mapsto P(X+1)$ l’endomorphisme de l’anneau des polynômes. Par la formule du binôme, $(\operatorname{Id}-\Phi)^N(P)=\sum_{i=0}^{N}(-1)^i\binom{N}{i}P(X+i)$. C’est alors un calcul immédiat de vérifier que $(\operatorname{Id}-\Phi)$ fait baisser le degré d’un polynôme de $1$ et multiplie son coefficient dominant par l’opposé de son degré.
Degrés d’homogénéité du discriminant {#part2}
====================================
Dans toute cette partie, $K$ est encore supposé algébriquement clos de caractéristique $0$. On applique le théorème \[char\] pour démontrer le théorème principal \[princ\] sous cette hypothèse.
Interprétation torique du lieu discriminant {#intertor}
-------------------------------------------
On commence par expliquer pourquoi notre problème s’inscrit dans le cadre général décrit ci-dessus des variétés duales de variétés toriques.
Considérons le groupe abélien libre de rang $c+N+1$ engendré par $(Y_i)_{1\leq i\leq c}$ et $(X_j)_{0\leq j\leq N}$. On note $\alpha_i$ et $\beta_j$ les applications coordonnées suivant $Y_i$ et $X_j$. Soit $\mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})$ le sous-réseau de rang $c+N$ défini par l’équation $\sum_id_i\alpha_i=\sum_j\beta_j$. On note $h=\sum_i \alpha_i: \mathfrak{X}(\tilde{T})\to\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathfrak{X}(T)$ son noyau qui est un groupe abélien libre de rang $k=c+N-1$, et $\mathfrak{X}_1=h^{-1}(1)$. On a par dualité les morphismes de tores suivants : $$\label{apptor}
(K^*)^{(c+N+1)}\to\tilde{T}\to T.$$
On introduit l’ensemble $A=\{Y_iX_0^{e_0}\ldots X_N^{e_N}\}_{1\leq i\leq c, e_j\geq0, \sum e_j=d_i}$ de $\mathfrak{X}_1$, qui l’engendre comme espace affine. L’espace vectoriel $K^A$ s’identifie naturellement à $V=\bigoplus_{1\leq i\leq c}H^0(\mathbb{P}^N,\mathcal{O}(d_i))$.
\[descridual\] On a l’égalité suivante entre fermés de $V=K^A$ : $$D=\tilde{X}^{\vee}_A.$$
Soit $H$ l’hyperplan de $(K^A)^*$ d’équation $f=\sum_i Y_iF_i=0$. $$\begin{aligned}
{7}
H\text{ est}&\text{ tangent \`a } \tilde{X}_A\text{ en un point de }\tilde{T}\label{dual}\\
\Leftrightarrow&\{f=0\}\text{ n'est pas un diviseur lisse de }\tilde{T}\nonumber\\
\Leftrightarrow&\{f=0\}\text{ n'est pas un diviseur lisse de }(K^*)^{(c+N+1)}\nonumber\\
\Leftrightarrow&\exists (y_1,\ldots,y_c,x_0,\ldots,x_N)\in(K^*)^{(c+N+1)} \text{ tels que }
\nonumber\\
&F_i(x_0,\ldots,x_N)=0\text{ et } \sum_i y_i\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial x_j}(x_0,\ldots,x_N)=0
\nonumber\\
\Leftrightarrow&\text{ les } F_i \text{ ont un z\'ero commun \`a coordonn\'ees non nulles en lequel leurs}\nonumber\\
&\text{ d\'eriv\'ees partielles v\'erifient une relation lin\'eaire \`a coefficients non nuls.}\label{singu}\end{aligned}$$
Notons $U$ le sous-ensemble de $K^A$ constitué de ces hyperplans. Par (\[dual\]) et la définition de la variété duale, son adhérence est $\tilde{X}^{\vee}_A$. Par (\[singu\]) et le critère jacobien, $U\subset D$. Mieux : (\[singu\]) et le lemme \[irred\] $(i)$ et $(ii)$ montrent que $U$ est dense dans $D$.
Par conséquent, $D=\tilde{X}^{\vee}_A.$
\[irred\] La variété $D$ est irréductible. De plus, si $(F_1,\ldots,F_c)$ est un point général de $D$, les propriétés suivantes sont vérifiées :
(i) La variété $\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}$ possède un point singulier à coordonnées toutes non nulles.
(ii) Si $I\subsetneq\{1,\ldots,c\}$, la variété $\{(F_i=0)_{i\in I}\}$ est lisse de codimension $|I|$.
Soit $Z\subset V\times\mathbb{P}^N$ le fermé constitué des $(F_1,\ldots,F_c,P)$ tels que la variété $\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}$ ait un espace tangent de dimension $>c$ en $P$. On notera $p_1:Z\to V$ et $p_2:Z\to\mathbb{P}^N$ les deux projections. Comme $D=p_1(Z)$, pour montrer que $D$ est irréductible, il suffit de montrer que $Z$ l’est. Pour cela, il suffit de montrer que pour tout $P\in \mathbb{P}^N$, $p_2^{-1}(P)$ est irréductible. Utilisant l’homogénéité sous $PGL_{N+1}$, il suffit de montrer que $p_2^{-1}([1:0:\ldots:0])$ est irréductible. En écrivant le critère jacobien en coordonnées, on voit que c’est conséquence du fait classique que l’ensemble des matrices $(N+1)\times c$ de rang $<c$ est irréductible.
Montrons $(i)$. L’ouvert $W\subset\mathbb{P}^N$ des points à coordonnées toutes non nulles est dense. Son image réciproque par le morphisme dominant $p_2$ est donc dense dans $Z$, et $p_1(p_2^{-1}(W))$ est dense dans $D=p_1(Z)$, ce qu’on voulait.
Montrons $(ii)$. Par Bertini, on choisit des $(F_i)_{i\in I}$ tels que $\{(F_i=0)_{i\in I}\}$ soit lisse de codimension $|I|$ dans $\mathbb{P}^N$, et on pose $F_i=0$ si $i\notin I$. Ceci montre qu’il existe $(F_1,\ldots,F_c)\in D$ tel que $\{(F_i=0)_{i\in I}\}$ soit lisse de codimension $|I|$. Comme $D$ est irréductible, un point général de $D$ vérifie cette propriété.
On déduit immédiatement de la proposition \[descridual\] le corollaire suivant :
\[cridef\] On a $\operatorname{codim}_V(D)>1$ si et seulement si $X_A$ est défective.
On peut de plus relier les degrés d’homogénéité qu’on cherche à calculer au caractère $\Xi_A$.
\[cardeg\] On a les relations suivantes :
(i) $\deg=h(\Xi_A)$.
(ii) $\deg_i=\alpha_i(\Xi_A)$.
(iii) $\deg_{var}=\beta_j(\Xi_A)$.
Montrons $(ii)$, qui est la seule relation que nous utiliserons. Les autres se prouvent de manière analogue. On écrit, pour $f=\sum c_a\chi_a\in K^A=V$ : $$\begin{aligned}
{4}
\lambda^{\deg_i}\Delta_A(f)&=(\rho_i(\lambda^{-1})\cdot\Delta_A)(f)&&\text{ par (\ref{defdeg})} \\
&=\Delta_A(\rho_i(\lambda)\cdot f)&& \\
&=\Delta_A(\sum\lambda^{\alpha_i(\chi_a)}c_a\chi_a)&&\text{ par (\ref{action})
et la d\'efinition de }\alpha_i\\
&=\lambda^{\alpha_i(\Xi_A)}\Delta_A(f)&&\text{ par (\ref{defxi}). }\end{aligned}$$ Finalement, il vient $\deg_i=\alpha_i(\Xi_A)$, ce qu’on voulait.
Le polytope $Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})$
------------------------------------------
Dans ce paragraphe, et dans ce paragraphe seulement, on prend temporairement des conventions légèrement plus générales : on autorise les $d_i$ à être des nombres réels strictement positifs. On définit toujours $\mathfrak{X}_{1,\mathbb{R}}$ comme l’espace affine d’équations $\sum_i d_i\alpha_i=\sum_j\beta_j$ et $\sum_i \alpha_i=1$ dans $\mathbb{R}^{c+N+1}$. On pose $Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})$ le polytope d’inéquations $\{\alpha_i\geq0\}_{1\leq i\leq c}$ et $\{\beta_j\geq0\}_{0\leq j\leq N}$ dans $\mathfrak{X}_{1,\mathbb{R}}$. Il est de dimension $c+N-1$.
Si $I\subset\{1,\ldots,c\}$ et $J\subset\{0,\ldots N\}$ sont des parties non vides, le sous-ensemble $\Gamma_{I,J}$ de $Q$ défini par les équations $\{\alpha_i=0\}_{i\notin I}$ et $\{\beta_j=0\}_{j\notin J}$ est une face de $Q$ isomorphe à $Q(|I|,|J|-1,(d_i)_{i\in I})$. De plus, toutes les faces de $Q$ sont de cette forme.
En particulier, quand les $d_i$ sont entiers, les sommets de $Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})$ sont des éléments de $A$. Comme de plus $A\subset Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})$, on voit que $Q=Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})$. On en déduit le résultat suivant :
\[lisse\] La variété torique $X_A$ est lisse.
La description explicite des faces de $Q$ obtenue ci-dessus permet de vérifier facilement le critère de lissité [@Oda] 2.22 $(iv)$.
Nous allons effectuer quelques calculs d’intégrales qui seront utiles par la suite. Pour les mener, nous aurons plusieurs fois besoin de la seconde partie du lemme ci-dessous :
\[polyn\] Soit $P\in \mathbb{Z}[d_1,\ldots,d_c][X]$. On introduit : $$R=\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{P(d_l)}{\prod_{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}.$$
(i) $R\in \mathbb{Z}[d_1,\ldots,d_c]$.
(ii) Si $P$ est de degré $\leq c-2$ en $X$, $R=0$.
On introduit $R'=\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{P(X_l)}{\prod_{l'\neq l}(X_l-X_{l'})}\in \mathbb{Z}[d_1,\ldots,d_c](X_1,\ldots,X_c)$. Multipliant par $X_{l_1}-X_{l_2}$, puis spécialisant en $X_{l_1}=X_{l_2}$, on obtient $0$. Par conséquent, $R'\in\mathbb{Z}[d_1,\ldots,d_c][X_1,\ldots,X_c]$.
En faisant $X_l=d_l$, on montre que $R\in \mathbb{Z}[d_1,\ldots,d_c]$.
Si de plus $P$ est de degré $\leq c-2$ en $X$, $R'$ est un polynôme de degré $<0$ en les $X_i$, et est donc nul. En faisant $X_l=d_l$, cela implique $R=0$.
Calculons tout d’abord le volume du polytope $Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})$. On rappelle notre convention d’attribuer une mesure $1$ au simplexe unité.
\[vol\]
$$\mu(Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c}))=\sum_{l=1}^c\frac{d_l^{c+N-1}}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}.$$
On procède par récurrence sur $c$. Pour $c=1$, c’est la formule du volume du simplexe de côté $d_1$. Si $c\geq2$, on applique Fubini en remarquant que l’image de $Q(c-1,N,(s d_i+(1-s)d_c)_{1\leq i\leq c-1})$ par l’application $$(y_1,\ldots,y_c,x_0,\ldots,x_N)\mapsto((1-s)y_1,\ldots,(1-s)y_c,x_0,\ldots,x_N)$$ est $Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})\cap\{\alpha_c=s\}$. Entre les espaces affines qui nous intéressent cette application est de déterminant $(1-s)^{c-2}$. On peut alors appliquer l’hypothèse de récurrence. Il vient : $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\mu&(Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c}))\\
&=(c+N-1)\int_0^1(1-s)^{c-2}\mu(Q(c-1,N,(s d_i+(1-s)d_c)_{1\leq i\leq c-1}))ds\\
&=\sum_{l=1}^{c-1}\int_0^1\frac{((1-s)d_c+s d_l)^{c+N-2}}{\prod_
{l'\neq l,c}(d_l-d_{l'})}ds\\
&=\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}(d_l^{c+N-1}-d_c^{c+N-1})\\
&=\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{d_l^{c+N-1}}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\text{ par le lemme \ref{polyn} $(ii)$. }\end{aligned}$$
Enfin, nous utiliserons dans le paragraphe suivant le calcul de l’intégrale ci-dessous :
\[inte\]
$$\int_{Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})}\alpha_c(u)d\mu(u)=\frac{1}{(c+N)}\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{d_c^{c+N}-d_l^{c+N}}{d_c-d_l}\right).$$
On applique Fubini comme dans le calcul précédent. $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\int&_{Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})}\alpha_c(u)d\mu(u)\\
&=(c+N-1)\int_0^1s(1-s)^{c-2}\mu(Q(c-1,N,(s d_i+(1-s)d_c)_{1\leq i\leq c-1}))ds\\
&=(c+N-1)\sum_{l=1}^{c-1}\int_0^1s\frac{((1-s)d_c+s d_l)^{c+N-2}}{\prod_
{l'\neq l,c}(d_l-d_{l'})}ds\\
&=\sum_{l=1}^{c-1}\left[\int_0^1\frac{((1-s)d_c+sd_l)^{c+N-1}}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}ds-\frac{d_c^{c+N-1}}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\right],\end{aligned}$$ où l’on a intégré par parties. Calculant l’intégrale du terme de gauche, et appliquant le lemme \[polyn\] $(ii)$ pour sommer le terme de droite, on obtient : $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\int&_{Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})}\alpha_c(u)d\mu(u)\\
&=\frac{1}{(c+N)}\left[\sum_{l=1}^{c-1}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{d_c^{c+N}-d_l^{c+N}}{d_c-d_l}\right)+\frac{(c+N)d_c^{c+N-1}}{\prod_
{l'\neq c}(d_c-d_{l'})}\right]\\
&=\frac{1}{(c+N)}\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{d_c^{c+N}-d_l^{c+N}}{d_c-d_l}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Homogénéité en les équations
----------------------------
Montrons la première partie du théorème \[princ\]. Par symétrie, on peut supposer $i=c$.
\[premprinc\] $$\deg_c =d_1\ldots d_{c-1}\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_c^{N+1}-e_l^{N+1}}{e_c-e_l}\right).$$
On utilise la relation \[cardeg\] $(ii)$, et la formule \[char\] pour $\Xi_A$ qui s’applique car $X_A$ est lisse par la proposition \[lisse\] : $$\deg_c=\sum_{\Gamma\subset Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})}(-1)^{\operatorname{codim}(\Gamma)}(\dim(\Gamma)+1)\int_{\Gamma}\alpha_c(u)d\mu_{\Gamma}(u).$$ Les faces de $Q(c,N,(d_i)_{1\leq i\leq c})$ sont les $\Gamma_{I,J}$. L’intégrale qui intervient est nulle si $c\notin I$ car $\alpha_c$ s’annule alors identiquement sur $\Gamma_{I,J}$. Si $c\in I$, on reconnaît l’intégrale calculée en \[inte\]. Il vient : $$\deg_c=\sum\limits_{\substack{I\subset\{1,\ldots,c-1\}\\ \varnothing\neq J\subset\{0,\ldots,N\}}}\sum_{l\in I\cup\{c\}}\frac{(-1)^{c+N-|I|-|J|}}{\prod\limits_{\substack{l'\in I\cup\{c\}\\l'\neq l}}
(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{d_c^{|I|+|J|}-d_l^{|I|+|J|}}{d_c-d_l}\right).$$ En paramétrant $J$ par $j=|J|$, et en remarquant que le terme $j=0$ dans la somme ci-dessous est nul par le lemme \[polyn\] $(ii)$, on obtient : $$\deg_c=\sum_{j=0}^{N+1}\tbinom{N+1}{j}\sum_{I\subset\{1,\ldots,c-1\}}\sum_{l\in I\cup\{c\}}\frac{(-1)^{c+N-|I|-j}}{\prod\limits_{\substack{l'\in I\cup\{c\}\\l'\neq l}}
(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{d_c^{|I|+j}-d_l^{|I|+j}}{d_c-d_l}\right).$$ Appliquons la formule du binôme. $$\deg_c=\sum_{I\subset\{1,\ldots,c-1\}}\sum_{l\in I\cup\{c\}}\frac{(-1)^{c-|I|-1}}{\prod\limits_{\substack{l'\in I\cup\{c\}\\l'\neq l}}
(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{d_c^{|I|}e_c^{N+1}-d_l^{|I|}e_l^{N+1}}{d_c-d_l}\right).$$ Échangeons alors les sommations sur $I$ et sur $l$. On note $\bar{I}$ le complémentaire de $I$ dans $\{1,\ldots,c-1\}$, et on remarque que dans la somme ci-dessous la contribution des termes pour lesquels $l\in\bar{I}$ est nulle. $$\deg_c=\sum_{l=1}^c\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\frac{1}{d_c-d_l}M_l, \text{ o\`u}$$ $$M_l=\sum_{\bar{I}\subset\{1,\ldots,c-1\}}(-1)^{|\bar{I}|}
(d_c^{c-1-|\bar{I}|}e_c^{N+1}-d_l^{c-1-|\bar{I}|}e_l^{N+1})\prod_{l'\in\bar{I}}(d_l-d_{l'}).$$ Calculons $M_l$. On commence par développer le produit pour obtenir : $$M_l=\sum\limits_{\substack{\bar{I}\subset\{1,\ldots,c-1\}\\H\subset\bar{I}}}
(d_c^{c-1-|\bar{I}|}e_c^{N+1}-d_l^{c-1-|\bar{I}|}e_l^{N+1})(-1)^{|H|+|\bar{I}|}d_l^{|\bar{I}|-|H|}\prod_{l'\in H}d_{l'}.$$ En sommant d’abord sur $H$, puis sur le cardinal $i=|\bar{I}|-|H|$, on obtient pour $M_l$ l’expression suivante : $$\sum_{H\subset\{1,\ldots,c-1\}}\prod_{l'\in H}d_{l'}\sum_{i=0}^{c-|H|-1}\tbinom{c-|H|-1}{i}
(-d_l)^i(d_c^{^{c-1-i-|H|}}e_c^{N+1}-d_l^{^{c-1-i-|H|}}e_l^{N+1}).$$ Appliquons à nouveau la formule du binôme. $$M_l=\sum_{H\subset\{1,\ldots,c-1\}}\prod_{l'\in H}d_{l'}\left((d_c-d_l)^{c-1-|H|}e_c^{N+1}-(d_l-d_l)^{c-1-|H|}e_l^{N+1}\right).$$ Le terme de droite se calcule en remarquant que $(d_l-d_l)^{c-1-|H|}$ est non nul seulement si $|H|=c-1$, c’est-à-dire si $H=\{1,\ldots,c-1\}$. Quant au terme de gauche, on peut le factoriser aisément. Il reste : $$M_l=e_c^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}(d_{l'}+d_c-d_l)-e_l^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}d_{l'}.$$ Reprenant le calcul de $\deg_c$, on voit que : $$\deg_c=\sum_{l=1}^c\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_c^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}(d_{l'}+d_c-d_l)-e_l^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}d_{l'} }{d_c-d_l}\right).$$ Par le lemme \[polyn\] $(ii)$, comme $\frac{e_c^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}(d_{l'}+d_c-d_l)-e_c^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}d_{l'}}{d_c-d_l}$ est un polynôme de degré $c-2$ en $d_l$, on calcule pour conclure : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg_c&=\sum_{l=1}^c\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_c^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}d_{l'}-e_l^{N+1}\prod_{l'=1}^{c-1}d_{l'} }{d_c-d_l}\right)\\
&=d_1\ldots d_{c-1}\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_c^{N+1}-e_l^{N+1}}{e_c-e_l}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Homogénéité en les variables
----------------------------
Montrons la seconde partie du théorème \[princ\].
\[deuxprinc\] $$\deg_{var}=d_1\ldots d_c\sum_{l=1}^{c}\frac{e_l^N}{\prod_{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}.$$
On pourrait procéder par calcul direct comme en \[premprinc\]. On va plutôt profiter du calcul déjà effectué en \[premprinc\] et de la relation (\[degvar\]). Il vient : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg_{var}&=\frac{1}{N+1}\sum_{i=1}^c d_i\deg_i\\
&=\frac{d_1\ldots d_c}{N+1}\sum_{i=1}^c\sum_{l=1}^c \frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_i^{N+1}-e_l^{N+1}}{e_i-e_l}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Utilisant alors le calcul reporté dans le lemme \[petitcalcul\], et vu la remarque \[remconv\], on obtient : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\deg_{var}&=\frac{d_1\ldots d_c}{N+1}\sum_{l=1}^c \frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_l^{N+1}-e_l^{N+1}}{e_l-e_l}\right)\\
&=d_1\ldots d_c\sum_{l=1}^c \frac{e_l^N}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}.\end{aligned}$$
\[petitcalcul\] $$\sum_{l=1}^c\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq l}}^c \frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\left(\frac{e_i^{N+1}-e_l^{N+1}}{e_i-e_l}\right)=0.$$
Fixons $l$ et introduisons $\Phi_l=\sum_{i\neq l}\frac{1}{\prod_
{i'\neq i}(d_i-d_{i'})}\prod_
{l'\neq i,l}(d_l-d_{l'})$, qu’on considère comme une fraction rationnelle en $d_l$ à coefficients dans $\mathbb{Q}((d_i)_{i\neq l})$. Écrivons sa décomposition en éléments simples $\Phi_l=\sum_{i\neq l} \frac{f_i}{d_l-d_i}$. En multipliant $\Phi_l$ par $(d_l-d_i)$, et en substituant $d_l=d_i$ dans l’expression obtenue, on calcule $f_i=-1$. On a montré : $$\sum_{i\neq l}\frac{1}{\prod_
{i'\neq i}(d_i-d_{i'})}\frac{1}{d_l-d_i}=-\frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\sum_{i\neq l}\frac{1}{d_l-d_i}.$$
Multiplions cette identité par $e_l^{N+1}$, sommons sur $l$, puis échangeons dans le terme de gauche le rôle des variables muettes $i$ et $l$ pour obtenir :
$$\sum_{l=1}^c\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq l}}^c \frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\frac{e_i^{N+1}}{d_i-d_l}=-\sum_{l=1}^c\sum\limits_{\substack{i=1\\i\neq l}}^c \frac{1}{\prod_
{l'\neq l}(d_l-d_{l'})}\frac{e_l^{N+1}}{d_l-d_i}.$$
Faisons tout passer dans le terme de gauche et remarquons que $d_i-d_l=e_i-e_l$ : le lemme est démontré.
Caractéristique finie
=====================
On explique dans cette partie comment modifier la preuve proposée ci-dessus pour démontrer le théorème \[princ\] quand $K$ est de caractéristique finie. On en déduit alors une preuve du théorème \[princ2\].
Équation de la duale
--------------------
On conserve les notations de la partie \[part1\].
Le théorème [@GKZ] Chap.9, 2.7, que nous que nous avons énoncé en \[discri\] décrivait l’équation de la variété duale d’une variété torique lisse $X_A\subset\mathbb{P}((K^A)^*)$. Il ne vaut tel quel qu’en caractéristique $0$, et son énoncé doit être modifié en général. À cet effet, on introduit les notations suivantes.
Soit $W_{X_A}\subset\mathbb{P}((K^A)^*)\times\mathbb{P}(K^A)$ la variété d’incidence de $X_A$, c’est-à-dire l’adhérence de l’ensemble des couples $(x,H)\in\mathbb{P}((K^A)^*)\times\mathbb{P}(K^A)$ tels que $H$ soit tangent en le point lisse $x$ de $X_A$. Notons $p_1$ et $p_2$ les projections de $W_{X_A}$ sur $X_A$ et $X_A^\vee=p_2(W_{X_A})$ respectivement. On munit $W_{X_A}$ et $X_A^{\vee}$ de leur structure réduite.
Si $X_A$ n’est pas défective, c’est-à-dire si $X_A^{\vee}$ est une hypersurface de $\mathbb{P}(K^A)$, on note $\mu$ le degré de l’application génériquement finie $p_2:W_{X_A}\to X_A^{\vee}$. Le théorème \[discri\] admet alors la généralisation suivante :
\[discribis\] On suppose $X_A$ lisse, et $l\gg0$.
(i) Si $X_A$ n’est pas défective, $$\Delta_A(f)^{\mu}=\det(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_f,e)^{(-1)^k},$$ où chacun des deux termes est bien défini à une constante multiplicative non nulle près.
(ii) Si $X_A$ est défective, $$\Delta_A(f)=\det(C^\bullet(A,l),\partial_f,e)^{(-1)^k},$$ où chacun des deux termes est bien défini à une constante multiplicative non nulle près. Les deux membres de cette égalité sont en fait des polynômes constants non nuls.
La preuve de [@GKZ] Chap.9, 2.7 ne nécessite qu’une modification mineure, qu’on va décrire. Cette preuve fait appel au théorème [@GKZ] Chap.2, 2.5. Au cours de la preuve de cet autre théorème, on utilise (page 59) le fait que si $X_A$ n’est pas défective, $p_2:W_{X_A}\to X_A^{\vee}$ est birationnelle. En caractéristique $0$, c’est une conséquence du théorème de réflexivité. Cependant, en caractéristique finie, $p_2:W_{X_A}\to X_A^{\vee}$ est seulement génériquement finie, de degré $\mu$.
En prenant cette modification en compte, et en adaptant les arguments de manière évidente, on prouve le théorème.
Tous les autres arguments que nous avons utilisés sont encore valables. Nous utiliserons librement les résultats déjà obtenus, notamment l’identification de $D$ à la variété duale d’une variété torique explicite (proposition \[descridual\]).
Calcul du degré $\mu$
---------------------
Pour appliquer le théorème \[discribis\], il faut calculer la quantité $\mu$ dans les cas où $X_A$ n’est pas défective : c’est le but de la proposition \[mu\]. On conserve les notations du paragraphe \[intertor\].
\[mu\] Supposons qu’on n’ait pas $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$.
Alors $X_A$ n’est pas défective. Si $K$ n’est pas de caractéristique $2$ ou si $n$ est impair, $\mu=1$. Sinon, $\mu=2$.
On commence par montrer plusieurs lemmes. Les arguments qui suivent sont légèrement alourdis par le fait qu’il faut manipuler avec précaution les points doubles ordinaires en caractéristique $2$.
\[icgood\]
(i) Supposons que $c=N+1$. Alors pour $(F_1,\ldots, F_c)\in D$ général, $\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}$ est un unique point réduit.
(ii) Supposons que $c<N+1$ et qu’il existe $i$ tel que $d_i\geq2$. Alors pour $(F_1,\ldots, F_c)\in D$ général, $\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}$ est de codimension $c$ et a un unique point singulier, qui est un point double ordinaire.
(iii) Supposons qu’on n’ait pas $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$. Alors pour $(F_1,\ldots, F_c)\in D$ général, les différentielles des $F_i$ sont liées en un unique point de $\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}$, et ce par une unique relation.
<!-- -->
(i) Cette propriété est ouverte dans $D$ qui est irréductible par le lemme \[irred\] : il suffit donc d’exhiber un jeu d’équations vérifiant cette propriété. Par Bertini, on choisit $F_1,\ldots, F_{c-1}$ généraux de sorte que le schéma $\{F_1=\ldots=F_{c-1}=0\}$ soit réunion de points réduits. On choisit alors $F_c$ de sorte à ce qu’il passe par un de ces points et évite les autres.
(ii) Par description de la déformation verselle d’un point double ordinaire (voir [@SGA7] Exp. XV Prop. 1.3.1), cette propriété est ouverte dans $D$. Comme $D$ est irréductible par le lemme \[irred\], il suffit donc d’exhiber un jeu d’équations vérifiant cette propriété. On considère le système linéaire constitué des $F_i$ passant par $P=[0:\ldots:0:1]$, y étant singuliers et dont les termes d’ordre $2$ sont un multiple d’une forme quadratique ordinaire fixée. Le théorème de Bertini assure que le membre général de ce système linéaire a pour unique point singulier $P$ ; c’est un point double ordinaire. On prend alors $F_1,\ldots,\hat{F_i},\ldots, F_c$ générales passant par $P$. Le théorème de Bertini assure que $(F_1,\ldots, F_c)$ convient.
(iii) Les deux premiers points permettent de décrire, pour $(F_1,\ldots, F_c)\in D$ général, les dimensions des espaces tangents de $\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}$. On en déduit le résultat.
\[nondef\] Supposons qu’on n’ait pas $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$. Alors :
(i) La variété $X_A$ n’est pas défective.
(ii) De plus, si $H$ est un élément général de $D=\tilde{X}_A^\vee$ vu comme un hyperplan de $\mathbb{P}((K^A)^*)$, $H$ est tangent à $X_A$ en un unique point.
<!-- -->
(i) Choisissons $H\in D$ général comme dans les lemmes \[icgood\] $(iii)$ et \[irred\] $(i)$ et $(ii)$. L’équivalence entre (\[dual\]) et (\[singu\]) dans la preuve de \[descridual\] montre alors qu’il existe un unique point $t$ de $T$ en lequel $H$ est tangent à $X_A$. En particulier, $t$ est isolé dans $p_2^{-1}(H)$. Comme $W_{X_A}$ est irréductible, cela implique que $p_2$ est génériquement finie. Ainsi, $X_A$ n’est pas défective.
(ii) Soit $H\in D$ général comme au point précédent. Choisissons-le de plus hors de $X_A^\vee\setminus p_2(p_1^{-1}(X_A\setminus T))$, qui est un fermé strict car $p_2$ est génériquement finie. L’hyperplan $H$ n’est tangent à $X_A$ qu’en des points de $T$, et est tangent à $T$ en un unique point. Cela conclut.
\[ptdbl\] Supposons qu’on n’ait pas $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$. Alors si $H$ est un élément général de $D=\tilde{X}_A^\vee$ vu comme un hyperplan de $\mathbb{P}((K^A)^*)$, $X_A\cap H$ a un unique point singulier qui est un point double ordinaire.
On choisit $H=(F_1,\ldots,F_c)$ général comme dans le lemme précédent, et comme dans le lemme \[icgood\] $(i)$ (resp. $(ii)$). On notera $Z=\{F_1=\ldots=F_c=0\}\subset\mathbb{P}^N$ et $\tilde{Z}\subset\mathbb{A}^{N+1}$ le cône affine sur $Z$.
Les choix faits montrent que $H$ est tangent à $X_A$ en un unique point $t\in T$. La preuve de la proposition \[descridual\] montre que si $t'=(y_1,\ldots,y_c,x_0,\ldots,x_N)\in(K^*)^{c+N+1}$ est un antécédent de $t$ par l’application (\[apptor\]), $x=[x_0,\ldots,x_N]$ est l’unique point de $Z$ (resp. l’unique point singulier de $Z$), que c’est un point réduit (resp. un point double ordinaire), et que l’unique relation entre les différentielles des $F_i$ en $\tilde{x}=(x_0,\ldots,x_N)$ est donnée par $\sum_i y_i\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial X_j}(\tilde{x})=0$, $0\leq j\leq N$.
Soit $q$ la forme quadratique induite par $H$ sur $T_tT$. On raisonne par l’absurde en la supposant non ordinaire : il existe $w\in T_tT$ non nul tel que $w\in\operatorname{rad}(q)$ et $q(w)=0$. On note $q'$ la forme quadratique que $q$ induit sur $T_{t'}(K^*)^{c+N+1}$ via l’application (\[apptor\]). Le noyau de la surjection $T_{t'}(K^*)^{c+N+1}\to T_tT$ est engendré par $w'_1=(y_1,\ldots,y_c,0,\ldots,0)$ et $w'_2=(-d_1y_1,\ldots,-d_cy_c,x_0,\ldots,x_N)$. Notons $w'=(u_1,\ldots,u_c,v_0,\ldots,v_N)$ un antécédent de $w$, de sorte que $w'\in\operatorname{rad}(q')$, $q'(w')=0$ et $w'\notin\langle w'_1,w'_2\rangle$.
La condition $w'\in\operatorname{rad}(q')$ signifie que $w'$ appartient au noyau de la matrice de la forme bilinéaire associée à $q'$, c’est-à-dire au noyau de la Hessienne de $H$ en $t'$. C’est un système d’équations qui s’écrit : $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\sum_j v_j\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial X_j}(\tilde{x})&=0,&& 1\leq i\leq c. \label{Hess1} \\
\sum_jv_j\frac{\partial^2\sum_i y_iF_i}{\partial X_j\partial X_k}(\tilde{x})
&=\sum_i u_i\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial X_k}(\tilde{x}), \text{ } &&0\leq k\leq N.\label{Hess2} \end{aligned}$$
Considérons $\tilde{v}=(v_0,\ldots,v_N)$ comme un vecteur tangent à $\mathbb{A}^{N+1}$ en $\tilde{x}$. L’équation (\[Hess1\]) montre que le vecteur $\tilde{v}$ appartient à $T_{\tilde{x}}\tilde{Z}$. Montrons qu’il est non radial. Si c’était le cas, on pourrait, quitte à retrancher à $w'$ un multiple de $w'_2$, le supposer nul. L’équation (\[Hess2\]) fournit alors la relation $\sum_i u_i\frac{\partial F_i}{\partial X_k}(\tilde{x})=0$, $0\leq k\leq N$ entre les différentielles des $F_i$ en $\tilde{x}$. Ce n’est possible par hypothèse que si $w'$ est proportionnel à $w'_1$, ce qui contredit $w'\notin\langle w'_1,w'_2\rangle$. Ainsi $\tilde{v}$ n’est pas radial.
On distingue alors deux cas.
(i) Supposons que $c=N+1$. Un vecteur $v\in T_xZ$ se relevant en $\tilde{v}$ est alors un élément non nul de $T_x Z$, et $Z$ n’est donc pas un point réduit. C’est la contradiction recherchée.
(ii) Supposons que $c<N+1$ et qu’il existe $i$ tel que $d_i\geq2$.
Vu l’unique relation liant les différentielles en $\tilde{x}$ des $F_i$, la forme quadratique qui est l’équation dans $T_{\tilde{x}}\tilde{Z}$ du cône tangent à $\tilde{Z}$ en $\tilde{x}$ est la restriction à $T_{\tilde{x}}\tilde{Z}$ de la forme quadratique induite par les termes d’ordre deux de $\sum y_iF_i$. On note $\tilde{Q}$ cette forme quadratique.
Montrons que $\tilde{v}\in\operatorname{rad}(\tilde{Q})$. L’équation (\[Hess2\]) signifie que si un vecteur est orthogonal à $(\frac{\partial}{\partial X_k}(\sum_i u_i F_i)(\tilde{x}))_{0\leq k\leq N}$ pour le produit scalaire usuel, il est automatiquement orthogonal à $\tilde{v}$ pour la forme bilinéaire associée à $\tilde{Q}$. Or tous les vecteurs de $T_{\tilde{x}}\tilde{Z}$ sont orthogonaux à $(\frac{\partial}{\partial X_k}(\sum_i u_i F_i)(\tilde{x}))_{0\leq k\leq N}$, vu comme un gradient. On a bien montré $\tilde{v}\in\operatorname{rad}(\tilde{Q})$.
On vérifie ensuite que l’équation $q'(w')=0$ est la même équation que $\tilde{Q}(\tilde{v})=0$. Soit alors $v\in T_xZ$ se relevant en $\tilde{v}$, et $Q$ la forme quadratique sur $T_xZ$, équation du cône tangent à $Z$ en $x$, induisant $\tilde{Q}$ sur $T_{\tilde{x}}\tilde{Z}$. On a montré que $v$ est un élément non nul de $\operatorname{rad}(Q)$ sur lequel $Q$ s’annule. La forme quadratique $Q$ n’est donc pas ordinaire et $x$ ne peut être un point double ordinaire de $Z$. C’est absurde.
On peut alors prouver la proposition \[mu\] :
La variété $X_A$ n’est pas défective par \[nondef\] $(i)$, de sorte que $\mu$ est bien défini.
Soit $H$ un point général de $X_A^\vee$. Soit $p_2^{-1}(H)\subset X_A$ le lieu schématique le long duquel $H$ est tangent à $X_A$ ; par définition de $\mu$, on a $\mu=\operatorname{long}(p_2^{-1}(H))$. Par [@Kleiman] I (8) et (9), $p_2^{-1}(H)=\operatorname{Sing}(X_A\cap H)$ où le lieu singulier de $X_A\cap H$ est muni de la structure schématique donnée par le $(k-1)$-ième idéal de Fitting du faisceau des différentielles de Kähler.
Comme $H$ est choisi général, par le lemme \[ptdbl\], $X_A\cap H$ a un unique point singulier qui est un point double ordinaire. Pour calculer $\operatorname{Sing}(X_A\cap H)$, on peut travailler dans le complété de $X_A\cap H$ en ce point. Par [@SGA7] Exp. XV Th. 1.2.6, celui-ci est isomorphe au le lieu des zéros dans $K[[x_1,\ldots,x_{k}]]$ de la forme quadratique ordinaire canonique $x_1x_2+\ldots+x_{k-1}x_{k}$ si $k$ est pair ou $x_1x_2+\ldots+x_{k-2}x_{k-1}+x_{k}^2$ si $k$ est impair.
Sur ces équations, il est facile de calculer le $(k-1)$-ième idéal de Fitting du faisceau des différentielles : c’est $\langle x_1,\ldots, x_{k}\rangle$ sauf si $k$ est impair et $K$ est de caractéristique $2$ auquel cas c’est $\langle x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k}^2\rangle$. Dans le premier cas, le sous-schéma qu’il définit est un point réduit et $\mu=\operatorname{long}(p_2^{-1}(H))=1$. Dans le second cas, il définit un sous-schéma de longueur $2$ et $\mu=\operatorname{long}(p_2^{-1}(H))=2$. Comme $n=N-c$ est de parité opposée à $k=c+N-1$, la proposition est démontrée.
Preuve du théorème principal
----------------------------
On commence par montrer que dans les cas non traités par le lemme \[nondef\], $X_A$ est défective.
\[def\] Supposons $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$. Alors $X_A$ est défective.
Les $F_i$ sont des formes linéaires. La sous-variété $D$ de $V$ correspond au lieu où elles ne sont pas indépendantes, et est donc décrit par l’annulation d’un certain nombre de mineurs. On en déduit aisément que ce lieu est de codimension $\geq 2$ dans $V$. Par le corollaire \[cridef\], $X_A$ est alors défective.
On obtient alors une preuve du théorème \[princ\].
On distingue deux cas.
(i) Supposons qu’on n’ait pas $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$. Alors, par le lemme \[nondef\], $X_A$ n’est pas défective, et la preuve du théorème \[princ\] en caractéristique nulle fonctionne encore. Il faut seulement remplacer le théorème \[discri\] par le théorème \[discribis\] $(i)$, et évaluer $\mu$ à l’aide de la proposition \[mu\].
(ii) Si $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$, $X_A$ est défective par le lemme \[def\]. Par le corollaire \[cridef\], $D$ est de codimension $\geq 2$ dans $V$, de sorte que $\Delta=1$, et que tous les degrés qu’on cherche à calculer sont nuls. D’autre part, la preuve fournie en caractéristique nulle fonctionne sans modifications en caractéristique quelconque, en faisant intervenir le théorème \[discribis\] $(ii)$ à la place du théorème \[discri\]. Les termes de droite dans l’énoncé du théorème \[princ\] sont donc également nuls. Le facteur $\frac{1}{\mu}$ ne joue alors aucun rôle, et le théorème est démontré.
Réduction modulo $p$ du discriminant
------------------------------------
On montre dans ce paragraphe le théorème \[princ2\].
La situation décrite dans le paragraphe \[situation\] se met en famille sur $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$ : on dispose d’un fibré vectoriel géométrique $V_{\mathbb{Z}}$ sur $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$, et d’un sous-schéma fermé réduit $D_{\mathbb{Z}}$ de celui-ci. On note $\Delta_{\mathbb{Q}}$ et $\Delta_{\mathbb{F}_p}$ les polynômes discriminant sur $\mathbb{Q}$ et $\mathbb{F}_p$.
Si $d_1=\ldots=d_c=1$ et $c<N+1$, $\Delta_{\mathbb{Q}}=1$ par le lemme \[def\] et le corollaire \[cridef\], et le théorème est évident. Dans le cas contraire, toutes les fibres sont des hypersurfaces par le lemme \[nondef\] et le corollaire \[cridef\]. Elles coïncident ensemblistement avec le lieu discriminant, et sont donc irréductibles par le lemme \[irred\]. Par conséquent, la réduction modulo $p$ de $\Delta_{\mathbb{Q}}$ s’annule précisément sur le lieu discriminant, et est donc une puissance de $\Delta_{\mathbb{F}_p}$. Comparant les degrés à l’aide du théorème \[princ\], on voit que cette puissance est $1$ sauf si $p=2$ et $n$ est pair, auquel cas cette puissance vaut $2$. Comme $\Delta_{\mathbb{F}_p}$ est irréductible par définition, cela conclut.
[20]{} M. Brion, M. Vergne, [An equivariant Riemann-Roch theorem for complete, simplicial toric varieties]{}, *J. Reine Angew. Math.* $\textbf{482}$ ($1997$), $67-92$. P. Deligne (ed.), N. M. Katz (ed.), *Groupes de monodromie en géométrie algébrique II (SGA 7 II)*, Springer ($1973$). I.M. Gelfand, M.M. Kapranov, A.V. Zelevinsky, *Discriminants, Resultants, and Multidimensional Determinants*, Birkhäuser ($1994$). S. L. Kleiman, [Tangency and duality]{}, In : *Proceedings of the* $1984$ *Vancouver conference in algebraic geometry, CMS Conf. Proc.* $\textbf{6}$ ($1986$), $163-225$. E. Miller, B. Sturmfels, *Combinatorial Commutative Algebra*, Springer-Verlag ($2005$). T. Oda, *Convex Bodies and Algebraic Geometry*, Springer-Verlag ($1988$). V. V. Prasolov, *Polynomials*, Springer ($2004$). A. H. Wallace, [Tangency and duality over arbitrary fields]{}, *Proc. Lond. Math. Soc.* $\textbf{6}$ ($1956$), $321-342$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Shuhua Gao, Changkai Sun, Cheng Xiang$ ^* $, Kairong Qin, Tong Heng Lee [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'boolnet.bib'
title: 'Finite-Horizon Optimal Control of Boolean Control Networks: A Unified Graph-Theoretical Approach'
---
Introduction {#sec: intro}
============
Boolean network (BN) was first proposed by Kauffman [@kauffman1969metabolic] to model gene regulatory networks, where each gene is assigned a Boolean variable to represent its expression state. The BN model has thereafter attracted increasing research interest in various fields, including studies on biomolecular networks in systems biology [@saadatpour2013boolean], therapeutic interventions in clinical treatment [@datta2003external], and the contagion dynamics during a financial crisis [@caetano2015boolean], just to name a few. In a BN, the binary variables interact with each other through Boolean functions, and exogenous (binary) inputs can be injected into these functions to affect the network dynamics, which is commonly referred to as a *Boolean control network* (BCN) [@cheng2009controllability]. In this study, we focus on finite-horizon optimal control (FHOC) of BCNs, which is useful for optimal therapeutic intervention strategy design in medical applications [@datta2003external]. Note that we view the *finite horizon* in a more general sense: either a fixed horizon length, or an unknown but finite horizon length with respect to a given destination state. These two types of FHOC problems are referred to as *fixed-time optimal control* and *fixed-destination optimal control* respectively in this paper.
In the last decade, a new matrix product called the *semi-tensor product* (STP), which can convert a BN (BCN) into an algebraic state-space representation (ASSR), has been developed by Daizhan Cheng et al. [@cheng2010linear; @zhao2010input]. The ASSR provides a systematic framework to study a wide range of control-theoretical problems related to BCNs, such as their controllability [@cheng2009controllability], observability [@cheng2009controllability; @laschov2013observability], stabilization [@liang2017algorithms], and various controller synthesis problems [@li2019robustness; @zhao2015control], among others. A number of optimal control problems for BCNs have been investigated in recent years using the STP and ASSR tools as well. In [@laschov2010maximum], the Mayer-type optimal control problem (i.e., only terminal cost is considered) for single-input BCNs is addressed, and a necessary condition analogous to the Pontryagin’s maximum principle is derived, which has been later extended to multi-input BCNs [@laschov2013pontryagin]. The minimum-energy control and minimum-time control of BCNs are investigated in [@li2013minimum] and [@laschov2013minimum] respectively. More general FHOC problems involving both stage cost and terminal cost are considered in [@fornasini2013optimal], and the solution is given by a recursive algorithm as an analogy to the difference Riccati equation for discrete-time linear systems. More recently, Ref. [@zhu2018optimal] targets the time-discounted stage cost and introduces a recursive algorithm based on a data structure called the optimal input-state transfer graph. The same problem is also investigated in [@cheng2015receding], and a recursive solution for receding horizon optimal control of mix-valued probabilistic logical networks is obtained. In parallel to the study of FHOC problems, the more challenging infinite-horizon counterparts have also been attempted recently in several contributions using STP-based algebraic methods. For example, infinite-horizon optimal control with average cost is studied in [@zhao2010optimal; @zhao2011floyd; @fornasini2013optimal], and the time-discounted cost case is examined in [@cheng2014optimal; @zhu2018optimal; @wu2019optimal].
While we appreciate the above successes achieved with algebraic methods powered by the STP theory, one issue is that distinct methods are developed to solve different problems as reviewed above, even if we only consider FHOC. It appears that most existing work only deals with certain special cases of FHOC, for example, the minimum-energy control [@li2013minimum], the minimum-time control [@laschov2013minimum], the Mayer-type problem [@laschov2010maximum], the two kinds of Lagrange-type problems [@cui2018optimal], and the time-discounted finite-horizon problem [@cheng2015receding], though they may share a lot in common. As mentioned in [@fornasini2013optimal] and [@zhang2017finite], there are many other types of FHOC problems as well as lots of practical limitations, for instance, optimal control subject to various constraints [@faryabi2008optimal; @zhang2017finite], and more challenging problems with general time-variant costs. Consequently, a versatile approach instead of fragmented methods to solve all these common problems is highly desirable, which partly motivates this research. One goal of our study is to unify various tasks into an integrated framework and to develop systematic algorithms to handle the most general problems.
One serious concern about the algebraic approaches in BCN studies is the high computational complexity, since the number of operations grows exponentially with respect to the network size [@cheng2009controllability; @zhao2010input; @zhao2015control]. As a result, these approaches may quickly become computationally intractable as the number of state variables increase. In fact, most control-theoretical problems of BCNs are NP-hard [@laschov2013minimum] due to the combinatorial nature of Boolean state variables, i.e., a BCN with $ n $ variables has up to $ N {\vcentcolon=}2^n $ states, a phenomenon well-known as the *curse of dimensionality*, such as NP-hardness of controllability [@akutsu2007control] and observability [@laschov2013observability]. However, this doesn’t mean we are hopeless: many algebraic approaches run in a high-order polynomial time in terms of $ N $ (see Table \[tab: time complexity\] for more details), which still leaves vast room for improvement by designing more efficient algorithms to decrease the order of the polynomial [@liang2017improved; @liang2017algorithms]. This forms another objective of this research: we aim to reduce the computational complexity of FHOC for BCNs.
To pursue more efficient algorithms, we notice that a BCN is characterized by its finite state space, finite control space, and deterministic state transitions. A direct consequence of this property is that the dynamics of a BCN can be adequately described by a state transition graph (STG). Going further, methods originating from graph theory appear to be promising for investigations of BCNs. For example, computationally efficient methods for controllability [@liang2017improved; @zhu2018further] and stabilization [@liang2017algorithms] of BCNs all resort to certain graph-theoretical algorithms. Regarding the optimal control of BCNs, a couple of pioneering studies exist that attempt to combine the ASSR with tools from graph theory to improve computational efficiency. A typical example is the employment of Floyd-like algorithms, inspired by the Floyd-Warshall algorithm in graph theory, in both finite-horizon minimum-energy control [@li2013minimum] and infinite-horizon problems [@zhao2011floyd; @cheng2014optimal]. An update-to-date study [@cui2018optimal] handles two kinds of Lagrange-type optimal control problems using the Dijkstra’s algorithm instead. The above two algorithms are both initially developed to find shortest paths in a weighted graph. One limitation of both [@li2013minimum] and [@cui2018optimal] is that they only consider time-invariant costs and a special class of FHOC problems. Motivated by these pioneering work borrowing tools from graph theory, we attempt to advance further and unify all common FHOC problems into an elegant and efficient graph-theoretical framework.
The contributions of this paper are listed in three folds. First, we unify all common types of FHOC problems, including time-variant costs and various constraints, into two general problems depending on whether the horizon length is prespecified, which are subsequently reduced to shortest path problems by constructing particular variants of the STG. The correctness of this reduction is proved rigorously. Existence of an optimal control sequence is analyzed under mild conditions for both problems. Second, we develop two intuitive algorithms to solve the above shortest path problems with superior efficiency. To be specific, only one algebraic method can achieve the same worst-case time complexity as ours, but our approach still tends to have better practical performance, which is demonstrated by two optimal control tasks for a genetic network in the bacteria *E. coli*. Third, as far as we know, there are currently no published results on the fixed-destination optimal control problem with time-variant costs, and our approach can handle it effectively using the identical graph-theoretical methodology.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec: preliminary\], we present some background knowledge about the STP, the ASSR, and the shortest path problem in graph theory. Section \[sec: problem formulation\] introduces two general problems that can incorporate all specific FHOC problems studied in the current literature. In Section \[sec: stg\], the construction of the STG from a given initial state is discussed. After that, we detail the equivalence between the two FHOC problems and the shortest path problem in dedicated graphs and propose two efficient algorithms to solve them in Section \[sec: p1 solution\] and \[sec: p2 solution\] respectively. The time complexity of our approach is compared with that of existent work in Section \[sec: time complexity comparison\], and the practical running time of various methods to complete two tasks for the Ara operon network of *E. coli* is measured in Section \[sec: benchmark\]. Finally, Section \[sec: conclusion\] gives some concluding remarks.
Preliminaries {#sec: preliminary}
=============
Notations
---------
For statement ease, the following notations [@zhao2010input; @cheng2010linear] are used.
1. $ |\mathcal{S}| $ denotes the size (i.e., cardinality) of a set $ \mathcal{S} $.
2. Let $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{N}$ denote the set of real numbers and nonnegative integers respectively. $ [l, r] {\vcentcolon=}\{l, l+1, \cdots, r - 1, r \}$.
3. $ f \ge B $ means a function $ f $ is bounded below by $ B $.
4. $\mathcal{M}_{p\times q}$ denotes the set of all $p\times q$ matrices. Given $ A \in $
5. $ \textrm{Col}_i(M) $ denotes $ i $-th column of a matrix $ M $, and $ M_{ij} $ denotes the $ (i,j) $-th entry of $ M $.
6. $ \delta_n^i {\vcentcolon=}\textrm{Col}_i(I_n) $, where $ I_n \in \mathcal{M}_{n\times n} $ is the identity matrix. $\Delta_n {\vcentcolon=}\{ \delta_n^i | i = 1, 2, \cdots, n \}$, and $ \Delta {\vcentcolon=}\Delta_2 $.
7. A matrix $M =[ \delta_{n}^{i_1}\; \delta_{n}^{i_2}\; \cdots\; \delta_{n}^{i_q} ] \in \mathcal{M}_{n\times q} $ with $\delta_n^{i_k} \in \Delta_n, \forall k \in [1, q]$, is called a *logical matrix*. Let $\mathcal{L}_{n\times q} $ denote the set of all $ n\times q $ logical matrices.
8. A matrix $ A \in \mathcal{M}_{n\times mn}$ can be rewritten into a block form $ A = [\text{Blk}_1(A)\; \text{Blk}_2(A)\; \cdots\; \text{Blk}_m(A)] $, where $ \text{Blk}_i(A) \in \mathcal{M}_{n \times n}$ is the $ i $-th square block of $ A$.
9. Logical operators [@cheng2010linear]: $\land$ for conjunction, $\lor$ for disjunction, $ \lnot $ for negation, and $\oplus $ for exclusive disjunction.
STP of Matrices and ASSR of BCNs
--------------------------------
This section revisits some necessary background knowledge about the STP and the ASSR of BCNs developed by Daizhan Cheng et al. [@cheng2010linear; @zhao2010input; @cheng2009controllability].
[@zhao2010optimal] The STP of two matrices $ A \in \mathcal{M}_{m\times n}$ and $ B \in \mathcal{M}_{p\times q}$ is defined by $$A \ltimes B = (A \otimes I_{\frac{s}{n}})(B \otimes I_{\frac{s}{p}}),$$ where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product, and $ s $ is the least common multiple of $ n $ and $ p $.
The STP is essentially a generalization of the standard matrix product, and all major properties of the standard matrix product remain valid under STP [@zhao2010optimal]. Thus, we will omit the symbol $\ltimes$ in the remainder when no confusion is caused. That is, all matrix products refer to STP by default.
A logical function can be conveniently expressed in a multilinear form via STP. In this form, a Boolean value is identified by a vector as $ \text{TRUE} \sim \delta_2^1 $ and $ \text{FALSE} \sim \delta_2^2 $.
[@cheng2010linear] \[lemma: structure matrix\] Given any Boolean function $ f(x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n): \Delta^n \rightarrow \Delta $, there exists a unique matrix $ M_f \in \mathcal{L}_{2\times 2^n}$, called the *structure matrix*, such that $$f(x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n) = M_f x_1 x_2 \cdots x_n.$$
Interested readers may refer to [@cheng2010linear] for computation of $ M_f $. For simplicity, set $ \ltimes_{i=1}^n A_i {\vcentcolon=}A_1\ltimes\cdots\ltimes A_n $.
A general BCN $ \Sigma $ with $ n $ state variables (i.e., $ n $ nodes in the network) and $ m $ control inputs can be described as $$\label{bcn}
\Sigma :
\begin{cases}
x_1(t+1) = f_1(x_1(t), \cdots, x_n(t), u_1(t), \cdots, u_m(t))\\
x_2(t+1) = f_2(x_1(t), \cdots, x_n(t), u_1(t), \cdots, u_m(t))\\
\vdots \\
x_n(t+1) = f_n(x_1(t), \cdots, x_n(t), u_1(t), \cdots, u_m(t)),
\end{cases}$$ where $ x_i(t) \in \Delta $ denotes the value of the $ i $-th variable at time $ t $, and $ f_i: \Delta^{n+m} \rightarrow \Delta$ is the $ i $-th Boolean function, $ i\in [1, n]$. Additionally, $ u_j(t) \in \Delta $ denotes the $ j $-th control input at time $ t $, $ j \in [1, m]$. Set $ x(t) {\vcentcolon=}\ltimes_{i=1}^n x_i(t)$ and $ u(t) {\vcentcolon=}\ltimes_{j=1}^m u_j(t) $. Clearly, we have $ x(t) \in \Delta_N $ and $ u(t) \in \Delta_M $, where $ N {\vcentcolon=}2^n $ and $ M {\vcentcolon=}2^m $. $ N $ and $ M $ will be used through the whole text.
The ASSR of the BCN in is given by [@cheng2010linear; @li2013minimum]: $$\label{eq: ASSR}
\ x(t+1) = Lu(t)x(t),$$ where $ L \in \mathcal{L}_{N \times MN} $, named the *network transition matrix*, is computed by $ \text{Col}_j(L) = \ltimes_{i=1}^{n} \text{Col}_j(M_{f_i}), \forall j \in [1, MN]$, where $M_{f_i} \in \mathcal{L}_{2\times MN}$ is the structure matrix of $ f_i $ in .
Shortest Path Problem {#sec: SP}
---------------------
The core of our graph-theoretical approach for FHOC is to transform the original problem into a shortest path problem in a particular graph and then locate the shortest path efficiently. We brief the shortest path problem in graph theory below.
Given a directed graph $ G=(V, E) $, where $ V = \{v_1, v_2, \cdots, v_n\} $ is a set of vertices, and $ E = \{(v_i, v_j) | v_i, v_j \in V \}$ is a set of directed edges, we assign each edge a real value, called its *weight* or *cost*. Denote the weight of the edge from $ v_i $ to $ v_j$ by $ w(v_i, v_j) $. Such a graph is known as a weighted directed graph. A path from a source vertex $ v_{i_0} \in V$ to a destination vertex $ v_{i_k} \in V $ is a sequence of vertices connected by edges, denoted by $ p=\left<v_{i_0}, v_{i_1}, \cdots, v_{i_k}\right> $. Let $ \epsilon(p) $ and $ |p| $ denote the number of edges and vertices in $ p $ respectively. If $ v_{i_0} = v_{i_k}$, $ p $ is a cycle. $ \epsilon(p) $ is also called the length of $ p $.
\[def: SP\] The weight $ w(p) $ of a path $ p $ is the sum of the weights of its constituent edges: $$\label{eq: path weight}
w(p) = \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} w(v_{i_j}, v_{i_{j+1}}).$$ A shortest path (SP) from $ v_{i_0} $ to $ v_{i_k} $ is any path from $ v_{i_0} $ to $ v_{i_k} $ with the minimum weight among all possible paths.
Problem Formulation {#sec: problem formulation}
===================
Despite the variety of FHOC problems of BCNs studied in the literature [@laschov2010maximum; @laschov2013pontryagin; @li2013minimum; @laschov2013minimum; @fornasini2013optimal; @cheng2015receding; @zhu2018optimal; @cui2018optimal], they can essentially be classified into two general types according to whether the horizon length is *a priori* fixed or not. This section will detail the mathematical formulation of both general problems.
Fixed-Time Optimal Control {#sec: problem 1}
--------------------------
Roughly speaking, our objective is to construct a fixed-length control sequence for the BCN to optimize a given performance index [@faryabi2008optimal; @fornasini2013optimal]. The scenario can become much more complicated in practice because of various constraints when designing control strategies. For example, we have to avoid dangerous states in therapeutic intervention [@datta2003external; @faryabi2008optimal]. Besides, not all theoretical control inputs are practically realizable, e.g., we may still lack effective means to manipulate specific genes in a GRN, or a medical treatment is possibly unaffordable. Consequently, certain control inputs can be unavailable or just prohibited in specific states [@zhang2017finite]. Finally, it is common that we may want to steer the network to a particular state, e.g., to lead a gene regulatory network from a cancerous state (initial state) to a healthy state (terminal state) [@pal2006optimal; @kim2013discovery]. Thus, we further enrich the fixed-time optimal control problem by constraining the terminal states.
A general problem reflecting the above intention subject to various constraints is formulated mathematically as follows.
\[problem: fixed length\] Consider the BCN , an initial state $ x_0 \in \Delta_N$, and a fixed horizon length $ T \in \mathbb{N}$. Fixed-time optimal control of a BCN is to determine an optimal control sequence of length $ T $ to the following optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: general fixed length problem}
\min_{u}{J_\textrm{T}}(u) = {h_\textrm{T}}(x(T)) + \sum_{t=0}^{T-1}g(x(t), u(t), t), \nonumber \\
\textrm{s.t.} \begin{cases}
x(t+1) = Lu(t)x(t) \\
x(t) \in C_x \\
u(t) \in C_u(x(t)) \\
x(0) = x_0 \\
x(T) \in \Omega
\end{cases},
\end{aligned}$$ where $ u {\vcentcolon=}(u(0), u(1), \cdots, u(T-1)) \in {\Delta_M}^T$ is a control sequence; $ g: \Delta_N \times \Delta_M \times {\mathbb N}\rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ is the *stage cost function*; and $ {h_\textrm{T}}: \Delta_N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is the *terminal cost function*. $ C_x $ denotes the allowed states; $ C_u $ represents the state-dependent constraints on control inputs; and the terminal set $ \Omega \subseteq {\Delta_N}$ denotes the set of desirable terminal states at time $ T $.
The horizon length $ T $ denotes a finite treatment window in therapeutic applications [@datta2003external; @faryabi2008optimal]. Thus, optimal therapeutic intervention strategies can be developed within a treatment window by setting up a proper optimality criterion $ {J_\textrm{T}}$ in by domain expert knowledge.
Most existing studies only deal with time-invariant stage cost, that is, the function $ g $ in doesn’t really depend on time $ t $ (see [@zhao2011floyd; @laschov2013minimum; @cui2018optimal] for examples). Few studies consider a time-dependent $ g $ but only in restricted forms such as the time-discounted cost in [@zhu2018optimal] and [@cheng2015receding]. We intend to investigate the most general form directly, where the stage cost $ g $ can incorporate time $ t $ in any form.
Problem \[problem: fixed length\] represents a very general setting of fixed-time optimal control problems. A variety of specific finite-horizon problems investigated in existing work can be rewritten easily into this general form. We demonstrate in the sequel how to specialize Problem \[problem: fixed length\] to some specific fixed-time optimal control problems with different characteristics in the literature.
1. *No terminal state constraints* [@fornasini2013optimal; @zhu2018optimal; @cui2018optimal]. If the terminal state is not specified, we only need $ \Omega = \Delta_N $.
2. *A single desired terminal state* [@laschov2013minimum; @li2013minimum]. Set $ \Omega = \{ x_d \} $, where $ x_d $ is the single desired terminal state.
3. *Only stage cost* [@li2013minimum; @cheng2015receding; @cui2018optimal]. To remove the terminal cost, simply nullify it by $ {h_\textrm{T}}(\cdot) \equiv 0$.
4. *Only terminal cost (also known as the Mayer problem)* [@laschov2010maximum; @laschov2013pontryagin]. Just set zero stage costs: $ g(\cdot, \cdot, \cdot) \equiv 0$.
5. *Special terminal or stage cost functions* [@fornasini2013optimal; @li2013minimum; @cheng2015receding]. For example, [@zhu2018optimal] and [@cheng2015receding] consider the time-discounted finite-horizon optimal control, which can be expressed by with $ g(x(t), u(t), t) = \lambda^t c_g(u(t), x(t)) $, where $ 0 < \lambda < 1$ is the discount factor, and $ c_g(\cdot, \cdot) $ is a time-invariant stage cost. As another example, the energy function in [@li2013minimum] is obtained through $ g(x(t), u(t), t) = u^\top(t)Qu(t) $, and the more general quadratic cost function in [@fornasini2013optimal] can be implemented straightforwardly by $$\begin{aligned}
&{h_\textrm{T}}(x(T)) = x(T)^\top Q_h x(T), \\
&g(x(t), u(t), t) = \begin{bmatrix} x(t)^\top u(t)^\top \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
Q & S \\
S^\top & R
\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x(t) \\ u(t) \end{bmatrix},
\end{aligned}$$ where $ Q_h, Q, S, \text{and } R $ are proper weight matrices.
Fixed-Destination Optimal Control {#sec: fixed-dest problem}
---------------------------------
A common task that Problem \[problem: fixed length\] cannot cover is time-optimal control, which aims to find a control sequence to drive the BCN from a given initial state $ x_0 $ to another destination state $ x_d $ in minimum time. Such time-optimal control has been widely studied for traditional linear time-invariant (LTI) discrete-time systems, such as the famous deadbeat controller (see [@o1981discrete] for a review). In [@laschov2013minimum], the minimum-time control of BCNs is first investigated, and the same problem is considered again in [@chen2016minimum] but with impulsive disturbances. Such optimality concept can be generalized to other criteria, for example, the minimum-energy control studied in [@li2013minimum], which attempts to steer the BCN to a target state using minimum energy.
Note that although the horizon length is not *a priori* fixed, it must be finite for a well-posed problem, that is, the specified destination state $ x_d $ should be reachable from the initial state $ x_0 $ in finite steps. It is the main reason we consider such problems as another class of FHOC problems in a general sense. To further generalize this problem, just like Problem \[problem: fixed length\], we make it admit a set of destination states and subject to various constraints, which is formalized as follows.
\[problem: unknown length\] Consider the BCN , an initial state $ x_0 \in \Delta_N$, and a terminal set $ \Omega \subseteq \Delta_N$. The fixed-destination optimal control problem of a BCN is to determine an optimal control sequence of a variable length to the optimization problem, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: general unknown length problem}
&\min_{u} J(u) = h(x(K), K) + \sum_{t=0}^{K-1} g(x(t), u(t), t), \nonumber\\
&\textrm{s.t.} \begin{cases}
x(t+1) = Lu(t)x(t) \\
x(t) \in C_x \\
u(t) \in C_u(x(t)) \\
x(0) = x_0 \\
x(K) \in \Omega
\end{cases},
\end{aligned}$$ where $ u = (u(0), u(1), \cdots, u(K-1)) \in {\Delta_M}^K$ represents a control sequence, and $ K \in \mathbb{N}$ indicates an unknown but finite horizon length. The terminal cost function $ h: \Delta_N \times\mathbb{N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ and the stage cost function $g: \Delta_N \times \Delta_M \times {\mathbb N}\rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ can be time-dependent. $ C_x $, $ C_u $, and $ \Omega $ denote the state constraint, the control constraint, and desirable destination states respectively.
Despite the apparent similarity in mathematical forms between Problem \[problem: fixed length\] and Problem \[problem: unknown length\], they will be treated by distinctly different means to maximize the computational efficiency of each problem. In existing work like [@li2013minimum] and [@cui2018optimal], only specific problems with a time-independent stage cost function and a single destination state are investigated, and no terminal cost is considered. However, we argue that it is sensible to set different costs if the desired terminal state is reached at different time, for example, when the desired state refers to a good state of physical health.
Compared with the fixed-time optimal control (Problem \[problem: fixed length\]), there are fewer studies on Problem \[problem: unknown length\]. As far as we know, only the following two custom problems have been investigated in the literature, both with a single destination state, i.e., $ \Omega=\{ x_d \} $, and a time-invariant stage cost function.
1. *Minimum-time control* [@laschov2013minimum; @chen2016minimum]. This kind of control is often referred to as time-optimal control. In Problem \[problem: unknown length\], simply set $ g(\cdot, \cdot, \cdot) \equiv 1 $ and $ h (\cdot, \cdot) = 0$, and we have $ J(u) = K$. Thus, we are indeed minimizing the number of steps to steer the BCN from $ x_0 $ to $ x_d $.
2. *Minimum-energy control* [@li2013minimum]. Let $ g(x(t), u(t), t) = u^\top(t) Q u(t) $ and $ h (\cdot, \cdot) = 0$, where $ Q $ is a positive definite diagonal matrix measuring energy consumption.
State Transition Graph {#sec: stg}
======================
In this section,we introduce the state transition graph (STG) of a BCN, which is useful for both Problem \[problem: fixed length\] and \[problem: unknown length\]. An efficient algorithm based on bread-first search (BFS) [@cormen2009introduction] in a graph is developed to construct the STG.
Reachability of a BCN
---------------------
To construct the STG, we need to first discuss the reachability of a BCN [@cheng2009controllability; @zhao2010input], especially the reachable set of a given intial state, whose definition is given as follows.
\[def: reachable set\] The set of states that can be reached from $x(0) = x_0 \in \Delta_N$ at time $ t= d $ is $ \mathcal{R}_d(x_0) $. Given a set $ X \subseteq {\Delta_N}$, let $ \mathcal{R}_d(X) {\vcentcolon=}\cup_{x \in X} \mathcal{R}_d(x) $ for notational simplicity. The complete reachable set of a given state $ x_0$ is $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) {\vcentcolon=}\cup_{d \in {\mathbb N}}{\mathcal R}_d(x_0) $.
$ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $ can be obtained algebraically by calculating powers of the network transition matrix $ L $ [@cheng2009controllability; @zhao2010input]. However, from a graph-theoretical view, a computationally economical way is to adopt the standard bread-first search (BFS) procedure to build $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $ iteratively [@cormen2009introduction; @liang2017algorithms]. More interestingly, this method is closely related with the adjacency-list representation of a graph [@cormen2009introduction], and only requires successive computation of the one-step reachable set $ {\mathcal R}_1(\cdot) $. Recall that $ u(t) \in {\Delta_M}$ and $ x(t) \in {\Delta_N}$ are both logical vectors with all zero entries except a single entry of value 1. Thus, given $ u(t) = {\delta_M}^k $, we have $ Lu(t) = {\textrm{Blk}}_k(L) $. The following lemma follows immediately.
\[lemma: R1\] The one-step reachable set of a state $ {\delta_N}^i $ for a BCN with no constraints is $$\label{eq: R1}
\mathcal{R}_1(\delta_N^i) = \{ \textrm{Col}_i(\textrm{Blk}_k(L)) | k \in [1, M] \},$$ and, if there are constraints like Problem \[problem: fixed length\] (or Problem \[problem: unknown length\]), $$\label{eq: R1-constrained}
\mathcal{R}_1(\delta_N^i) = \{ \textrm{Col}_i(\textrm{Blk}_k(L)) | k \in [1, M], {\delta_M}^k \in C_u({\delta_N}^i) \} \cap C_x.$$
Note that we ignore the terminal constraint in and will handle it later when building specific graphs. It is possible that more than one control input can attain the transition from $ {\delta_N}^i $ to $ {\delta_N}^j $. Collect these qualified control inputs into a set $ U^{ij} $: $$\label{eq: U^ij}
U^{ij} = \{ {\delta_M}^k \in C_u({\delta_N}^i)| k \in [1, M], \textrm{Col}_i(\textrm{Blk}_k(L)) = {\delta_N}^j \}.$$
By Definition \[def: reachable set\] and Lemma \[lemma: R1\], the $ d- $step reachable set of a state $ {\delta_N}^i $ is obtained efficiently with the recursion: $${\mathcal R}_d({\delta_N}^i) = {\mathcal R}_1({\mathcal R}_{d-1}({\delta_N}^i)), d \ge 2.$$
Construction of an STG
----------------------
As aforementioned, a BCN is characterized by its finite state space, where the finite control inputs coordinate the state transitions deterministically. This feature makes it possible to capture the complete dynamics of a BCN with a directed graph, called the *state transition graph* (STG).
\[def: STG\] Consider the BCN . Its state transition graph (STG) is a directed graph $ G =(V, E) $, where $ V = \Delta_N $ is the vertex set, i.e., one vertex for each state, and the edge set is $$\label{eq: edges of STG}
E = \{(\delta_N^i, \delta_N^j) | \delta_N^i \in V, {\delta_N}^j \in {\mathcal R}_1(\delta_N^i) \},$$ i.e., one edge for each one-step transition between states.
In this study, we only care about states reachable from an initial state $ x_0 $. We denote such an STG by $ G =(V, E, x_0) $ with $ V = \mathcal{R}(x_0)$. Hereafter we will use the terms *vertex* and *state* interchangeably when no ambiguity is caused.
In addition, we may assign a weight to each edge of the STG corresponding to the cost of the each state transition, which will be detailed in following sections.
The *input-state graph* (in a matrix form), proposed by [@cheng2014optimal; @zhao2010input], uses an input-state pair $ (\delta_M^i, \delta_N^j) $ as an vertex, leading to $ MN$ vertices in total. Our STG with only $ N $ or ${\mathcal R}(x_0) $ vertices is potentially more space and time efficient.
Note from that $ {\mathcal R}_1({\delta_N}^i) $ essentially denotes the successors of the vertex $ {\delta_N}^i $ in the STG. We thus can build the STG following a BFS procedure and get $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $ at the same time. BFS is a graph traversal algorithm where the neighbors of a vertex are visited in a FIFO (first-in-first-out) order. Algorithm \[alg: STG\] details the construction of an STG. Running Algorithm \[alg: STG\], we get the reachable set $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $, i.e., $ R $ in the algorithm, and the adjacency list of each vertex, $ {\mathcal R}_1(x), \forall x \in {\mathcal R}(x_0)$, which effectively gives the STG $ G =(V, E, x_0) $ by Definition \[def: STG\].
a BCN and relevant constraints if any Adjacency-list representation of an STG Initialize a FIFO queue $ Q $ and a set $ R $ Append $ x_0 $ to $ Q $ and $ R $ $ {\delta_N}^i \gets $ $\textrm{dequeue}(Q) $ \[line: for 1\] See Lemma \[lemma: R1\] Append $ {\delta_N}^j $ to $ Q $ and $ R $
*Time complexity analysis of Algorithm \[alg: STG\].* For each state $ {\delta_N}^i \in {\mathcal R}(x_0)$, Eq. or needs $ M $ operations, and obviously $ |{\mathcal R}_1({\delta_N}^i)| \le M $. The **for** loop has at most $ M $ iterations; and the **while** loop runs $ |V| $ times because each vertex is enqueued and dequeued exactly once. Thus, the time complexity of Algorithm \[alg: STG\] is $ O(M|V|) $, which is equivalent to $ O(MN) $ since there are at most $ N $ states (vertices). This conforms to the celebrated theorem that BFS runs in linear time with respect to the number of edges and vertices [@cormen2009introduction], i.e., $ O(|V|+|E|) $, because the STG has at most $ MN $ edges.
Algorithm \[alg: STG\] implies that, any state $ x \in {\mathcal R}(x_0)$ can be reached from $ x_0 $ in less than $ N $ steps, i.e., $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) = \cup_{0 \le d < N} {\mathcal R}_d(x_0) $. This result is intuitive: if a trajectory from $ x_0 $ to $ x $ contains more than $ N $ states, there must be repetitive ones, and we can remove such cycles to shorten the trajectory.
\[example: 1\] Consider a BCN with $ m = 2 $ control inputs and $ n = 3 $ state variables [@li2013minimum] as follows: $$\label{eq: example 1 bcn}
\Sigma_1:
\begin{cases}
x_1(t+1) = x_2(t) \land (u_1(t) \oplus x_3(t) ) \\
x_2(t+1) = \lnot x_1(t) \\
x_3(t+1) = u_2(t) \oplus x_2(t)
\end{cases}.$$ Its ASSR has a $ 8 \times 32 $ transition matrix $ L $, which is omitted here to conserve space. For illustration purpose, we set up the state constraints and control constraints arbitrarily below:
$$\label{eq: example 1 constraints}
\begin{cases}
C_x &= \Delta_8 \setminus \{\delta_8^8\} \\
C_u(x) &= \begin{cases}
\{ \delta_4^3, \delta_4^4 \}, \ \textrm{if } x = \delta_8^6 \\
\Delta_4 \setminus \{\delta_4^2\}, \ \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{cases}$$
i.e., the state $ \delta_8^8 $ is forbidden; the control $ \delta_{4}^2 $ is unavailable to all states; and only control $ \{ \delta_4^3, \delta_4^4 \} $ is applicable to state $ \delta_8^6 $.
The STG $ G=(V, E, x_0) $ of $ \Sigma_1 $ with states reachable from $ x_0 = \delta_8^1 $ subject to the given constraints is obtained by Algorithm \[alg: STG\] and shown in Fig. \[fig: STG of example 1\].
![ STG of the BCN in Example \[example: 1\]. Each circle labeled $ i $ represents a state $ \delta_{8}^i $, and the arrows denote state transitions.[]{data-label="fig: STG of example 1"}](example1-STG){width="35mm"}
Solve Problem \[problem: fixed length\] via Dynamic Programming {#sec: p1 solution}
===============================================================
In this section, we first validate the existence of optimal solutions to Problem \[problem: fixed length\], and then we introduce a time-expanded variant of the STG and develop an efficient algorithm via dynamic programming to solve Problem \[problem: fixed length\] based on that graph.
Existence of Optimal Solutions
------------------------------
As we will discuss next, the stage costs and the terminal costs in are mapped to edge weights of a graph to reduce Problem \[problem: fixed length\] to an SP problem. It is known that the SP problem is well defined only if the graph contains no negative-weight cycles [@cormen2009introduction]. Nonetheless, since the length of a path in Problem \[problem: fixed length\] is fixed due to the fixed horizon, this condition is no longer required. Only the following assumption is needed for Problem \[problem: fixed length\] to avoid an optimal value of negative infinity.
\[ass: bounded below\] The stage cost function $ g $ and the terminal cost function $ {h_\textrm{T}}$ in Problem \[problem: fixed length\] are both bounded from below.
Now we are ready to present the following conclusion about the existence of optimal solutions to Problem \[problem: fixed length\].
\[prop: 1\] Consider Problem \[problem: fixed length\] under Assumption \[ass: bounded below\]. An optimal control sequence $ u^* $ to exists if and only if $ \Omega \cap \mathcal{R}_T(x_0) \ne \emptyset$.
(*Necessity*) $ \mathcal{R}_T(x_0) $ includes all states reachable from $ x_0 $ at $ t = T $ subject to the constraints in (except $ \Omega $), i.e., $ x(T) \in \mathcal{R}_T(x_0), \forall u \in \Delta_M^T$. If $ \Omega \cap \mathcal{R}_T(x_0) = \emptyset$, no feasible solutions exist for Problem \[problem: fixed length\], i.e., Problem \[problem: fixed length\] is infeasible. Thus, the necessity of $ \Omega \cap \mathcal{R}_T(x_0) \ne \emptyset$ is obvious.
(*Sufficiency*) Note that the solution space $ \mathbb{U} $ of Problem \[problem: fixed length\] is of finite size, which contains at most $ M^T $ candidate solutions. Besides, $ \Omega \cap \mathcal{R}_T(x_0) \ne \emptyset$ implies that at least one feasible solution $ u \in \mathbb{U}$ exists which can steer the BCN from $ x_0 $ to a terminal state $ x_f \in \Omega $ at time $ T $ under constraints. Moreover, Assumption \[ass: bounded below\] ensures that $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u) $ is bounded from below, $ \forall u \in \mathbb{U} $. A straightforward exhaustive enumeration of $ \mathbb{U}$ can yield the optimal solution $ u^* $ satisfying $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u^*) = \min_{u \in \mathbb{U}} {J_\textrm{T}}(u) $.
If there are no constraints in Problem \[problem: fixed length\], i.e., $C_x \equiv {\Delta_N}, C_u(\cdot) \equiv {\Delta_M}, \Omega \equiv \Delta_N $, an optimal control sequence always exists, which is widely studied in existing work, e.g., [@cui2018optimal; @zhu2018optimal]. Note additionally that the optimal control sequence $ u^* $ may not be unique.
Time-Expanded Fixed-Time State Transition Graph {#sec: data structure problem 1}
-----------------------------------------------
Fig. \[fig: STG of example 1\] shows that each edge in the STG corresponds to a state transition of the BCN, whose weight indicates the transition cost. This fact motivates us to connect Problem \[problem: fixed length\] to the shortest-path (SP) problem on the STG. However, in contrast to the standard SP problem in graph theory, Problem \[problem: fixed length\] poses three substantial challenges. First, the number of time steps is fixed to $ T $, that is, we want only $ T $-edge paths. Second, the stage cost function $ g $ is time-dependent, indicating that the edge weights may vary with time. Finally, there is an additional terminal cost given by $ {h_\textrm{T}}$. Consequently, the classic SP algorithms can no longer be applied. To overcome these obstacles, we get inspiration from the space-time network in dynamic transportation network studies [@pallottino1998shortest] and propose a new graph called the *Time-Expanded fixed-Time State Transition Graph* (TET-STG), which attaches timestamp to state transitions by stretching the STG along the time dimension. Besides, we introduce a *pseudo-state* $ {\delta_N}^0 $ to handle terminal states and their costs. A formal definition is given below.
\[def: TET-STG\] Consider Problem \[problem: fixed length\]. The TET-STG $ {G_\text{tet}}= (V, E, x_0, T) $ is a weighted directed graph constructed by:
- $ V = \cup_{t=0}^{T+1} V_t $, where $ V_t = {\mathcal R}_t(x_0), \forall t \in [0, T-1] $, $ V_{T} = {\mathcal R}_T(x_0) \cap \Omega $, and $ V_{T+1} = \{ {\delta_N}^0 \} $.
- $ E = \cup_{t=0}^{T} E_t$, where $ E_t = \{(\delta_N^i, \delta_N^j) | \delta_N^i \in V_t, \delta_N^j \in V_{t+1} \cap \mathcal{R}_1(\delta_N^i) \}, \forall t \in [0, T-1]$, and\
$ E_T = \{ (\delta_N^i, {\delta_N}^0) | {\delta_N}^i \in V_T \} $.
Note that a state may appear at multiple time points, but they are treated as distinctive vertices from a graph perspective. Denote the vertex representing the state $ {\delta_N}^i $ at time $ t $ by $ {\delta_{N, t}}^i $. The weight of the edge $ ({\delta_{N, t}}^i, \delta_{N, t+1}^{j}) \in E_t $ is $$\label{eq: w_t^ij}
w(\delta_{N, t}^{i}, \delta_{N, t+1}^{j}) =
\begin{cases}
\min_{{\delta_M}^k \in U^{ij}} g(\delta_N^{i}, {\delta_M}^k, t), t \in [0, T - 1] \\
{h_\textrm{T}}(\delta_N^i), t = T
\end{cases}$$ where $ U^{ij} $ is given in , and the unique vertex at time $ T+ 1$ refers to the pseudo-state $ \delta_{N, T+1}^0 $. Denote the control that achieves the weight (cost) in by $ u_t^{ij} $: $$\label{eq: u_t^ij}
u^{ij}_t = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{{\delta_M}^k \in U^{ij}} g(\delta_N^{i}, {\delta_M}^k, t), t \in [0, T - 1].$$
We note a slight abuse of notations in the above: $ {\mathcal R}_t(x_0) $ includes time information implicitly, and thus $ V_i \cap V_j = \emptyset, \forall i \ne j $. Besides, recall Eq. : among the possibly nonunique control inputs that enable a state transition, we pick definitely the one of lowest cost in for optimal control purpose. The role of the pseudo-state $ \delta_{N, T+1}^0 $ is to incorporate the terminal cost into the graph at the *pseudo-time* $ T+1 $.
Despite its seemingly complex definition, the TET-STG can be built handily by acquiring $V_0, E_0, V_1, \cdots, E_{T-1}, V_T$ successively similar to the BFS in Algorithm \[alg: STG\]. In practical implementation, the one-step transition between states need to computed only once: supposing there is a transition $ ({\delta_N}^i, {\delta_N}^j) $ in the STG, i.e., $ {\delta_N}^j \in {\mathcal R}_1({\delta_N}^i) $, if we have a vertex $ {\delta_{N, t}}^i \in V_t $, then there exists a succeeding vertex $ {\delta_{N, t}}^j \in V_{t+1} $ and an edge $ ({\delta_{N, t}}^i, {\delta_{N, t+1}}^j) \in E_t$ in the TET-STG.
\[example: 2\] Consider the BCN $ \Sigma_1 $ in Example \[example: 1\] again. In addition to the constraints , Problem \[problem: fixed length\] is set up by $T = 4, x_0 = \{ \delta_8^1 \} $, and $ \Omega = \{ \delta_8^2, \delta_8^6 \} $. The costs are: $$g(x(t), u(t), t) = u(t)^{\top}Qu(t) + t, \ h_\text{T}(x(T)) = x(T)^{\top}Rx(T),$$ where $ Q = \textrm{diag}(2, 3, 1, 0) $ and $ R = \textrm{diag}(3, 5, 4, 0, 1, 3, 6, 0) $.
Take the transition $ (\delta_{8}^3, \delta_{8}^7) $ as an example. We have $ U^{37} = \{ \delta_4^1, \delta_{4}^3 \} $, which justifies the use of . The obtained TET-STG is shown in Fig. \[fig: TET-STG of example 2\]. Now it is clear that, though the stage cost function $ g $ itself is time-dependent, the weight of each edge in the TET-STG becomes time-invariant after we expand the STG along the time axis.
![ TET-STG in Example \[example: 2\] with the initial state $ x_0 = \delta_8^1$ (the orange circle). A circle labeled $ i $ at time $ t $ denotes a vertex $ \delta_{8, t}^i $. We highlight the terminal states in $ \Omega $ by gray circles and the pseudo-state $ \delta_8^0 $ by a dashed circle and dashed edges. The annotation of each edge $ (k, w) $ means that this transition is achieved with control $ \delta_4^k $ at a cost of $ w $ (i.e., the edge’s weight). Note that the dashed edges going into the pseudo-state need no control.[]{data-label="fig: TET-STG of example 2"}](example1-TESTG){width="75mm"}
Recall Proposition \[prop: 1\]. From the construction of the TET-STG, it is clear that an optimal control sequence exists if $ V_T \ne \emptyset$, because each path from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $\delta_{N, T+1}^{0} $ yields a feasible solution to Problem \[problem: fixed length\], where $ \delta_{N}^{i_0} = x_0 $.
As aforementioned, we will transform Problem \[problem: fixed length\] into an SP problem in the TET-STG. First, note that each one-step transition in the TET-STG is already attained with a minimum cost thanks to and . A direct consequence is the following lemma whose correctness is intuitive.
\[lemma: trajectory & path\] Consider Problem \[problem: fixed length\] under Assumption \[ass: bounded below\]. For any feasible control sequence $ u = ({\delta_M}^{k_0}, {\delta_M}^{k_1}, \cdots, {\delta_M}^{k_{T-1}} ) $ that steers the BCN along a state trajectory $ s = ({\delta_N}^{i_0}, {\delta_N}^{i_1}, \cdots, {\delta_N}^{i_T} ) $ with $x_0 = \delta_{N}^{i_0} $ and $ {\delta_N}^{i_T} \in \Omega $, there holds $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u) \ge w(p) $, where $ p $ is the corresponding path in the associated TET-STG, $$\label{eq: a path}
p = \big< \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0}, \delta_{N, 1}^{i_1}, \cdots, \delta_{N, T}^{i_T}, \delta_{N, T+1}^{0} \big>,$$ and $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u) = w(p) $ holds if $ {\delta_M}^{k_t} = u_t^{i_t i_{t+1}}, \forall t \in [0, T - 1]$.
According to edge weights in and the optimal one-step control in , the weight of the path $ p $ in is $$w(p) = {h_\textrm{T}}(\delta_N^{i_T}) + \sum_{t=0}^{T-1} g(\delta_N^{i_t}, u_t^{i_t i_{t+1}}, t).$$ From the definition of $ {J_\textrm{T}}$ in , we have $${J_\textrm{T}}(u) = {h_\textrm{T}}(\delta_N^{i_T}) + \sum_{t=0}^{T-1}g(\delta_N^{i_t}, {\delta_M}^{k_t}, t).$$ We can see that the correctness of Lemma \[lemma: trajectory & path\] is obvious.
The following theorem establishes the connection between fixed-time optimal control and the SP in the TET-STG.
\[thm: problem 1 SP\] Consider Problem \[problem: fixed length\] under Assumption \[ass: bounded below\] and suppose it is feasible. Given $ x_0 = \delta_{N}^{i_0}$, if an SP from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $\delta_{N, T+1}^{0} $ in the TET-STG $ {G_\text{tet}}= (V, E, x_0, T) $ is $$\label{eq: p^* of p1}
p^* = \big< \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0}, \delta_{N, 1}^{i_1^*}, \cdots, \delta_{N, T}^{i_T^*}, \delta_{N, T+1}^{0} \big>,$$ then the minimum value of the cost function is $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* = w(p^*)$, and an optimal control sequence is $$\label{eq: U^* of p1}
u^* = \{ u_0^{i_0 i_1^*}, u_1^{i_1^*i_2^*}, \cdots, u_{T-1}^{i_{T-1}^* i_T^*} \}.$$
Suppose the solution space of Problem \[problem: fixed length\] is $ {\mathbb{U}}\ne \emptyset$, and the set of paths from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $\delta_{N, T+1}^{0} $ in $ {G_\text{tet}}$ is $ {\mathbb{P}}$. There holds $ {\mathbb{P}}\ne \emptyset $ because each state trajectory driven by $ u \in {\mathbb{U}}$ corresponds to a path in $ {\mathbb{P}}$. Moreover, we have $ |{\mathbb{P}}| \le |{\mathbb{U}}| $ since different control sequences may lead to identical state trajectories (see ). As we have shown in the proof of Proposition \[prop: p2\], $ |{\mathbb{U}}| $ is finite, which implies $ |{\mathbb{P}}| $ is also finite. Additionally, Assumption \[ass: bounded below\] and Eq. ensures that all edge weights in $ {G_\text{tet}}$ are bounded from below, which guarantees $ w(p) $ is bounded from below for any $ p \in {\mathbb{P}}$ because $ p $ has exactly $ T+1 $ edges. Thus, there must exist a shortest path $ p^* $.
Given any $ u \in {\mathbb{U}}$, Lemma \[lemma: trajectory & path\] tells that there exists $ p \in {\mathbb{P}}$ such that $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u) \ge w(p) \ge w(p^*) $. Furthermore, for the control sequence $ u^* \in {\mathbb{U}}$ in that attains $ p^* $, it leads to a state trajectory $ s^* = (\delta_{N}^{i_0}, \delta_{N}^{i_1^*}, \cdots, \delta_{N}^{i_T^*}) $ with $ {\delta_N}^{i_T^*} \in \Omega $ according to the TET-STG in Definition \[def: TET-STG\]. Thus, $ u^* $ is a feasible solution to Problem \[problem: fixed length\]. Furthermore, Lemma \[lemma: trajectory & path\] states $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u^*) = w(p^*)$. Hence, we have $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u) \ge {J_\textrm{T}}(u^*) $, $\forall u \in {\mathbb{U}}$.
Dynamic Programming (DP) in TET-STG
-----------------------------------
The problem following Theorem \[thm: problem 1 SP\] immediately is how to locate an SP from $\delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ \delta_{N, T+1}^{0} $ in the TET-STG efficiently (see ). Since the layered structure of the TET-STG doesn’t contain any cycles, the classic SP algorithms [@cormen2009introduction] such as the Floyd-Warshall algorithm and the Dijkstra’s algorithm can be applied directly. However, in view of the fixed horizon length in Problem \[problem: fixed length\], we propose a custom method based on dynamic programming (DP) to achieve better time efficiency, which can even beat the state-of-the-art Dijkstra’s algorithm (Remark \[remark: algorithm 1\]).
The intuition behind our DP approach is that any sub-path of an SP is itself an SP as well [@cormen2009introduction]. Such optimal sub-structure is a strong indicator that DP based methods are applicable. The following theorem formalizes this idea.
\[thm: DP\] Consider Problem \[problem: fixed length\] under Assumption \[ass: bounded below\] and suppose it is feasible. In its associated TET-STG $ {G_\text{tet}}= (V, E, x_0, T) $ with $x_0 = \delta_N^{i_0} $, let $ F(\delta_{N, t}^j) $ denote the weight of an SP from vertex $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to vertex $ \delta_{N, t}^{j} $, $ \forall t \in [0, T + 1] $, and let $ P(\delta_{N, t}^j) $ denote the predecessors of $ \delta_{N, t}^j $ in $ {G_\text{tet}}$: $$\label{eq: predecessors}
P(\delta_{N, t}^j) = \{ \delta_{N, t-1}^i | (\delta_{N, t-1}^i, \delta_{N, t}^j) \in E \}, t \in [1, T + 1]$$ Then $ F(\delta_{N, t}^j) $ can be obtained by the following recursion: $$\label{eq: DP recursion}
F(\delta_{N, t}^j) = \min_{\delta_{N, t-1}^i \in P(\delta_{N, t}^j) } F(\delta_{N, t-1}^i ) + w(\delta_{N, t-1}^i, \delta_{N, t}^j),$$ for $ t \in [1, T + 1] $, and the base condition is $ F(\delta_{N, 0}^{i_0}) = 0 $. If $ p^* $ is an SP from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ \delta_{N, T+1}^{0} $, we have $ w(p^*) = F(\delta^0_{N, T+1}) $.
We first show the correctness of the recursion by induction. Due to the layered structure of $ {G_\text{tet}}$, any vertex $ \delta_{N, t}^j \in V$ can only be reached from a certain vertex $ \delta_{N, t-1}^i \in V $ in one step, $ t \ge 1 $. Assume $ F(\delta_{N, t-1}^i ), t\ge 1, $ represents the minimum weight from vertex $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to vertex $ \delta_{N, t-1}^i $. For any path from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ \delta_{N, t}^j $ that passes $ \delta_{N, t-1}^i $, its minimum weight is obviously $ F(\delta_{N, t-1}^i ) $ + $ w(\delta_{N, t-1}^i, \delta_{N, t}^j) $. Eq. examines all such predecessors of $ \delta_{N, t}^j $, and the minimum value $ F(\delta_{N, t}^j) $ is clearly the minimum weight of any path from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ \delta_{N, t}^j $. Besides, for $ t=0 $, the base case $ F(\delta_{N, 0}^{i_0}) = 0 $ is clearly true. Thus, we have verified that $F(\delta^j_{N, t}) $ is the minimum weight of any path from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ \delta^j_{N, t} $. It implies directly that $F(\delta^0_{N, T+1}) $ is the weight of the SP $ p* $ from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ \delta_{N, T+1}^{0} $.
Eq. is essentially a form of the Bellman optimality equation, a widely applied tool in optimal control [@datta2003external], though we state it from a graph-theoretical perspective.
Combing Theorem \[thm: problem 1 SP\] and \[thm: DP\], we get the minimum cost $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* $ for Problem \[problem: fixed length\] by $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* = w(p^*) = F(\delta^0_{N, T+1})$. Nonetheless, we are more interested in the optimal control sequence $ u^* $ that attains $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* $. The key is to record the minimizer to : if $ {\delta_{N, t}}^j $ is in an SP, then the minimizer $ \delta_{N, t-1}^{i^*} $ must be in the SP as well. At last, $ p^* $ can be reconstructed accordingly, followed by $ u^* $ acquired with . Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\] implements the DP method by Theorem \[thm: DP\] to solve $ F(\delta_{N, t}^j) $ and to reconstruct the optimal control sequence. Note that, for maximal time efficiency, the predecessors of each vertex are stored while building $ {G_\text{tet}}$.
$ L, T, {h_\textrm{T}}, g, C_x, C_u, \Omega $, and $ x_0 $ in Problem $ \ref{problem: fixed length} $ The optimal control sequence $ u^* $ and $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* $ Build the TET-STG $ {G_\text{tet}}$ according to Definition \[def: TET-STG\]
Base condition 0 Memoization $ F[(t, j)] $ $ i^* \leftarrow 0$, $\ d^* \leftarrow \infty $ Recursion
$d \leftarrow $ ($ t - 1, i , {\mathcal M}, F $) +
$ w(\delta_{N, t-1}^i, \delta_{N, t}^j) $
$ i^* \leftarrow i $, $\quad d^* \leftarrow d$ $ F[(t, j)] \leftarrow d^* $ $ {\mathcal M}[(t, j)] \gets i^*$ Record the minimizer of $ d^* $
Call the recursive function Initialize two dictionaries (i.e., hash tables) $ {\mathcal M}$ and $ F $ $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* \gets$ \[line: SP\] Create an array $ u^* $ of length $ T $ $ j \gets {\mathcal M}[(T+1, 0)], \quad t \gets T$ $ i \gets {\mathcal M}[(t, j)], \quad u^*[t - 1] \gets u_{t-1}^{ij} $ See $ j \gets i, \quad t \gets t - 1 $
*Time complexity analysis of Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\].* $ {G_\text{tet}}$ has $ T + 2 $ layers with at most $ Z {\vcentcolon=}|{\mathcal R}(x_0)| $ vertices per layer and at most $ MZ $ edges between any two successive layers. Like Algorithm \[alg: STG\], $ {G_\text{tet}}$ is constructed via BFS in linear time $ O(TMZ) $. The core function of Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\], , implements top-down DP via the memoization technique [@cormen2009introduction], i.e., storing results into $ F $ and retrieving the cached results if same inputs recur. Memoization can avoid repetitive computation [@cormen2009introduction], and accordingly each edge of $ {G_\text{tet}}$ is processed only once. in Line \[line: SP\] thus takes time $ O(TMZ) $. The remaining construction of $ u^* $ runs in $ O(T) $. The overall worst-case time complexity of Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\] is hence $ O(TMZ) $, or equivalently, $ O(TMN) $, because we always have $ Z \le N $.
\[remark: algorithm 1\] The recent work [@cui2018optimal] establishes a weighted directed graph to formulate the $ k $-edge shortest path problem as well. However, neither the time-dependent stage cost function nor the terminal constraint set is considered in [@cui2018optimal]. Moreover, the work [@cui2018optimal] directly applies the standard Dijkstra’s algorithm, which is designed for general SP problems and less efficient than our Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\] in solving Problem \[problem: fixed length\], whose running time is $ O(TMN + TN\log(TN)) $ instead.
\[example: p1\] Recall Example \[example: 2\]. Running Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\], we get the minimum value of the cost function $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* = 11 $, and the optimal control sequence $ u^* = (\delta_4^4, \delta_4^3, \delta_4^4, \delta_4^3) $. The correctness of this result can be easily verified by inspecting Fig. \[fig: TET-STG of example 2\] and enumerating all paths from $ \delta_{4, 0}^1 $ to $ \delta_{4, 5}^0 $.
Solve Problem \[problem: unknown length\] via Dijkstra’s Algorithm {#sec: p2 solution}
==================================================================
In this section, the existence of optimal solutions to Problem \[problem: unknown length\] is first examined. Then, we divide Problem \[problem: unknown length\] into two cases depending on whether cost functions are time-dependent. Both cases will be conquered by Dijkstra’s algorithm, but different graph structures are constructed to maximize efficiency.
Existence of Optimal Solutions
------------------------------
Like Problem \[problem: fixed length\], we use the terminal costs and the stage costs of Problem \[problem: unknown length\] as the edge weights of specific graphs. However, the major difference is that the number of state transitions in Problem \[problem: unknown length\] is not fixed. Consequently, the condition that no negative-weight cycles exist in any state trajectory from $ x_0 $ to $ x_d \in \Omega$ is mandatory [@cormen2009introduction]; otherwise, the cost $ J $ can always be reduced by repeating a negative-weight cycle, and no SP exists. We thus require the following conditions to guarantee existence of optimal solutions to Problem \[problem: unknown length\].
\[ass: nonnegative\] The cost functions in Problem \[problem: unknown length\] satisfy three conditions: (i) $ h $ is bounded from below; (ii) $ g $ is nonnegative; (iii) $ h $ and $ g $ are both nondecreasing with respect to time $ t $, i.e., $ h({\delta_N}^i, t_2) \ge h({\delta_N}^i, t_1), \forall t_2 > t_1, \forall {\delta_N}^i \in \Omega$, and $ g({\delta_N}^i, {\delta_M}^k, t_2) \ge g({\delta_N}^i, {\delta_M}^k, t_1), \forall t_2 > t_1, \forall ({\delta_N}^i, {\delta_M}^k) \in \Delta_N \times {\Delta_M}$.
The rationality of condition (i) is obvious, just like Problem \[problem: fixed length\], to ensure a finite optimal value. Condition (ii) can be technically relaxed to the nonexistence of negative-weight cycles, though it would be quite difficult to verify such a condition in practice because edge weights (i.e., stage costs) can vary with time. We can justify condition (iii) intuitively by imaging a special scenario. Suppose a state trajectory from $ x_0 $ to $ x_d \in \Omega$ contains a cycle of zero weight. Then a possible result is that the more cycling the BCN does along this cycle, the more the cost criterion $ J $ can be reduced, once $ g $ or $ h $ can decrease as time passes. Consequently, the optimal control sequence does not have a finite length. Note that if $ g $ and $ h $ do not depend on $ t $, which is the most common case in the literature, condition (iii) is satisfied naturally.
\[rmk: h nonngeative\] Following [@zhu2018optimal; @fornasini2013optimal], we can always assume $ h$ is nonnegative without affecting the optimal solution. Supposing $ h $ is bounded from below by a constant $ B_h $, the optimal control sequence to is the same one that minimizes $ J'(u) = J(u) - B_h$, and we have a nonnegative terminal cost function now: $ h'(x(K), K) = h(x(K), K) - B_h \ge 0$.
The following proposition confirms the existence of an optimal solution to Problem \[problem: unknown length\] under the above conditions.
\[prop: p2\] Consider Problem \[problem: unknown length\] under Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\]. There exists an optimal control sequence $ u^* $ satisfying $ |u^*| < |{\mathcal R}(x_0)| $ that minimizes if and only if $ \Omega \cap \mathcal{R}(x_0) \ne \emptyset$.
(*Necessity)* Since $ \mathcal{R}(x_0) $ denotes all states reachable from $ x_0 $, no state $ x_d \in \Omega $ can be reached if $ \Omega \cap \mathcal{R}(x_0) = \emptyset$.
(*Sufficiency*) If $ \Omega \cap \mathcal{R}(x_0) \ne \emptyset$, there must exist control sequences that steer the BCN from $ x_0 $ to a state $ x_d \in \Omega$. Suppose such a control sequence is $ u =\big(u(t)\big)_{t=0}^{k-1} $, and the resultant trajectory is $ s =\big(x(t)\big)_{t=0}^{k} $, where $x(0) = x_0 $ and $ x(k) = x_d$. Furthermore, we claim that if $|u| = k \ge |\mathcal{R}(x_0)| $, there must exist a shorter control sequence $ \bar{u} $ such that $ |\bar{u}| < |\mathcal{R}(x_0)| $ and $ J(\bar{u}) \le J(u)$. This claim is proved below.
$|u| \ge |\mathcal{R}(x_0)| $ implies that $ |s| > |\mathcal{R}(x_0)| $, which means that $ s$ contains repetitive states because $ x \in \mathcal{R}(x_0)$ for any state $ x $ in $ s $. Assume one such pair of repetitive states is $ x(i) = x(j)$, $ 0 \le i < j \le k$, and thus $c = ( x(i), x(i+1), \cdots, x(j) ) $ is a circular sub-trajectory. We can remove this cycle (except $ x(j) $) from $ s $, and obviously the remaining states $ s' = (x(0), \cdots, x(i-1), x(j), x(j+1), \cdots, x(k-1), x(k))$ still constitute a trajectory from $ x_0 $ to $ x_d $ driven by a shortened control sequence $ u' = (u(0), \cdots, u(i-1), u(j), u(j+1), \cdots, u(k-1)) $. Let $ r {\vcentcolon=}j -i > 0$, and it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: JU}
J(u) &-J(u') = h(x_d, k) - h(x_d, k - r) + \sum_{t=i}^{j - 1} g(x(t), u(t), t) \nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{t=j}^{k - 1} \left[ g(x(t), u(t), t) - g\big(x(t), u(t), t - r\big) \right].
\end{aligned}$$
Condition (ii) and (iii) in Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\] guarantee is nonnegative, i.e., $J (u') \le J(u) $. The above cycle elimination procedure can be repeated until a control sequence $ \bar{u} $ satisfying $ |\bar{u}| < |\mathcal{R}(x_0)| $ is obtained. We have certainly $ J(\bar{u}) \le J(u)$.
The above claim implies that it is enough to consider the candidate set $ \bar{\mathbb{U}} = \{u| |u| < |{\mathcal R}(x_0)|, u\in \mathbb{U}\} $ for an optimal solution, where $ \mathbb{U}$ is the feasible set of Problem \[problem: unknown length\]. Obviously, the set $ \bar{\mathbb{U}} $ is finite, and Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\] guarantees $ J(u) $ is bounded from below, $ \forall u \in \bar{\mathbb{U}} $. Therefore, an optimal solution $ u^* \in \bar{\mathbb{U}}$ to Problem \[problem: unknown length\] must exist such that $ |u^*| < |{\mathcal R}(x_0)|$.
Case 1: Time-Invariant Stage Cost and Terminal Cost {#sec: p2 case1}
---------------------------------------------------
In this case, neither $ g $ nor $ h $ of depends on time $ t $: the STG becomes a static graph, whose edge weights are permanently fixed. Furthermore, if there is only one destination state with zero terminal cost, Problem \[problem: unknown length\] degrades to a standard SP problem in the STG. This simplest case has been solved in [@li2013minimum; @laschov2013minimum; @cui2018optimal]. We address the more general problems here, where multiple destination states with non-zero terminal costs are allowed. Following the same idea in solving Problem \[problem: fixed length\], we introduce an extra pseudo-state $ \delta_{N}^0 $ as well as the terminal set into the STG and term the new graph [STG$ ^+ $]{}.
\[def: STG+\] Consider Case 1 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\]. The extended state transition graph STG$^+ $, denoted by $ G^+ = (V, E, x_0) $, is an extension of the STG constructed as follows:
1. Build the STG $ G = (V, E, x_0) $ by Definition \[def: STG\], and the weights are assigned like , though time-independent: $$w(\delta_N^{i}, \delta_N^{j}) = \min_{{\delta_M}^k \in U^{ij}} g(\delta_N^{i}, {\delta_M}^k, \alpha), \ (\delta_N^{i}, \delta_N^{j}) \in E.$$
2. Add into $ G $ the pseudo-state $ {\delta_N}^0 $ and its incoming edges, $$V \gets V \cup \{ {\delta_N}^0 \}, \quad E \gets E \cup E^0$$ where $ E^0 = \{ (\delta_N^i, \delta_N^0) | \delta_N^i \in V \cap \Omega \} $ with weights: $$w(\delta_N^i, \delta_N^0) = h(\delta_N^i, \alpha), \ (\delta_N^i, \delta_N^0) \in E^0$$ Here $ \alpha \in \mathbb{N}$ is an arbitrary integer used as a placeholder.
Since all edge weights of $ G^+ $ are time-invariant, we denote the weight and the associated control input of each edge $ (\delta_N^i, \delta_N^j) \in E $ by $ w^{ij} $ and $ u^{ij} $ respectively. Of course, the incoming edges of $ {\delta_N}^0 $ needs on control input.
\[example: STG+\] Consider Example \[example: 1\] again: the BCN is subject to the constraints . Suppose the desired terminal states are $ \Omega = \{ \delta_{8}^3, \delta_{8}^4 \} $, and the initial state is $ x_0 = \delta_{8}^7 $. We assign the following time-invariant cost: $$g(x(t), u(t), t) = x(t)^{\top}Qx(t) + u(t)^{\top}Ru(t) , \ h(x(K), K) \equiv 0,$$ where $ Q = \textrm{diag}(2, 5, 1, 4, 1, 3, 6, 0) $ and $ R = \textrm{diag}(0, 3, 1, 4) $. The [STG$ ^+ $]{}of this case can be easily built on basis of the STG in Fig. \[fig: STG of example 1\] following Definition \[def: STG+\], which is shown in Fig. \[fig: example STG+\]. As we see, the [STG$ ^+ $]{}is akin to the STG but with an additional pseudo-state and edge weights assigned.
![ [STG$ ^+ $]{}in Example \[example: STG+\] with the initial state $ x_0 = \delta_8^7 $ (in orange) and two destination states $ \{ \delta_{8}^3, \delta_{8}^4 \} $ (in gray). The weight and the control associated with each edge are not shown here for clarity. Note that the dashed edges going into the pseudo-state $ \delta_{8}^0 $ need no control.[]{data-label="fig: example STG+"}](example_STG+){width="45mm"}
To transform Problem \[problem: unknown length\] in this case into an SP problem in the [STG$ ^+ $]{}, we first give the following lemma.
\[lemma: path p2c1\] Consider Case 1 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\] under Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\] with time-independent $ g $ and $ h $. Given any control sequence $ u = ({\delta_M}^{k_0}, {\delta_M}^{k_1}, \cdots, {\delta_M}^{k_{K-1}} ) $ of an unknown length $ K $ that steers the BCN along a state trajectory $ s = ({\delta_N}^{i_0}, {\delta_N}^{i_1}, \cdots, {\delta_N}^{i_K} ) $ with $x_0 = \delta_{N}^{i_0} $ and $ {\delta_N}^{i_K} \in \Omega$, there holds $ J(u) \ge w(p) $, where $ p $ is the corresponding path in the associated [STG$ ^+ $]{}, $$\label{eq: a path STG+}
p = \big< \delta_{N}^{i_0}, \delta_{N}^{i_1}, \cdots, \delta_{N}^{i_K}, \delta_{N}^{0} \big>,$$ and $ J(u) = w(p) $ holds if $ {\delta_M}^{k_t} = u^{i_t i_{t+1}}, \forall t \in [0, K - 1]$.
With the edge weights given by Definition \[def: STG+\], the weight of the path $ p $ is $$w(p) = h({\delta_N}^{i_K}, K) + \sum_{t=0}^{K - 1} g({\delta_N}^{i_t}, u^{i_t i_{t+1}}, t).$$ Note that $ u^{i_t i_{t+1}} $ is the optimal control input to transit the BCN from $ {\delta_N}^{i_t} $ to $ {\delta_N}^{i_{t+1}} $ in one step, i.e., $g({\delta_N}^{i_t}, u^{i_t i_{t+1}}, t) \le g({\delta_N}^{i_t}, {\delta_M}^{k_t}, t), \forall t \in [0, K - 1] $. Comparing $ w(p) $ with the cost $ J(u) $ in , Lemma \[lemma: path p2c1\] is obviously true.
The following theorem relates Case 1 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\] to the SP problem in an [STG$ ^+ $]{}.
\[thm: p2 case 1\] Consider Case 1 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\] under Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\] with time-independent $ g $ and $ h $, and suppose it is feasible. In the STG$ ^+ $ $ G^+ = (V, E, x_0), x_0=\delta_N^{i_0} $, there exists an SP $ p^* = \big< \delta_N^{i_0}, \delta_N^{i_1^*}, \delta_N^{i_2^*}, \cdots, \delta_N^{i_{K-1}^*}, \delta_N^{i_K^*}, \delta_N^0 \big>, K \le |V| - 2, $ such that the minimum value of the cost function is $ J^* = w(p^*) $. The corresponding optimal control sequence is $ u^* = \{ u^{i_0i_1^*}, u^{i_1^*i_2^*}, \cdots, u^{i_{K-1}^* i_K^*} \} $.
Since the problem is feasible, there exists control sequences that steers the BCN from the initial state $ x_0 $ to a destination state $ x_d \in \Omega$, implying that there exist paths from $ {\delta_N}^{i_0} $ to $ {\delta_N}^0 $ in $ G^+ $. Note that $ G^+ $ has no negative cycles because (i) Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\] states $ g $ is nonnegative and (ii) the pseudo-state $ {\delta_N}^0 $ has only incoming edges, whose weights assigned by $ h $ may be negative though. With this fact, we can easily show that an SP $ p^* $ from $ {\delta_N}^{i_0} $ to $ {\delta_N}^0 $ with at most $ |V| $ vertices exists following the cycle elimination procedure in Proposition \[prop: p2\]. In fact, this is a fundamental theorem in graph theory [@cormen2009introduction].
Recall Lemma \[lemma: path p2c1\]: given any feasible control sequence $ u $, there exists a path $ p $ from $ {\delta_N}^{i_0} $ to $ {\delta_N}^0 $ in $ G^+ $ such that $ J(u) \ge w(p) \ge w(p^*) = J(u^*)$. The above theorem holds clearly.
Theorem \[thm: p2 case 1\] has reduced Problem \[problem: unknown length\] with time-invariant costs to a regular *single-pair* SP problem [@cormen2009introduction] from $ x_0 $ to $\delta_N^0 $ in the [STG$ ^+ $]{}. Since $ g $ is nonnegative and the pseudo-state $ {\delta_N}^0 $ has only incoming edges, We have discussed in Remark \[rmk: h nonngeative\] that we can always assume $ h $ is nonnegative without loss of generality, though it is not mandatory. Since $ g $ is also nonnegative, the [STG$ ^+ $]{}has only nonnegative edge weights. The fastest known SP algorithm for such graphs is Dijkstra’s algorithm [@cormen2009introduction].
We make two modifications to the normal implementation of Dijkstra’s algorithm for this optimal control problem. First, like Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\], the vertices that compose the SP are recorded to reconstruct the optimal control sequence later. Second, we terminate the search process once vertex $\delta_N^0$ is reached because we are only interested in the SP from $ x_0 $ to $\delta_N^0$. Algorithm \[alg: dijkstra\] presents the modified Dijkstra’s algorithm to solve Case 1 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\]. Since Dijkstra’s algorithm is a well-established SP algorithm in graph theory (see [@cormen2009introduction Chapter 24] for details), the proof of its correctness is omitted here.
$ L, h, g, C_x, C_u, \Omega $, and $ x_0 = {\delta_N}^{i_0}$ in Problem \[problem: unknown length\] The optimal control sequence $ u^* $ and $ J^* $
Build the STG$ ^+ $ $ G^+=(V, E, x_0) $ by Definition \[def: STG+\] \[alg2line: stg\] Create a min-priority queue $ \mathcal{Q} $ and two dictionaries $ {\mathcal M}, {\mathcal D}$
Set initial distances Add $ i $ into $ \mathcal{Q} $ with its priority $ {\mathcal D}[i] $
Continue until we reach $ {\delta_N}^0 $ \[line: main start\] $ i \leftarrow$ extract the minimum-priority item from $ \mathcal{Q} $ Early termination
\[alg2line: neighbor\] $ d \leftarrow {\mathcal D}[i] + w^{ij}$ ${\mathcal D}[j] \leftarrow d, \ {\mathcal M}[j] \leftarrow i$ Update the priority of $ j $ in $ \mathcal{Q} $ to $ d $ \[line: main end\] $ J^* \gets {\mathcal D}[0] $ Minimum weight from $ {\delta_N}^{i_0} $ to $ {\delta_N}^0 $ \[alg3line: dijkstra end\] Create an empty array $ u^* $, and $ j \leftarrow 0 $ \[line: reconstruct\] $ i \leftarrow {\mathcal M}[j] $ Edge $ (\delta_N^i, \delta_N^j) $ is in the SP Append $ u^{ij} $ to $ u^* $ except $ j = 0 $ $ j \leftarrow i $ Reverse $ u^* $ in place \[line: reconstruct end\]
*Time complexity analysis of Algorithm \[alg: dijkstra\].* A key data structure in Dijkstra’s algorithm is the priority queue [@cormen2009introduction], in which each item has a *priority* and the one with highest (or lowest) priority is first served. If the priority queue is implemented with a Fibonacci heap, Dijkstra’s algorithm has a running time of $ O(|E| + |V|\log|V|) $ [@cormen2009introduction]. In the beginning, just like the STG, the construction of the [STG$ ^+ $]{}takes time $ O(M|V|) $. The more complicated Dijkstra’s part (Line 2 to \[alg3line: dijkstra end\]) runs in $ O(M|V|+ |V|\log |V|) $ accordingly. Finally, since the SP found by Dijkstra’s algorithm contains at most $ |V| $ vertices, the construction of $ u^* $ (Line \[line: reconstruct\] to \[line: reconstruct end\]) runs in $ O(|V|) $. Overall, the worst-case time complexity of Algorithm \[alg: dijkstra\] is $ O(M|V| + |V|\log |V|) $, or equivalently, $ O(MN + N\log N) $.
We test Algorithm \[alg: dijkstra\] with Example \[example: STG+\]. The optimal value is $ J^* = 13 $ and the optimal control sequence is $ u^* = ( \delta_4^1, \delta_4^3, \delta_4^1 )$. The state trajectory of the BCN is thus $ s^* = ( \delta_{8}^7, \delta_{8}^5, \delta_{8}^2, \delta_{8}^4 ) $. It is easy to verify in Fig. \[fig: example STG+\] that an SP from $ \delta_{8}^7 $ to $ \delta_{8}^0 $ is $ p^* = \big< \delta_{8}^7, \delta_{8}^5, \delta_{8}^2, \delta_{8}^4, \delta_{8}^0 \big> $ and $ w(p^*) = 13 $.
Case 2: Time-Variant Stage Cost and Terminal Cost {#sec: p2 case2}
-------------------------------------------------
As aforementioned, the classic SP algorithms will not work once the edge weights may vary with time. To the best of knowledge, there are still no published studies on fixed-destination optimal control of BCNs with time-varying costs. Recall the TET-STG proposed in Section \[sec: p1 solution\], and we naturally attempt to handle this time-variant case for Problem \[problem: unknown length\] in a similar way. However, one immediate difficulty is that, unlike Problem \[problem: fixed length\], the horizon length is not known beforehand, which prevents the reuse of the DP-based Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\] directly.
Hopefully, we may resort to Proposition \[prop: p2\] to overcome this obstacle: it is sufficient to consider only control sequences of size less than $ |{\mathcal R}(x_0) |$ to find the optimal one, though the exact length remains unknown. On the other hand, Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\] works once a horizon length $ T $ is given. A straightforward workaround that reuses Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\] to solve this case thus comes to our mind as follows.
\[proc: case 2 every n\] Solve Case 2 by Reusing Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\].
- Step 1. Given $ T \in [1, |{\mathcal R}(x_0)| - 1] $, transform this case into Problem \[problem: fixed length\] by setting $ {h_\textrm{T}}(x(T)) = h(x(T), T) $.
- Step 2. Solve the problem obtained above with Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\] to get an optimal control sequence $ u_T^*, |u_T^*| = T $.
- Step 3. Repeat Step 1 and Step 2 for all possible $ T $’s, and finally yield $ u^* = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{u_T^*} (J(u_T^*)) $.
The enumeration of all possible horizon lengths like Procedure \[proc: case 2 every n\] is essentially the idea underlying the algebraic approach [@li2013minimum] for minimum-energy control towards a given target state, though it only considers time-invariant stage cost. A similar idea is also adopted in [@zhao2011floyd] to detect the minimum average-weight cycle in the input-state space. However, such a somewhat brute-force method is still inevitably computationally expensive, e.g., the running time is $ O(N^4) $ in [@li2013minimum; @zhao2011floyd]. In our case, even though each subproblem for a specific $ T $ can be solved by the more efficient Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\], the overall time complexity of Procedure \[proc: case 2 every n\] is still as high as $ O(MN^3) $.
Since we only care about control sequences that has a size less than $ |{\mathcal R}(x_0)| $, to further reduce the computational burden, we devise another approach by adapting the TET-STG to an unknown but limited horizon length. More interestingly, Algorithm \[alg: dijkstra\] initially developed for Case 1 can be reused on the resultant graph. We call this new graph a *Time-Expanded fixed-Destination State Transition Graph* (TED-STG). It construction is similar to the TET-STG detailed as follows.
\[def: TED-STG\] Consider Case 2 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\]. The TED-STG $ {G_\text{ted}}= (V, E, x_0) $ is a weighted directed graph constructed by:
- $ V = \cup_{t=0}^{Z} V_t $, where $ V_t = {\mathcal R}_t(x_0), \forall t \in [0, Z-1] $, $ V_{Z} = \{ {\delta_N}^0 \} $, and $ Z {\vcentcolon=}|{\mathcal R}(x_0)| $ is the reachable set size.
- $ E = \cup_{t=0}^{Z-2} E_t \cup E^0$, where $ E_t = \{(\delta_N^i, \delta_N^j) | \delta_N^i \in V_t, \delta_N^j \in V_{t+1} \cap \mathcal{R}_1(\delta_N^i) \}, \forall t \in [0, Z-2]$, and connect the terminal states in each layer to the pseudo-state $ {\delta_N}^0 $ by $ E^0 = \{ ({\delta_{N, t}}^i, {\delta_N}^0) | {\delta_N}^i \in \Omega \cap V_t, t \in [0, Z - 1] \} $.
A vertex $ {\delta_{N, t}}^i $ above refers to the state $ {\delta_N}^i $ at time $ t $. The weight of the edge $ ({\delta_{N, t}}^i, \delta_{N, t+1}^j) \in E_t, \forall t \in [0, Z-2], $ is $$w(\delta_{N, t}^{i}, \delta_{N, t+1}^{j}) = \min_{{\delta_M}^k \in U^{ij}} g(\delta_N^{i}, {\delta_M}^k, t),$$ and the control enabling the transition from $ \delta_{N}^{i} $ to $\delta_{N}^{j} $ at time $ t $ is also $ u_t^{ij} $ in . The weight of edges in $ E^0 $ is $$w({\delta_{N, t}}^i, {\delta_N}^0) = h({\delta_N}^i, t), \ ({\delta_{N, t}}^i, {\delta_N}^0) \in E^0.$$
Since the destination (terminal) states may be reached at any time in an optimal trajectory, we package all such possibilities into $ E^0 $. This greatly simplifies the problem: we only need to find an optimal path from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ {\delta_N}^0 $. Accordingly, the time to reach the pseudo-state $ {\delta_N}^0 $ is not known in advance, and that is why it has no time subscript.
\[example: TED-STG\] We use the BCN in Example \[example: 1\] to illustrate the TED-STG. Problem \[problem: unknown length\] is set up by $x_0 = \{ \delta_8^1 \} $ and $ \Omega = \{ \delta_8^6 \} $. The time-variant stage cost and terminal cost are: $$g(x(t), u(t), t) = u(t)^{\top}Qu(t) + t, \ h(x(t), t) = x(t)^{\top}Rx(t),$$ where $ Q = \textrm{diag}(2, 3, 1, 5+t) $ and $ R = \textrm{diag}(3, 2t, 4, 0, 1, 5 + t, 6, 0) $. The TED-STG of this task is shown in Fig. \[fig: TED-STG of example\]. Note that the size of $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $ is $ Z = 7 $ here. We consider only one destination state to facilitate illustration.
![ TED-STG in Example \[example: TED-STG\] with an initial state $x_0 = \delta_{8}^1 $ and a destination state $ \delta_8^6 $. The weight and the control associated with each edge are not shown here for clarity. Note that the pseudo-state $ \delta_8^0 $ has no fixed timestamp.[]{data-label="fig: TED-STG of example"}](example7-TEDSTG){width="85mm"}
Just like the TET-STG, the edge weights in a TED-STG do not change with time, though the cost functions $ g $ and $ h $ are themselves time-dependent. The cost of a state trajectory is related with the weight of a path in the TED-STG as follows.
\[lemma: path p2c2\] Consider Case 2 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\] under Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\]. Given any control sequence $ u = ({\delta_M}^{k_0}, {\delta_M}^{k_1}, \cdots, {\delta_M}^{k_{K-1}} ) $ of length $ K < |{\mathcal R}(x_0)|$ that steers the BCN along a state trajectory $ s = ({\delta_N}^{i_0}, {\delta_N}^{i_1}, \cdots, {\delta_N}^{i_K} ) $ with $x_0 = \delta_{N}^{i_0} $ and $ {\delta_N}^{i_K} \in \Omega.$ There holds $ J(u) \ge w(p) $, where $ p $ is the corresponding path from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ {\delta_N}^0 $ in the associated TED-STG, $$\label{eq: a path p2c2}
p = \big< \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0}, \delta_{N, 1}^{i_1}, \cdots, \delta_{N, K}^{i_K}, \delta_{N}^{0} \big>,$$ and $ J(u) = w(p) $ holds if $ {\delta_M}^{k_t} = u_t^{i_t i_{t+1}}, \forall t \in [0, K - 1]$.
Lemma \[lemma: path p2c2\] can be proved easily in almost the same way as Lemma \[lemma: trajectory & path\], which is omitted here. Now we are ready to solve Case 2 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\] by converting it to an SP problem in the TED-STG through the following theorem.
\[thm: p2 case 2\] Consider Case 2 of Problem \[problem: unknown length\] under Assumption \[ass: nonnegative\] with time-dependent $ g $ and $ h $, and suppose it is feasible. Given the initial state $x_0=\delta_N^{i_0}$, there exists an SP $ p^* = \big< \delta_{N,0}^{i_0}, \delta_{N,1}^{i_1^*}, \cdots, \delta_{N,K-1}^{i_{K-1}^*}, \delta_{N, K}^{i_K^*}, \delta_N^0 \big>, K < |{\mathcal R}(x_0)|, $ in the TED-STG $ {G_\text{ted}}= (V, E, x_0) $ such that the minimum value of the cost function is $ J^* = w(p^*) $. The corresponding optimal control sequence is $ u^* = \{ u_t^{i_0i_1^*}, u_t^{i_1^*i_2^*}, \cdots, u_t^{i_{K-1}^* i_K^*} \} $.
Since the problem is feasible, Proposition \[prop: p2\] implies there exists an optimal control sequence shorter than $ |{\mathcal R}(x_0)| $. Thus, we can search $ {\mathbb{U}}' = \{ u | |u| < |{\mathcal R}(x_0)|, u\in {\mathbb{U}}\} $ for an optimal one, where $ {\mathbb{U}}$ is the feasible set of Problem \[problem: unknown length\]. Now recall Lemma \[lemma: path p2c2\]: given any $ u \in {\mathbb{U}}' $, there exists a path $ p $ from $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ {\delta_N}^0 $ in the TED-STG such that $ J(u) \ge w(p) \ge w(p^*)$. Besides, with the weight given by Definition \[def: TED-STG\], it is obvious that $ w(p^*) = J(u^*) $. Thus, the proof is complete.
Theorem \[thm: p2 case 2\] transforms Problem \[problem: unknown length\] with time-dependent cost functions into a standard single-pair (i.e., $ \delta_{N, 0}^{i_0} $ to $ \delta_{N}^0 $) SP problem in the TED-STG. As discussed in Remark \[rmk: h nonngeative\], we assume that $ h \ge 0 $ without loss of generality. Since all edges of this graph have nonnegative weights, we can apply Dijkstra’s algorithm again to identify the SP, which is the same as Algorithm \[alg: dijkstra\] except that the TED-STG is used instead of the STG$ ^+ $. We detail this algorithm in the online supplementary material on ArXiv[^3] (Algorithm \[S-alg: dijkstra case2\]) to conserve space here.
*Time complexity analysis of Algorithm \[S-alg: dijkstra case2\].* Definition \[def: TED-STG\] tells that there are $ Z {\vcentcolon=}|{\mathcal R}(x_0)| $ layers in the TED-STG. Each layer has at most $ Z $ vertices, and at most $ MZ $ edges exist between two consecutive layers. Besides, there are typically only few destination states, i.e., the number of incoming edges of the pseudo-state $ \delta_N^0 $ is $ O(Z) $. We thus have $ |V| = O(Z^2)$ and $ |E| = O(MZ^2) $. Like a TET-STG, the TED-STG can be built quickly in linear time, i.e., $ O(|V| + |E|) = O(MZ^2) $. Thus, the time complexity of Algorithm \[S-alg: dijkstra case2\] is dominated by the Dijkstra’s SP part. To conclude, Algorithm \[S-alg: dijkstra case2\] runs in time $ O(MZ^2 + Z^2\log Z^2) = O(Z^2(M + 2\log Z)) $, which is much faster than the naive Procedure \[proc: case 2 every n\]. Since we have $ Z \le N $, the time complexity is equivalent to $ O(N^2(M + 2\log N)) $.
Recall Example \[example: TED-STG\] and its TED-STG in Fig. \[fig: TED-STG of example\]. Algorithm \[S-alg: dijkstra case2\] yields the following results: $ J^* = 14 $ and $ u^* = (\delta_4^3, \delta_4^3, \delta_4^3, \delta_4^1) $. The corresponding SP in the TED-STG is $ p^* = (\delta_{8, 0}^1, \delta_{8, 1}^4, \delta_{8, 2}^7, \delta_{8, 3}^5, \delta_{8, 4}^6, \delta_{8}^0) $.
[|c|l|l|c|]{} & &\
& & & Proposed approach\
&
----------------------------
Mayer-type optimal control
(only terminal cost)
----------------------------
& $O(TMN^2)$ [@laschov2010maximum; @laschov2013pontryagin] &\
&
----------------------------------
Minimum-energy control
(only time-invariant stage cost)
----------------------------------
& $O(TN^3)$ [@li2013minimum Algorithm 3.2] &\
&
----------------------------
Time-discounted stage cost
(no terminal cost)
----------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------
$O(MN + N^3\log_2 T)$ [@zhu2018optimal Theorem 3]
$O(M^2N^3 + TMN(N+M))$ [@cheng2015receding Proposition 4.1]
-------------------------------------------------------------
&\
&
-----------------------------------
Both terminal cost and stage cost
(general form, time-invariant)
-----------------------------------
&
------------------------------------------------------
$O(MN + N^3\log_2 T)$ [@zhu2018optimal Corollary 2]
$O(TMN + TN\log(TN))$ [@cui2018optimal Theorem 2.14]
------------------------------------------------------
&\
&
---------------------------------------
Both terminal cost and stage cost
(general form, possibly time-variant)
---------------------------------------
& $O(TMN)$ [@fornasini2013optimal] &\
&
---------------------------------------
Time-optimal control
(only constant stage cost equal to 1)
---------------------------------------
& $O(MN^3)$ [@laschov2013minimum; @chen2016minimum] &\
&
---------------------------------------------
Minimum-energy control
(time-invariant stage cost, time not fixed)
---------------------------------------------
& $O(N^4)$ [@li2013minimum Algorithm 3.3 ] &\
&
----------------------------------
Time-invariant stage cost
(general form, no terminal cost)
----------------------------------
& $ O(MN + N\log N) $ [@cui2018optimal Theorem 2.7] &\
&
-------------------------
Time-variant stage cost
and (or) terminal cost
-------------------------
& &
---------------------------------------
$O(N^2(M + 2\log N))$
(Algorithm \[S-alg: dijkstra case2\])
---------------------------------------
\
It is $ O(T^*MN^2) $ more precisely, where $ T^* $ is the minimum time actually required. Note that we have $ T^* = N-1$ in the worst case.
Comparison with Related Work {#sec: time complexity comparison}
============================
As we have reviewed in Section \[sec: intro\], unlike our algorithms which target the most general problems, most existing methods are developed for certain special cases of Problem \[problem: fixed length\] or Problem \[problem: unknown length\]. We therefore categorize various optimal control tasks according to their characteristics to facilitate comparison. Their time complexity is summarized in Table \[tab: time complexity\], where, as always, $ N=2^n $ and $ M=2^m$ for a $ n $-state, $ m $-input BCN, and $ T $ denotes the fixed horizon length in Problem \[problem: fixed length\].
To better interpret Table \[tab: time complexity\], note that we can always assume $ M \le N $ because a state can transit to at most $ N $ succeeding states regardless of the number of control inputs. In fact, we usually have $ m < n $ and thus $ M \ll N $ in practice especially for large networks. For example, it can be enough to steer the whole network by controlling only a fraction of the nodes [@kim2013discovery; @lu2015pinning]. In short, Table \[tab: time complexity\] shows that our graph-theoretical approach can accomplish higher time efficiency than most existing approaches, and only methods in [@fornasini2013optimal] and [@cui2018optimal] share the same time complexity as ours for particular problems. Notably, if there are time-variant costs in Problem \[problem: unknown length\], only Algorithm \[S-alg: dijkstra case2\] can handle it to the best of our knowledge. In summary, though we target FHOC problems ambitiously in their most general form, the computational efficiency of our approach is still superior to that of most existing work.
Note that the time complexity listed in Table \[tab: time complexity\] refers to the *worst-case* one, which indicates the longest running time of an algorithm given any possible input. By convention, the worst-case running time is used to measure the efficiency of algorithms [@cormen2009introduction; @zhu2018optimal; @wu2019optimal]. A noteworthy point is that all the algebraic approaches in Table \[tab: time complexity\], i.e., all existent work except [@cui2018optimal], have their average-case time complexity equal to the worst-case one, because they essentially operate on matrices of identical sizes irrespective of the initial state $ x_0 $ and the size of its reachable set $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $. By contrast, as shown in time complexity analysis of our algorithms, the actual size of the graph depends on $ \mathcal{R}(x_0) $, which is typically a small subset of the state space, while the algebraic methods always consider all the $ N $ states. Additionally, in constraint handling, our approach excludes the undesirable states and transitions completely from the graph, but most algebraic approaches simply assign them infinitely large cost values and still involve them in subsequent operations. Consequently, our graph-theoretical approach attains potentially lower average-case time complexity than algebraic methods in practice, like [@fornasini2013optimal], even though they share the same worst-case complexity.
A Biological Benchmark Example {#sec: benchmark}
==============================
In this section, we focus on a larger BCN, i.e., the Ara operon gene regulatory network in *E. coli* that is responsible for sugar metabolism regulation [@jenkins2017bistability; @wu2019optimal]. The main purpose is to compare the computational efficiency of various approaches. The Boolean model of this network is given in Table \[tbl: benchmark time\], where the target nodes indicate the 9 state variables, and the 4 control inputs are $ \{A_e, A_{em}, A_{ra_{-}}, G_e \} $. Interested readers may consult [@jenkins2017bistability] for the biological meaning of these variables. Using the STP, we can get the ASSR of this network with a network transition matrix $ L \in {\mathcal L}_{N \times MN }, N = 512, M = 16 $.
Target node Boolean update rule
-------------- ------------------------------------
$A$ $A_e \land T$
${A_m}$ $(A_{em}\land T)\lor A_e$
${A_{ra_+}}$ $(A_m \lor A) \land A_{ra_{-}}$
$C$ $\lnot G_e$
$E$ $M_s$
$D $ $ \lnot A_{ra_+} \land A_{ra_{-}}$
$ M_S $ $ A_{ra_+} \land C \land \lnot D $
$ M_T $ $ A_{ra_+} \land C $
$ T $ $ M_T $
: Boolean Model of the Ara Operon Network[]{data-label="tbl: benchmark time"}
To facilitate comparison with existing studies, we consider two tasks widely studied in the literature, i.e., the minimum-energy control and the minimum-time control. In both tasks, no constraints are enforced because only few existing methods consider state or input constraints. Suppose the initial state is $ x_0 = \delta_{512}^{9} $ and the desired state is $ x_d = \delta_{512}^{410} $ for both tasks. All algorithms were implemented with Python 3.7. We did experiments on a desktop PC equipped with a 3.4 GHz Core i7-3770 CPU, 16 GB RAM, and Windows 10.
Problem
--------- -------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------- -------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------- ------
Method [@li2013minimum Algorithm 3.2] [@fornasini2013optimal] [@zhu2018optimal] [@cui2018optimal Theorem 2.14] Ours [@li2013minimum Algorithm 3.3] [@laschov2013minimum] [@cui2018optimal Theorem 2.7] Ours
350.43 0.23 402.79 0.17 0.10 19651.33 636.72 0.01 0.01
Task 1: Minimum-Energy Control
------------------------------
In this task, we aim to transfer the BCN from the initial state $ x_0 $ to the desired state $ x_d $ at a prespecified time point with least energy consumption [@li2013minimum]. This task is presented as an instance of Problem \[problem: fixed length\] with $ T = 10 $ and $ \Omega = \{ x_d \} $. Since most methods can only deal with time-invariant costs, we use a stage cost function like that in [@wu2019optimal] to evaluate the energy consumed by each state transition, and set zero terminal costs: $$g(x(t), u(t), t) = g(\ltimes_{i=1}^9x_i(t), \ltimes_{j=1}^4u_j(t)) = \mathcal{A}X(t) + \mathcal{B}U(t),$$ where $ X(t) = [x_1(t), x_2(t), \cdots, x_9(t)]^{\top}$ and $ U(t) = [u_1(t), u_2(t), u_3(t), u_4(t)]^{\top}$. The two weight vectors are $ \mathcal{A} = [0, 16, 40, 44, 28, 28, 28, 48, 44] $, and $ \mathcal{B} = [0, 48, 28, 48]$.
Running Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\], we get the following results.
- The reachable set of $ x_0 $, i.e., $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $, has only 108 states, though the complete state state has 512 states in total.
- The minimum value of $ {J_\textrm{T}}(u) $ in is $ {J_\textrm{T}}^* = 1108 $.
- The optimal control sequence is $ u^* = \delta_{16}(16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 8, 5, 6, 14) $, and the resultant state trajectory is $ s^* = \delta_{512}(9, 457, 463, 480, 480, 480, 480, 352, 312, 288, 410). $
We illustrate $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $ and highlight the above optimal state trajectory $ s^* $ in Fig. \[fig: benchmark\]. We tested the other methods, and they all obtained the same optimal value $ J_T^* $. The running time of different methods is listed in Table \[tbl: running time\]. As we have expected, the algorithm in [@fornasini2013optimal] takes more time than ours in practice, though they have identical worst-case time complexity. The main reason is that the former always evaluates the whole state space, while our algorithm only focuses on the reachable states $ {\mathcal R}(x_0) $. Another method [@cui2018optimal] shares the same view as ours, but it depends on the slower Dijkstra’s algorithm rather than the more efficient DP-based Algorithm \[alg: fixed horizon\]. Overall, our approach attains the shortest running time to complete Task 1.
![ The state transition graph of the Ara operon network with the initial state $ x_0 = \delta_{512}^9 $ (in orange) and the desired state $ x_d = \delta_{512}^{410} $ (in gray). The state trajectories of minimum-energy and minimum-time control are highlighted in red and blue respectively. The direction of each state transition and the label of each state are not shown here for readability.[]{data-label="fig: benchmark"}](benchmark_ara_operon){width="87mm"}
Task 2: Minimum-Time Control
----------------------------
This task is also referred to as time-optimal control, that is, to steer the BCN from $ x_0 $ to a desired state $ x_d $ as fast as possible [@laschov2013minimum]. It is easy to specialize Problem \[problem: unknown length\] for this task: just let $ g(\cdot, \cdot, \cdot) \equiv 1 $, i.e., unit time for each state transition, $ h(\cdot, \cdot) \equiv 0 $, and $ \Omega = \{x_d\} $. In this setting, the optimal value $ J^* $ of is obviously the minimum time taken from $ x_0 $ to $ x_d $. Since $ g $ and $ h $ are both time-independent, we can tackle this task with Algorithm \[alg: dijkstra\]. The results are given below.
- The optimal value is $ J^* = 3 $, i.e., the BCN is transferred from $ x_0 $ to $x_d $ in at least 3 steps.
- The optimal control sequence is $ u^* = \delta_{16}(1, 2, 14) $, which leads to the state trajectory $ s^* = \delta_{512}(9, 41, 15, 410) $.
Like Task 1, we sketch the above minimum-time state trajectory in Fig. \[fig: benchmark\]. The other methods yielded the same minimum time, and their running time is listed in Table \[tbl: running time\]. In this task, the method in [@cui2018optimal] is essentially identical to ours, both depending on Dijkstra’s algorithm to find an SP, and they are the fastest ones, taking far less time than the other two. Note that we have optimized it by building the STG efficiently with Algorithm \[alg: STG\] instead of the expensive algebraic method originally used in [@cui2018optimal]. The algorithm in [@li2013minimum] is extremely slow here mainly because it examines exhaustively all SP’s of length ranging from 1 to $ N $ to find the shortest one.
The running time of some algebraic approaches, like [@zhu2018optimal] and [@laschov2013minimum], might be further reduced using advanced numerical routines, since they depend heavily on matrix operations, and the involved matrices are typically sparse. Nevertheless, the results in Table \[tbl: running time\] still demonstrate the supreme efficiency of our approach with an advantage of several orders of magnitude. Besides, the method in [@cui2018optimal] is closest to ours, but it can only solve a small subset of problems investigated in this study. The Python implementation of the proposed approach and existing algorithms is available at GitHub <https://github.com/ShuhuaGao/FHOC>.
Conclusion {#sec: conclusion}
==========
This paper focused on FHOC of BCNs from a graph-theoretical perspective. We unified various kinds of specific FHOC problems into two general constrained optimization problems, which can incorporate time-variant costs and a diverse range of constraints. Then, as a central contribution of this study, we established equivalence between general FHOC problems and the SP problem in particular graphs. Two efficient algorithms were afterwards designed to find such an SP. As shown by both time complexity analysis and numerical experiments, our approach can handle the most general problems while maintaining a competitive advantage in computational efficiency. Finally, we note that all SP problems in Problem \[problem: fixed length\] and \[problem: unknown length\] can be technically solved by a single SP algorithm, like Dijkstra’s algorithm, though we proposed two custom algorithms for efficiency purpose. That’s why we consider our graph-theoretical approach as a unified framework, which is characterized by high computational efficiency and methodological consistency across a wide range of FHOC problems. Due to the discrete and deterministic nature of BCNs, we believe it is a promising research direction to hybridize the newly developed ASSR with the classical graph theory for more studies on BCNs beyond FHOC. One future work is to adapt this graph-theoretical approach to infinite-horizon optimal control problems.
[^1]: Shuhua Gao, Tong Heng Lee, and Cheng Xiang (*corresponding author*) are with the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119077, e-mail: [email protected].
[^2]: Kairong Qin is with the School of Optoelectronic Engineering and Instrumentation Science, and Changkai Sun is with the School of Biomedical Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China.
[^3]: Refer to <https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02019> for the supplementary material.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Vitaly Magerya,'
- Andrey Pikelner
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: |
\
\
Cutting massless four-loop propagators
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Inclusive physical observables like total scattering cross sections and related quantities are naturally defined within the perturbation theory in terms of cut Feynman integrals. Particularly, particle decay cross sections at the level of N^3^LO in massless QCD require the knowledge of cuts of four-loop massless propagator-type integrals (two-point functions).
While the optical theorem allows one to calculate massless total cross sections [@Gorishnii:1990vf; @Baikov:2008jh] with only the knowledge of the discontinuities of the propagators—without calculating each cut separately—the knowledge of the cuts is necessary when they are used as a building block in calculations of massive processes, exclusive processes, or subtraction terms. Examples of such cases include [@CFHMSS15], where a subset of four-loop massless propagator cuts were used in the large-mass expansion procedure needed for the boundary condition of differential equations of ${\mkern 4.5mu\overline{\mkern-4.5mu B\mkern-1.0mu}\mkern 1.0mu}$ decay master integrals. Also [@GGG04], where cuts of three-loop propagators were used to develop infrared subtractions scheme for exclusive 2-jet production at NNLO. And finally [@Mitov:2006wy; @Gituliar15], where cuts of three-loop massless propagators were used in boundary conditions for differential cross section master integrals.
The particular use case for cuts of four-loop propagators we have in mind is the extraction of NNLO time-like splitting functions from a semi-inclusive decay cross section at N^3^LO. The time-like splitting functions are currently known from the space-like case via an analytic continuation procedure, which leaves one of the terms in quark-gluon and gluon-quark NNLO terms undetermined [@MMV06; @MV07; @AMV11]. A direct calculation is needed to fix those terms. As discussed in [@GM15; @Gituliar15] this direct calculation requires the knowledge of decay cross sections differential in the energy fraction of one of the outgoing partons—a calculation for which the master integrals are not yet known, but can be determined via the differential equations method [@Kotikov:1990kg; @Kotikov:1991pm], as long as the boundary conditions are known to fix the integration constants. The cuts of four-loop propagators can be used for these boundary conditions by noting that a differential cross section integrated over its parameters must give precisely the fully inclusive one, so integrating over a semi-inclusive master integral will relate it to the cuts of four-loop propagators, providing enough information to fix the integration constants.
These considerations motivate us to calculate all the cuts of four-loop massless propagators. Their 2-particle cuts (three-loop form factors) are already known from [@HHM07; @HHKS09; @LSS10], 5-particle cuts are known from [@GMP18], and in this article we shall complete this knowledge by calculating the master integrals for the remaining 3- and 4-particle cuts. To this end we shall use dimensional recurrence relations [@Tar96; @Lee09] as well as direct phase-space integration. At the end we shall gather the values of all the cut master integrals—old and new—and present all of them as ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series in the space-time dimension of $4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, with coefficients being multiple zeta values (MZVs) [@BBV09] up to transcendentality weight 12. As an intermediate step of our method we shall also present a recalculation of 1$\to$3 two-loop amplitudes up to weight 7 (building upon the known weight-4 results from [@GR00; @GR01]).
### What are cut integrals? {#what-are-cut-integrals .unnumbered}
To calculate a total cross section of an (off-shell or massive) particle decay, one needs to integrate the probability density of the final state over its phase space in all possible configurations, $$\label{eq:sigma}
\sigma\sim\sum_{n}\int d\mathrm{PS}_{n}\big|\langle p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\vert S\vert q\rangle\big|^{2},$$ where $S$ is the scattering matrix, and the phase-space element is defined as $$d\mathrm{PS}_{n}=\left(2\pi\right)^{d}\delta^{d}\!\left(p_{1}+\dots+p_{n}-q\right)\prod_{i=1}^{n}\frac{d^{d}p_{i}}{\left(2\pi\right)^{d}}2\pi\delta\!\left(p_{i}^{2}\right)\Theta\!\left(p_{i}^{0}\right).\label{eq:dpsn-definition}$$ Once the scattering amplitude $\langle p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\vert S\vert q\rangle$ is expanded in perturbation theory as a sum of Feynman diagrams, $$\langle p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\vert S\vert q\rangle=A_{1\to n}^{\left(1\right)}+A_{1\to n}^{\left(2\right)}+\dots=\smallfig{amp1}+\smallfig{amp2}+\dots,$$ expanding the modulus squared in eq. gives rise to phase-space integrals of the form $$\sigma\sim\int d\mathrm{PS}_{n}\,A_{1\to n}^{\left(1\right)}\left(A_{1\to n}^{\left(2\right)}\right)^{*}+\dots=\int d\mathrm{PS}_{n}\,\smallfig{amp1}\left(\smallfig{amp2}\right)^{*}+\dots.$$ Each of the terms in this sum is a product of a decay amplitude, a (different) conjugated amplitude, and a phase-space integration operation. Graphically, we denote these terms combined, with dashed likes corresponding to the final-state momenta $p_i$, $$\int d\mathrm{PS}_{3}\,\smallfig{amp1}\left(\smallfig{amp2}\right)^{*}=\int d\mathrm{PS}_{3}\,\smallfig{amp1}\;\smallfig{amp2conj}=\smallfig{amp1x2}.$$
These are the cut integrals. One might view them as two-point Feynman integrals partitioned into two parts—the “left” and the “right”—with all propagators between the two parts set on shell (or “cut”), and every vertex and loop integral in the “right” part complex-conjugated. This view is useful for the optical theorem, which relates the discontinuity of a virtual (uncut) diagram to its cuts.
Note that after cutting the integral into two parts, it is possible to continue the process and cut each of the parts further, producing “generalized cuts” [@ABD14], as opposed to the “unitarity cuts”, which we have here.
The goal of this paper is to calculate master integrals for all the (unitarity) cuts of 4-loop massless two-point functions (“propagators”).
### Notation for the integrals {#notation-for-the-integrals .unnumbered}
Throughout the paper we shall define our cut integrals in $d$ space-time dimensions as $$\label{eq:cut-definition}
I = \int
\underbrace{
\left( \prod_i \frac{d^d l_i}{\left(2\pi\right)^d} \right)
\left( \prod_j \frac{1}{k_j^2 + i0} \right)
}_{\text{``left'' amplitude}}
\underbrace{
\left( \prod_{i'} \frac{d^d l_{i'}'}{\left(2\pi\right)^d} \right)
\left( \prod_{j'} \frac{1}{k_{j'}'^2 - i0} \right)
}_{\text{``right'' amplitude}}
d\mathrm{PS}_n,$$ where $d\mathrm{PS}_n$ is the same as eq. ; $l$ and $l'$ are the loop momenta; $k$ and $k'$ are the propagator momenta, being linear combinations of $l$, $l'$, and the cut momenta $p_i$; and the signs of the $i0$ prescription depend on whether the propagator is to the left or to the right of the cut. Note that the $i0$ prescription is only relevant for the propagators involved in the loops, it does not matter for the rest of them.
In practical terms, it is often convenient to factor out a common prefactor from this definition, and only work with the normalized integrals without it. For an integral in $d$ dimensions with $n$ cut lines, $m_L$ loops to the left of the cut, $m_R$ loops to the right, and $p$ propagators we shall factor out the full $n$-particle phase space $\mathrm{PS}_n$, $m_L+m_R$ one-loop bubbles, and the full $q^2$ dependence as follows: $$\label{eq:normalized-cut-definition}
I = B^{m_L} \left(B^*\right)^{m_R} \mathrm{PS}_n \left( q^2 \right)^{\frac{d}{2}\left(n+m_L+m_R-1\right) -p -n} J,$$ with the bubble $B$ given by $$\label{eq:normalization-b}
B=\left. \smallfig{normG} \right|_{q^2=1}=
\left(-1-i0\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\frac{i\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}{\left(2\pi\right)^{d}}\frac{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(2-\frac{d}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(d-2\right)},$$ and the full $n$-particle phase space by $$\label{eq:normalization-psn}
\mathrm{PS}_{n}=\left. \smallfig{normPS} \right|_{q^2=1}=
\frac{2\pi}{\left(4\pi\right)^{\frac{d}{2}\left(n-1\right)}}\frac{\Gamma^{n}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\left(n-1\right)\right)\Gamma\!\left(\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)n\right)}.$$ Note that both normalization factors—$B$ and $\mathrm{PS}_n$— are dimensionless, so the power of $q^2$ directly corresponds to the dimensionality of the integral.
This normalization removes all $q^2$ dependence along with any imaginary numbers from $J$, making the normalized integrals real functions of $d$, and removing the distinction between the “left” and the “right” amplitudes (this distinction is fully captured by the prefactors). It also cancels the surface UV divergencies of the integrals; this, for example, makes one-loop integrals finite when $d$ is high enough to suppress the IR divergences. Finally, it normalizes all of the following integrals to unity, simplifying dimensional recurrence relations: ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVVV}_{1}}}$ from , ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVVR}_{1}}}$ from , ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRV}_{3}}}$ from , ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRV}_{1}}}$ from , ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{4}}}$ from , ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRR}_{16}}}$ from , and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{RRRR}_{1}}}$ from .
### Classification of the cuts {#classification-of-the-cuts .unnumbered}
Following the natural structure of the cut integrals we will classify them by the number of loops to the left of the cut (denoted as “V”, for “virtual”), the number of propagators cut (“R”, for “real”), and the loop count to the right (“V” again).
For 4-loop propagators there are 6 classes of cuts: two-particle cuts VVVR and VVRV (see and ), three-particle cuts VVRR and VRRV ( and ), four-particle cuts VRRR (), and five-particle cuts RRRR (). The purely virtual integrals with no cuts we shall denote as VVVV ().
### State of the art {#state-of-the-art .unnumbered}
The master integrals for 4-loop massless propagators (VVVV) have been first calculated in [@BC10] up to transcendentality weight seven, and updated to weight twelve in [@LSS11]. Importantly, the latter provides the results in terms of quickly convergent nested infinite sums, suitable for numerical evaluation to arbitrary precision in arbitrary space-time dimension $d$ with the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} package [@LM15].
The master integrals for 2-particle cuts of these propagators (VVVR and VVRV) correspond to three-loop massless form-factor integrals; these were calculated in [@HHM07; @HHKS09; @LSS10]. The corresponding [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} files for these results are distributed with the package itself.
The master integrals for 5-particle cuts (RRRR)—the five-particle purely phase-space integrals—were calculated in [@GMP18], and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} files are available for these results too.
What still remains unfinished are the 3- and 4-particle cuts: VRRR, VVRR, and VRRV. A subset of these—11 integrals in total—was calculated in [@CFHMSS15] with either direct integration or through Mellin-Barnes representation, with results provided in terms of hypergeometric functions and/or series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ up to transcendentality weight 6. In this article we shall compute all these cuts completely.
4-loop virtual integrals (VVVV) {#sec:vvvv}
===============================
There are 28 master integrals for 4-loop massless propagators in total. These were calculated in [@BC10], and we have depicted them in . Five topologies listed in are sufficient to express all of these master integrals. The first three of them directly correspond to the master integrals with 11 propagators (${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVVV}_{25}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVVV}_{26}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVVV}_{27}}}$ respectively), and the other two are sufficient to cover all the remaining simpler integrals.
[>p[0.3]{}>m[0.6]{}]{} & Topology H. Propagators in the indicated order: $q-p_{1}$; $q-p_{1}-p_{2}+p_{4}$; $q-p_{1}-p_{2}-p_{3}$; $p_{1}+p_{2}+p_{3}$; $p_{1}+p_{2}$; $p_{1}$; $p_{4}-p_{2}$; $p_{2}$; $p_{3}+p_{4}$; $p_{3}$; $p_{4}$. & & Topology M. Propagators: $q-p_{1}$; $q-p_{1}+p_{2}$; $q-p_{1}+p_{2}-p_{3}$; $q-p_{1}+p_{2}-p_{3}+p_{4}$; $p_{1}-p_{2}+p_{3}-p_{4}$; $p_{4}-p_{1}-p_{3}$; $p_{1}-p_{4}$; $p_{1}$; $p_{2}$; $p_{3}$; $p_{4}$. & & Topology N. Propagators: $q-p_{1}$; $q-p_{1}+p_{4}$; $q-p_{1}+p_{2}+p_{4}$; $q-p_{1}+p_{2}+p_{3}+p_{4}$; $p_{1}-p_{2}-p_{3}-p_{4}$; $p_{1}-p_{2}-p_{3}$; $p_{1}-p_{2}$; $p_{1}$; $p_{2}$; $p_{3}$; $p_{4}$. & & Topology L. Propagators: $q+p_{1}-p_{2}$; $p_{2}-p_{1}$; $q-p_{2}$; $p_{1}$; $q-p_{3}$; $p_{3}-p_{2}$; $p_{4}-p_{3}$; $q-p_{4}$; $p_{2}$; $p_{3}$; $p_{4}$. & & Topology J. Propagators: $q+p_{1}-p_{2}$; $p_{2}-p_{1}$; $q-p_{2}$; $p_{1}$; $q-p_{2}+p_{3}-p_{4}$; $p_{4}-p_{3}$; $p_{3}-p_{2}$; $q-p_{4}$; $p_{2}$; $p_{3}$; $p_{4}$.
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $1,\mathrm{L}_{11101001111}$ & $2,\mathrm{L}_{01111001011}$ & $3,\mathrm{H}_{01101110010}$ & $4,\mathrm{H}_{01111110001}$ & $5,\mathrm{H}_{00100111110}$ & & & & & & & & $6,\mathrm{H}_{10110111110}$ & $7,\mathrm{H}_{00100101101}$ & $8,\mathrm{H}_{10110101101}$ & $9,\mathrm{H}_{10101011110}$ & $10,\mathrm{H}_{01011110101}$ & & & & & & & & $11,\mathrm{H}_{00101110110}$ & $12,\mathrm{M}_{01110111111}$ & $13,\mathrm{H}_{01110110011}$ & $14,\mathrm{H}_{01101111110}$ & $15,\mathrm{H}_{01110101001}$ & & & & & & & & $16,\mathrm{L}_{11011101011}$ & $17,\mathrm{H}_{10111110101}$ & $18,\mathrm{N}_{11011101111}$ & $19,\mathrm{H}_{01110111011}$ & $20,\mathrm{N}_{11111111110}$ & & & & & & & & $21,\mathrm{N}_{10111101111}$ & $22,\mathrm{H}_{01101110011}$ & $23,\mathrm{N}_{10111110111}$ & $24,\mathrm{H}_{11111101101}$ & $25,\mathrm{H}_{11111111111}$ & & & & & & & & $26,\mathrm{M}_{11111111111}$ & $27,\mathrm{N}_{11111111111}$ & $28,\mathrm{J}_{11101111111}$ & &
To identify the master integrals for the cuts one can try to solve the integration-by-parts (IBP) relations [@CT81], but a simpler procedure turns out to be sufficient: it is enough to construct all possible 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-particle cuts of these 28 VVVV integrals, and remove the symmetric duplicates from the obtained set. Further application of IBP reduction reveals no additional linear relations between the obtained cut integrals—we have checked this by using a combination of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fire</span>]{} [@Smi14] and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">LiteRed</span>]{} [@Lee13] during the computation of dimensional recurrence relations. Moreover, we believe that the set of integrals obtained this way constitutes a complete basis, because by the optical theorem any full cross section can be expressed via the discontinuity of the VVVV integrals, and any discontinuity of those can be expressed as a linear combination of these cut integrals (we shall construct these relations explicitly in ).
1-loop 4-particle cut integrals (VRRR) {#sec:vrrr}
======================================
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $1,\mathrm{H}_{00*01**0*10}$ & $2,\mathrm{H}_{0*1*01100**}$ & $3,\mathrm{N}_{101*11*01**}$ & $4,\mathrm{H}_{00*00*1*1*0}$ & $5,\mathrm{M}_{011*01*1**1}$ & & & & & & & & $6,\mathrm{N}_{10*11*101**}$ & $7,\mathrm{H}_{10*11**0*01}$ & $8,\mathrm{N}_{1*01**0*111}$ & $9,\mathrm{H}_{10*10*1*1*0}$ & $10,\mathrm{H}_{01*10*1*0*1}$ & & & & & & & & $11,\mathrm{N}_{1*11**1*110}$ & $12,\mathrm{H}_{01*01*1*1*0}$ & $13,\mathrm{M}_{11*1*1**111}$ & $14,\mathrm{N}_{1*11**1*111}$ & $15,\mathrm{H}_{11*11*1*1*1}$ & & & & & & & & $16,\mathrm{H}_{0*110*0*00*}$ & $17,\mathrm{N}_{*0111*10**1}$ & $18,\mathrm{N}_{10*1110**1*}$ & $19,\mathrm{L}_{1*0***01011}$ & $20,\mathrm{H}_{1*11*111**1}$ & & & & & & & & $21,\mathrm{H}_{11*1*101*0*}$ & $22,\mathrm{N}_{111*11*11**}$ & $23,\mathrm{H}_{10*1*110*0*}$ & $24,\mathrm{N}_{1*01*101**1}$ & $25,\mathrm{H}_{0*110*1*01*}$ & & & & & & & & $26,\mathrm{M}_{111*11*1**1}$ & $27,\mathrm{N}_{11*1***1110}$ & $28,\mathrm{N}_{1*11*111**1}$ & $29,\mathrm{N}_{11*1***1111}$ & $30,\mathrm{N}_{10*11*011**}$ & & & & & & & & $31,\mathrm{M}_{11*11*11*1*}$ & $32,\mathrm{N}_{11*11*111**}$ & $33,\mathrm{H}_{11*1*111*1*}$ & $34,\mathrm{J}_{1110***11*1}$ & $35,\mathrm{J}_{11*0*11*1*1}$
There are 35 master integrals for the VRRR cuts in total, all depicted in . Out of these, integrals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 18 have been calculated in [@CFHMSS15]. Integral 16 is trivial, and normalizes to unity via eq. . Integrals 19, 34, and 35 have the one-loop amplitude factorized, and thus can be expressed via the four-particle phase-space integrals from [@GGH03] (recomputed to weight 12 in [@GMP18]).
Direct integration over the phase space
---------------------------------------
The four-particle phase-space is quite complicated [@ERT80; @KL86; @GGH03]. The parametrization of $d\mathrm{PS}_4$ from eq. in terms of the scalar products $$s_{ij}=\frac{1}{q^{2}}\left(p_{i}+p_{j}\right)^{2},\qquad\text{where } 1\le i<j\le 4,$$ has 5 degrees of freedom, and the following form: $$\label{eq:dps4-definition}
d\mathrm{PS}_4=
\left(q^{2}\right)^{\frac{3d-4}{2}}
\frac{ 2^{4-4d} \pi^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3}{2}d} }{ \Gamma\!\left(d-3\right) \Gamma\!\left(\frac{d-1}{2}\right) }
\left(\Delta_{4}\right)^{\frac{d-5}{2}}
\Theta\!\left(\Delta_{4}\right) \Theta\!\left(s_{ij}\right) \delta\!\left(1-\sum s_{ij}\right)\prod ds_{ij},$$ where $\Delta_{4}$ is the Gram determinant, $$\Delta_{4}=-\det\left|\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & s_{12} & s_{13} & s_{14}\\
s_{12} & 0 & s_{23} & s_{24}\\
s_{13} & s_{23} & 0 & s_{34}\\
s_{14} & s_{24} & s_{34} & 0
\end{array}\right|.$$ Because the shape of the integration region is given by $\Theta\!
\left(\Delta_{4}\right) \Theta\!\left(s_{ij}\right)$, with $\Delta_{4}$ being a polynomial of the third degree, integrating over this region in the general case is a challenge. Parametrizations such as the “tripole parametrization” [@GGH03; @ERT80] exist that remap this shape onto a hypercube, but they do so at the expense of introducing square roots in the mapping from $s_{ij}$ to the new parameters, which only allows one to complete the integration analytically if the said roots drop out from the integrand.
Still, for simpler integrals such an approach is viable. Integrating ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRR}_{1}}}$ using the tripole parametrization, we find $$\label{eq:vrrr1}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRR}_{1}}}=\smallfig{vrrr/1}=B^* \mathrm{PS}_4 \left( q^2 \right)^{2d-6} \frac{
\Gamma\!\left( 2d-4 \right) \Gamma\!\left( \frac{3}{2}d-4 \right)
}{
\Gamma\!\left( d-2 \right) \Gamma\!\left( \frac{5}{2}d-6 \right)
}.$$ Similarly for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRR}_{4}}}$ we get $$\label{eq:vrrr4}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRR}_{4}}}=\smallfig{vrrr/4}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_4 \left( q^2 \right)^{2d-6} \frac{ 2d-5 }{ d-3 } \frac{
\Gamma\!\left( \frac{3}{2}d-3 \right) \Gamma\!\left( \frac{3}{2}d-4 \right)
}{
\Gamma\!\left( \frac{1}{2}d-1 \right) \Gamma\!\left( \frac{5}{2}d-6 \right)
}.$$ In [@CFHMSS15] a number of other VRRR integrals were calculated in a similar fashion. In the general case though, this approach does not apply, and thus we shall turn to computing these integrals differently: by solving the dimensional recurrence relations.
An overview of dimensional recurrence relations
-----------------------------------------------
Any Feynman integral $I$ can be cast into a parametric representation (e.g. Feynman) in which the space-time dimension $d$ becomes a free parameter. This is true for cut integrals as well, where a Baikov-like representation can be used (we shall use it in ). With an insight gained from [@Tar96], it is then possible to shift $d$ by $\pm2$, and express the resulting integral $I\!\left(d\pm2\right)$ as a linear combination of integrals in space-time dimension $d$. Thus, a set of master integrals with shifted dimension $J_i(d\pm2)$ can be expressed as a linear combination of the same master integrals in space-time dimension $d$ via the IBP reduction, giving us dimensional recurrence relations (DRR). Using the terminology of [@Lee13], the “lowering” DRR take the form $$\label{eq:ldrr}
J_i(d+2) = M_{ij}(d)\,J_j(d).$$ We have constructed such DRR systems for all the cut configurations and VVVV using [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">LiteRed</span>]{} with [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fire</span>]{}. For all of them the matrices $M$ turn out to be triangular, and eq. can be easily split into the homogeneous and inhomogeneous parts, $$\label{eq:ldrr-triangular}
J_i(d+2) = M_{ii}(d)\,J_i(d) + \sum_{j<i}M_{ij}(d)\,J_j(d).$$ The triangular form here is guaranteed by the fact that only a single master integral is present in each sector, and thus no coupled blocks form. The general solution of this recurrence relation system can be represented as $$\label{eq:drr-gen-sol}
J_i(d) = {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i(d)\,\omega_i(d) + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i(d),$$ where
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i(d)$ is a homogeneous solution satisfying ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i(d+2) = M_{ii}(d) {\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i(d)$;
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i(d)$ is a particular solution, determined by integrals from the lower sectors $J_{j<i}$;
- $ \omega_i(d)$ is an arbitrary periodic function, such that $\omega_i(d+2)=\omega_i(d)$; this function cannot be determined from the DRR relations alone, and needs to be fixed separately.
The triangular form greatly simplifies the construction of the homogeneous solution compared to the case of coupled blocks (explored for example in [@LS12; @LM17b]). For the diagonal entries $M_{ii}$ of the form $$\label{eq:drr-mii-form}
M_{ii}(d)=\mathcal{C}\prod_{k}\left(\frac{d}{2}-a_{k}\right)^{n_{k}}\!,$$ the homogeneous solution can be immediately constructed as $$\label{eq:drr-homogeneous-solution}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i(d)=\mathcal{C}^{\frac{d}{2}}\prod_{k}\left\{\Gamma^{n_{k}}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-a_{k}\right)
\qquad\text{or}\qquad
(-1)^{\frac{d}{2}n_k}\Gamma^{-n_{k}}\!\left(a_{k}-\frac{d}{2}+1\right)\right\}.$$ Both forms of the factors are acceptable, and generally one should choose one or the other depending on where it would be most convenient to have the poles and zeros of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}(d)$ located. The function `HomogeneousSolution` from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} package [@LM17a] automates this construction.
The particular solution ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}(d)$ can be constructed as an infinite sum, $$\label{eq:drr-particular-solution}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i(d)={\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i(d)\left\{-\sum^{\infty}_{k=0}\quad\text{or}\quad\sum^{-1}_{k=-\infty}\right\}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{-1}_i(d+2k+2)\sum_{j<i}M_{ij}(d+2k)\,J_j(d+2k),$$ where the direction of the summation is chosen depending on which one converges. With the help of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} this sum can be evaluated numerically as a series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ with arbitrary precision—as long as the integrals from lower sectors $J_{j<i}$ are known, of course. Normally this is a quickly converging geometric sum, and a precision of thousands of digits can be easily achieved.
With ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}$ being well understood, the most difficult part of solving eq. is finding the periodic function $\omega(d)$, which plays the same role as integration constants play in the solution of differential equations.
Solving DRR for VRRR integrals {#sec:drr-for-vrrr}
------------------------------
To fix ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ we shall loosely follow the “dimensional recurrence and analyticity” method (DRA) from [@Lee09]. As we shall soon see, only a simple incarnation of it is needed for the VRRR integrals, but we shall return to the full method in .
The overarching idea is to find restrictions on the possible forms that ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ is allowed to take by analyzing its analytic properties in the whole complex plane. Two essential sources of information are used for this: the location of the poles in $d$ of ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$, and its asymptotic behavior in the limit $\Im d\to\pm\infty$.
To perform such an analysis, let us first rewrite eq. in the form $$\label{eq:omega-sigma}
{\omega_i\!\left(d\right)} = {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i^{-1}\!\left(d\right)} {J_i\!\left(d\right)} - {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i^{-1}\!\left(d\right)} {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i\!\left(d\right)}.$$ Because ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ is periodic with a period of 2, we can restrict the analysis to a stripe in the complex plane where $\Re d \in (d_0, d_0+2]$ or $\Re d \in [d_0, d_0+2)$. It is useful to choose this stripe such that $J$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{-1}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}$ have as few poles on it as possible. The poles of ${J\!\left(d\right)}$ are particularly to be avoided.
Conveniently, all VRRR integrals normalized according to eq. are finite in the stripe $(6,8]$. All ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i$ can be chosen according to eq. to not have any zeros on this stripe too. To analyze the behavior of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i$ constructed via eq. , the knowledge of the previous integrals $J_{j<i}$ is required, having which we can evaluate ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i\!\left(d\right)}$ numerically via [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{}. Proceeding with the solution steps for each $J_i$, and plotting the numerical values of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i\!\left(d\right)}$ for $d\in(6,8]$, every time we find that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i\!\left(d\right)}$ is smooth and finite—which is expected, because in eq. we have an infinite sum with finite coefficients that converges geometrically.
Because none of the integrals ${J\!\left(d\right)}$, ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{-1}\!\left(d\right)}$, or ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ have poles when $\Re d\in(6,8]$, it follows that ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ is free from poles in $d$ in the whole complex plane.
Next we shall turn to the investigation of the asymptotic behavior of ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ in the limit of $\Im d\to\pm\infty$. For this we shall investigate each component of eq. separately.
### Asymptotic behavior of VRRR integrals {#asymptotic-behavior-of-vrrr-integrals .unnumbered}
To investigate the behaviour of VRRR integrals at ${\Im\!\left(d\right)}\to \pm \infty$, a parametric representation is needed. To construct it, let us first rewrite eq. in the form $$\label{eq:vrrr-parametrization}
I = \int d\mathrm{PS}_4
\underbrace{ \int \frac{d^d l}{(2\pi)^d} \prod_{i=1\vphantom{j}}^{n} \frac{1}{\left( l+ k_i \right)^2 + i0} }_{A_L}
\,
\underbrace{ \prod_{j} \frac{1}{ k_j'^2 } }_{A_T}
\equiv B \, \mathrm{PS}_4 J,$$ where $l$ is the loop momentum, $A_L$ is the loop part of the amplitude (i.e. the propagators that contain $l$), $k_i$ are some linear combinations of the cut momenta $p_j$, $A_T$ is the tree part (i.e. the propagators that do not contain $l$), and $J$ is the normalized integral.
The loop amplitude $A_L$ entering this form can be parametrized with Feynman parameters, giving us $$\label{eq:vrrr-al}
\frac{A_L}{B}
= \frac{ {\Gamma\!\left(d-2\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(n - \frac{d}{2}\right)} }{ {\Gamma^2\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(2-\frac{d}{2}\right)} }
\int \frac{
\left( \sum_i x_i \right)^{n-d} {\delta\!\left(1 - \sum_i x_i\right)}
}{
\left( \sum_{i<j} x_i x_j \left( k_i - k_j \right)^2 \right)^{n - \frac{d}{2}}
} \prod_i d x_i .$$ For the phase-space element $d\mathrm{PS}_4$ the direct parametrization from eq. can be used. Specifically, to analyze the normalized integral $J$, this form with a factorized $\mathrm{PS}_4$ will be useful: $$\label{eq:vrrr-dps4}
\frac{d \mathrm{PS}_4}{\mathrm{PS}_4} =
\left( q^2 \right)^{\frac{3d-4}{2}} \frac{2^{2d-5}}{\pi^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\frac{ {\Gamma\!\left(d-\frac{3}{2}\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{3}{2}d-3\right)} }{ {\Gamma\!\left(d-3\right)} {\Gamma^3\!\left(\frac{1}{2}d-1\right)} }
\left(\Delta_4\right)^{\frac{d-5}{2}} {\Theta\!\left(\Delta_4\right)} {\delta\!\left(1-\textstyle\sum s_{ij}\right)} \prod d s_{ij} .$$ To analyze the asymptotic behaviour of $\abs{{J\!\left(d\right)}}$ in the limit $\Im d\to\infty$, it is enough to note that eqs. and contain only two kinds of structures involving $d$: the Gamma functions ${\Gamma\!\left(\alpha + \beta d\right)}$ and the powers $x^{\alpha d}$. The asymptotic behavior of ${\Gamma\!\left(z\right)}$ follows from the Stirling formula, $$\label{eq:gamma-limit}
\abs{{\Gamma\!\left(z\right)}} = \sqrt{2 \pi} \, e^{-\frac{\pi}{2} \abs{\Im z}} \abs{\Im z}^{\Re z - \frac{1}{2}} \left( 1 + {\mathcal{O}\!\left(\abs{\Im z}^{-1}\right)} \right).$$ As long as the base of a power is positive, its modulus does not depend on $\Im d$ at all, $$\abs{x^z} = x^{\Re z},\qquad\text{if }x\ge0.$$ This suits our case, because the base of the power in eqs. and are all in fact always positive. Combining all together, it follows that $\abs{{J\!\left(d\right)}}$ is bounded in the limit by $$\abs{{J\!\left(d\right)}}
= \int \frac{d\mathrm{PS}_4}{\mathrm{PS}_4} \frac{A_L}{B} A_T
\approx {\mathcal{C}\!\left(\Re d\right)} \abs{\Im d}^{n + 1}.$$
### Asymptotic behavior of the homogeneous solutions {#asymptotic-behavior-of-the-homogeneous-solutions .unnumbered}
All the diagonal elements of the DRR matrix for VRRR integrals have the form of eq. , with all $a_k\in[0,7/3]$. For this reason it is possible to construct the homogeneous solution via eq. , and to avoid both poles and zeros at $d>14/3$ by choosing the first form of the factors. Then, applying the asymptotic of the Gamma functions to this construction, for each VRRR master integral we find that $$\abs{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}} \approx {\mathcal{C}\!\left(\Re d\right)} \abs{\Im d}^\alpha,$$ where $\alpha$ depends on the integral, but is always a small rational number, $\alpha\in[0,5/2]$. It is important to note the absence of factors like $e^{\alpha\abs{\Im d}}$ in this asymptotic that could appear from eq. : it turns out that they cancel each other.
### Asymptotic behavior of the particular solutions {#asymptotic-behavior-of-the-particular-solutions .unnumbered}
Next, let us look at the particular solution ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ in the form of the infinite series from eq. . The bounds established so far tell us that each term in that series is asymptotically bounded by ${\mathcal{C}\!\left(\Re d\right)}\abs{\Im d}^\beta$, for some values of $\beta$. To claim that the series as a whole is bounded similarly too, it is enough to show that a series composed of these bounds converges. This is in fact the case, because the dependence of the series terms on $\Re d$ approaches an exponential irrespective of the value of $\Im d$, and the whole series converges geometrically. Thus, there is such $\beta$ that $$\abs{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}} \lesssim {\mathcal{C}\!\left(\Re d\right)} \abs{\Im d}^\beta.$$
### Asymptotic behavior of the periodic function {#asymptotic-behavior-of-the-periodic-function .unnumbered}
Because $J$, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}$ all have the same form of asymptotic behavior, from the definition of ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ in eq. it follows that ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ is bounded similarly, $$\abs{{\omega\!\left(d\right)}} \lesssim {\mathcal{C}\!\left(\Re d\right)} \abs{\Im d}^\gamma,$$ for some $\gamma$. Furthermore, because ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ is periodic, we can view it as a function of $z$, $$\label{eq:z}
z=e^{i \pi d}.$$ In terms of $z$, the limit $\Im d \to +\infty$ corresponds to $z\to0$, and $\Im d \to -\infty$ corresponds to $z\to\infty$. Because ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ has no poles in $d$, ${\omega\!\left(z\right)}$ viewed as a function on the Riemann sphere can only have poles at 0 and $\infty$. Moreover, its growth at both of these limits is bounded by $\abs{\Im d}^\gamma \approx \abs{\ln z}^\gamma$, which grows slower than any non-zero power of $z$. Then, representing ${\omega\!\left(z\right)}$ as its Taylor series, these constraints mean that only the $z^0$ term is allowed. In other words, this means that ${\omega\!\left(z\right)}$ can only be a constant.
### Fixing the constants {#fixing-the-constants .unnumbered}
Now that we have determined that all $\omega_i$ for VRRR master integrals are constants, what is left is fixing them. This is just one constant per integral, so it is sufficient to for example calculate the leading term of ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-expansion of each integral. To make this easy, one can use the following observation: for a VRRR master integral with $n$ loop propagators, the superficial degree of divergence of the loop part becomes zero when $d=2n$ (meaning that the integral begins to diverge logarithmically in the UV region), and importantly no IR divergences are present in this $d$ as well. Changing $d$ to $2n-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ regulates the UV divergence via a single ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ pole, and being an UV pole, it does not depend on any masses in the diagram. Therefore, one can just as well insert some mass $m$ into the loop without affecting the pole. Then, applying the large mass expansion [@Smirnov02] to the massive diagram factorizes it into a massive one-loop vacuum bubble (equal to the massive loop with external legs amputated) and a 4-particle phase-space integral (equal to the original integral with the loop shrinked into a dot), while still not changing the pole.
For ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRR}_{31}}}$ this process can be illustrated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lmp}
\smallfig{vrrr/31}
&= \smallfig{vrrr/31-massive} + {\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^0\right)}
= \smallfig{lm-hard}\,\smallfig{lm-soft} + {\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^0,\frac{q^2}{m^2}\right)} =\\
&= -\frac{5500}{3} B\,\mathrm{PS}_4 + {\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^0,\frac{q^2}{m^2}\right)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ all with $d=10-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$. The vacuum bubble here was evaluated via $$\int \frac{d^d l}{\left(2\pi\right)^d} \frac{1}{\left( l^2-m^2+i0 \right)^k} =
\left(-1\right)^k \frac{i\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}{\left(2\pi\right)^d} \frac{{\Gamma\!\left(k - \frac{d}{2}\right)}}{{\Gamma\!\left(k\right)}} \left(m^2\right)^{\frac{d}{2}-k},$$ and the 4-particle phase-space integral was reduced to the masters from [@GGH03] using IBP and dimensional recurrence relations.
From here it is possible to determine $\omega_{31}$ by inserting eq. into the definition of $\omega$ from eq. along with a high-precision numerical series for ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_{31}\!\left(d\right)}$ calculated by [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{}.
Finally, the same procedure needs to be performed for all other VRRR master integrals. Interestingly, we have found that all $\omega_i$ are identically zero, except for $\omega_1$, $\omega_4$, and $\omega_{16}$, which all correspond to simple integrals.
This concludes the calculation of $\omega_i$ for VRRR master integrals. Together with ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}_i$ from eq. and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}_i$ from eq. this gives us the full solution to the DRR eq. in terms of nested infinite sums. With the help of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} or [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} these sums can be evaluated as a series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ around arbitrary $d$ to any desired precision. We have done so for $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ with 4000 digits of precision and have restored the analytical answers via the PSLQ [@FBA99] algorithm in the basis of MZVs [@BBV09] up to weight 12 (see for the precise definition of this basis). The results of this restoration up to weight 6 can be found in . The full results up to weight 12 as well as the explicit expressions for the sums in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} format can be found in the ancillary files, as described in .
Cross-checks
------------
One way to cross-check the obtained results is to recalculate them numerically. To this end the form of eq. can be used along with the Feynman parametrization of the loop amplitude from eq. and the tripole parameterization of the phase-space [@GGH03; @ERT80]. Because VRRR integrals contain only one loop, their ultraviolet divergences manifest themselves only in the prefactor of the Feynman parameterization. The infrared divergences also disappear if we look at the series around $d\ge6$. For this reason this parameterization can be integrated directly via the standard Monte-Carlo numerical integration methods (we use the Vegas algorithm [@Lepage78] implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cuba</span>]{} [@Hah04]) in $d=6-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, and then lowered back to $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ via DRR—avoiding the need for methods like sector decomposition.
We have performed this numerical integration and can report that for each VRRR integral the results for the first 3 orders in $
{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ match with the analytic answers within 1% accuracy.
Additionally, we have compared our results for VRRR integrals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 18 with the weight-6 series reported in [@CFHMSS15], and found them to match fully.
Finally, a cross-check based on Cutkosky rules will be described in .
2-loop 3-particle cut integrals (VVRR, VRRV) {#sec:VVRR-VRRV}
============================================
There are 22 VVRR and 9 VRRV master integrals; 27 in total, if one omits the duplicates between these two sets. Both of these sets are depicted in and .
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $1,\mathrm{H}_{01*0*1100*0}$ & $2,\mathrm{H}_{01*0*1100*1}$ & $3,\mathrm{H}_{0*111**0001}$ & $4,\mathrm{L}_{0***1001011}$ & $5,\mathrm{H}_{10*0*0111*0}$ & & & & & & & & $6,\mathrm{H}_{0*011**0101}$ & $7,\mathrm{H}_{00*0*1101*0}$ & $8,\mathrm{M}_{011*0*11*11}$ & $9,\mathrm{N}_{101*1*1011*}$ & $10,\mathrm{H}_{0*110**0011}$ & & & & & & & & $11,\mathrm{N}_{*01111*0*11}$ & $12,\mathrm{N}_{110*1*0111*}$ & $13,\mathrm{H}_{1*1*1101*01}$ & $14,\mathrm{H}_{0*110**1011}$ & $15,\mathrm{N}_{101*1*0111*}$ & & & & & & & & $16,\mathrm{H}_{01*0*1111*0}$ & $17,\mathrm{M}_{111*1*11*11}$ & $18,\mathrm{N}_{11*1*1111*0}$ & $19,\mathrm{N}_{11*1*1111*1}$ & $20,\mathrm{N}_{111*1*1111*}$ & & & & & & & & $21,\mathrm{H}_{11*1*1111*1}$ & $22,\mathrm{J}_{11101*1*1*1}$ & & & & & & &
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $1,\mathrm{H}_{1*11*10000*}$ & $2,\mathrm{H}_{0*01*11010*}$ & $3,\mathrm{H}_{0*11*11000*}$ & $4,\mathrm{H}_{0*10*11001*}$ & $5,\mathrm{N}_{10*111*011*}$ & & & & & & & & $6,\mathrm{H}_{1*11*10110*}$ & $7,\mathrm{H}_{1*11*11111*}$ & $8,\mathrm{N}_{11*111*111*}$ & $9,\mathrm{J}_{1110**11*11}$ &
Ideally we would like to calculate VVRR master integrals by solving the dimensional recurrence relations just as we did in . The difficulty here lies in the fact that while for VRRR only one constant per integral was needed to uniquely fix the periodic function ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$, for VVRR integrals dozens might be needed. Therefore we shall postpone solving DRR—until . Fortunately the 3-particle phase space is considerably simpler than the 4-particle one, and we can return to the idea of direct integration over it.
In principle, the 3-particle phase-space volume element from eq. can be parameterized in terms of the kinematic invariants $$s_{ij}=\frac{1}{q^{2}}\left(p_{i}+p_{j}\right)^{2}$$ in the following way: $$d\mathrm{PS}_{3}=\left(q^{2}\right)^{d-3}\frac{2^{4-3d}\pi^{\frac{3}{2}-d}}{\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d-2}{2}\right)\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d-1}{2}\right)}\left(s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\delta\!\left(1-s_{12}-s_{13}-s_{23}\right)ds_{12}ds_{13}ds_{23},\label{eq:dps3-definition}$$ and the integration volume given by the $\delta$-function and the condition $s_{ij}\geq0$ is simple enough that it is often possible to integrate eq. directly, as long as both amplitudes entering the integral are known. Specifically, one way to make the integration volume explicit is $$\int d\mathrm{PS}_{3}\,F\sim\int_{0}^{1}ds_{12}\int_{0}^{1-s_{12}}ds_{13}\,\left(s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}F\Big|_{s_{23}=1-s_{12}-s_{13}}.$$ In practice many of the amplitudes are only known as series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, and a series expansion operation does not necessarily commute with integration. To illustrate this issue, let us consider the following integral: $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{8}}}=\smallfig{vvrr/8}=\int\smallfig{1to3/na19}d\mathrm{PS}_3.\label{eq:vvrr-example-integral}$$ The amplitude in the integrand here is a single-scale integral (the precise value is given by eq. ), and just by dimensional analysis must be proportional to $\left(q^{2}s_{12}\right)^{d-6}$, $$\smallfig{1to3/na19}=\mathcal{C}\,s_{12}^{d-6}.\label{eq:vvrr-example-amplitude-series}$$ If we were to first integrate eq. directly and then expand the result in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, we would get $$\smallfig{vvrr/8}=\mathcal{C}2^{4-3d}\pi^{\frac{3}{2}-d}\frac{\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(3\frac{d}{2}-7\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\right)\Gamma\!\left(5\frac{d}{2}-9\right)}=\frac{\mathcal{C}}{384\pi^{3}}\left(\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\left(2\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\gamma-1\right)+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)\right).\label{eq:vvrr-example-int-then-expand}$$ In contrast, expanding both the amplitude and the phase-space element in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ first using $$\smallfig{1to3/na19}=\frac{\mathcal{C}}{s_{12}^{2}}\left(1-2\ln s_{12}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\right),$$ multiplying it by the expansion of the phase-space element from eq. , $$\left(s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}=\left(1+\left(2\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\gamma+2-\ln\left(s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\right)\right){\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\right),$$ $$\begin{aligned}
d\mathrm{PS}_{3}=&\frac{1}{128\pi^{3}}\left(1+\left(2\ln\left(4\pi\right)-2\gamma+2-\ln\left(s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\right)\right){\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\right)\times \label{eq:dps3-series}\\
&\times\delta\!\left(q^{2}-s_{12}-s_{13}-s_{23}\right)ds_{12}ds_{13}ds_{23},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and then integrating order-by-order in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ would result in divergences corresponding to the limit $s_{12}\to0$ in each order of the series: $$\smallfig{vvrr/8}\overset{?}{=}\frac{\mathcal{C}}{128\pi^{3}}\int_{0}^{1}ds_{12}\int_{0}^{1-s_{12}}ds_{13}\left(\frac{1}{s_{12}^{2}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)\right)=\frac{\mathcal{C}}{128\pi^{3}}\left(\frac{1}{0}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)\right).\label{eq:vvrr-example-expand-then-int}$$ This should not be surprising, seeing that the true ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-expansion in eq. starts with ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{-1}$, while the integrand in eq. starts with ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{0}$, so integrating it order-by-order can never give the expected series. In other words, the integral in eq. is not infrared finite, and the pole in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ regulating this infinity cannot be obtained by integration in 4 dimensions.
Our solution to this problem stems from the fact that every Feynman integral is free from infrared divergences if the dimension of space-time is high enough. This can be seen already from eq. : higher $d$ results in higher powers of the $\left(s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\right)$ factor, which can eventually compensate any singularity of the integrand in the infrared region. In particular, at $d=6$ all our 3-particle master integrals are infrared-finite. Thus, we can overcome the divergence in eq. by integrating the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series not around $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, but rather around $d=6-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$. Once this is done, we can use dimensional recurrence relations to restore the series in $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$.
This procedure requires the knowledge of 1$\to$3 amplitudes at 1 and 2 loops as series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, expanded around $d=6-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, and DRR for the phase-space master integrals themselves.
Note that there is nothing magical about the basis at $d=6-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ specifically: any IR-finite basis would be sufficient for our purposes.
1-loop 1->3 amplitudes {#sec:1to3-1l}
-------------------------
Up to relabeling of $p_{i}$, all the 1$\to$3 amplitudes at 1 loop fit into the box topology: $$\fig{1to3/1l/topo}.$$ There are only four master integrals in this topology, with only two being meaningfully distinct: the bubble and the box with one off-shell leg.
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & &
The values of these are known from the literature for arbitrary $d$. See eq. for the bubble, and eq. for the box.
In addition to the master integrals, a triangle with two off-shell legs also appears in the VRRV integrals. It can be found via IBP as $$\smallfig{1to3/1l/triangle}=\frac{d-3}{d-4}\frac{2}{s_{13}+s_{23}}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1}\left(\smallfig{1to3/1l/m3}-\,\smallfig{1to3/1l/m1}\right).\label{eq:tri-1l-red}$$
2-loop 1->3 amplitudes {#sec:1to3-2l}
-------------------------
The master integrals for these amplitudes were first calculated in [@GR00; @GR01]. The results there are provided as series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ with coefficients in terms of “2dHPLs”, a subclass of multiple polylogarithms, up to transcendentality weight 4. This turns out to be insufficient for our needs, because the $
{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-finite parts of the VVVV integrals are known to contain $\zeta_7$, and thus we need the amplitudes to at least that weight as well. Thus, a re-derivation of these master integrals is required.
The overall idea of the method is to write down the differential equation system for the master integrals in external kinematic invariants, solve it, and determine the integration constants by enforcing regularity conditions on the solution. Let us do this step by step.
### Topologies and master integrals {#topologies-and-master-integrals .unnumbered}
We start by determining IBP topologies that cover the master integrals. Up to relabeling of $p_{i}$, three topologies are sufficient: one planar (“PA”), and two non-planar (“NA” and “NB”). These are depicted in .
---- ---- ----
PA NA NB
---- ---- ----
: Generic topologies for the 1$\to$3 master integrals at two loops.[]{data-label="tab:1to3-2l-topologies"}
Solving the IBP relations in these topologies using [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">LiteRed</span>]{} [@Lee13] we arrive at 18 master integrals in PA, 22 in NA, and 29 in NB. Note that there is an overlap between these three sets of master integrals, but this will not bother us.
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $\mathrm{PA}_{1}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{2}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{3}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{4}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{5}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{PA}_{6}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{7}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{8}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{9}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{10}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{PA}_{11}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{12}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{13}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{14}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{15}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{PA}_{16}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{17}$ & $\mathrm{PA}_{18}$ & &
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $\mathrm{NA}_{1}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{2}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{3}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{4}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{5}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NA}_{6}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{7}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{8}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{9}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{10}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NA}_{11}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{12}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{13}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{14}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{15}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NA}_{16}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{17}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{18}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{19}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{20}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NA}_{21}$ & $\mathrm{NA}_{22}$ & & &
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $\mathrm{NB}_{1}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{2}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{3}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{4}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{5}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NB}_{6}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{7}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{8}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{9}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{10}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NB}_{11}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{12}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{13}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{14}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{15}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NB}_{16}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{17}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{18}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{19}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{20}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NB}_{21}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{22}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{23}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{24}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{25}$ & & & & & & & & $\mathrm{NB}_{26}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{27}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{28}$ & $\mathrm{NB}_{29}$ &
There are only three independent external kinematic invariants for the 1$\to$3 amplitudes: $p_{12}^{2}$, $p_{13}^{2}$, and $p_{23}^{2}$ ($p_{ij}\equiv p_i+p_j$), with the incoming energy $q^{2}$ being the sum of all three. This allows us to extract one of them as a dimensionful prefactor, with a function of two dimensionless ratios remaining: $$A\left(p_{12}^{2},p_{13}^{2},p_{23}^{2}\right)=\left(q^{2}\right)^{k}A\left(y,z\right),$$ where $k$ is determined from dimensionality ($+\frac{d}{2}$ for each loop, $-1$ for each propagator), $$y=\frac{p_{13}^{2}}{q^{2}},\qquad\text{and}\qquad z=\frac{p_{23}^{2}}{q^{2}}.\label{eq:1to3-yz}$$
### Solution via differential equations in the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form {#solution-via-differential-equations-in-the-ensuremathvarepsilon-form .unnumbered}
Next, for each topology $I=\left\{ \mathrm{PA},\mathrm{NA},\mathrm{NB}\right\} $ we can differentiate the integrand of each master integral $I_{i}$ by $y$ or $z$ and use IBP relations to express the derivatives as a linear combination of $I_{i}$ themselves, forming linear differential equation systems, $$\frac{\partial}{\partial y}I_{i}=M_{ij}^{\left(I,y\right)}\!\left(d,y,z\right)I_{j},\qquad\text{and}\qquad\frac{\partial}{\partial z}I_{i}=M_{ij}^{\left(I,z\right)}\!\left(d,y,z\right)I_{j}.\label{eq:de-system}$$ To solve these systems as series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, it is convenient to transform them into the combined ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form, where the dependence on $d$ of both $M$ matrices is simultaneously factorized by a basis change: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial y}J_{i}={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}S_{ij}^{\left(I,y\right)}\!\left(y,z\right)J_{j},\qquad\text{and}\qquad\frac{\partial}{\partial z}J_{i}={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}S_{ij}^{\left(I,z\right)}\!\left(y,z\right)J_{j},\label{eq:epsilon-form}$$ where $J_{i}$ is the set of master integrals in the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-basis, related to the original basis $I_{i}$ via a transformation matrix $T$, $$I_{i}=T_{ij}^{\left(I\right)}J_{j},\label{eq:epsilon-form-transformation}$$ and $S_{ij}$ are matrices of the form $$S_{ij}^{\left(I,y\right)}\!\left(y,z\right)=\sum_{k}\frac{A_{ij}^{\left(I,y,k\right)}}{y-y_{k}\!\left(z\right)},\qquad\text{and}\qquad S_{ij}^{\left(I,z\right)}\!\left(y,z\right)=\sum_{k}\frac{A_{ij}^{\left(I,z,k\right)}}{z-z_{k}\!\left(y\right)}.\label{eq:epsilon-form-s}$$ In particular our $S$ matrices only contain these six denominators (the “alphabet”): $$\left\{ y,z,1-y-z,1-y,1-z,y+z\right\} ,\label{eq:alphabet}$$ which correspond to singularities at limits $s_{ij}=0$, and $s_{ij}=1$.
Once the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form is constructed, writing down the solution as a series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ becomes easy.
First, start at some arbitrary point, for example $\left(y,z\right)=\left(0,0\right)$, and fix the value of $\mathbf{J}\equiv\{J_i\}$ at the point as a series of constants, $$\mathbf{J}\!\left(0,0\right)=\mathbf{C}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)={\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{-k_{0}}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{k}\mathbf{C}^{\left(k\right)},$$ where $k_{0}$ is some arbitrary starting order of the series, chosen high enough to cover the highest ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-pole of the integrals.
Then, integrate along the $z$ axis using the right side of eq. to obtain $$\mathbf{J}\!\left(0,z\right)=\mathbb{W}^{\left(I\right)}\big|_{\left(0,0\right)\to\left(0,z\right)}\mathbf{C},$$ where $\mathbb{W}$ is the fundamental solution matrix of the corresponding differential equation system constructed as a path-ordered exponential along the specified path, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{W}^{\left(I\right)}\big|_{\left(0,0\right)\to\left(0,z\right)} & =\mathrm{P}\exp\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\int_{0}^{z}dt\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,z\right)}\!\left(0,t\right)\right)=\\
& =\mathds{1}+{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\int_{0}^{z}dt\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,z\right)}\!\left(0,t\right)+{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\int_{0}^{z}dt\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,z\right)}\!\left(0,t\right)\int_{0}^{t}dt'\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,z\right)}\!\left(0,t'\right)+\dots.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Finally, use the left side of eq. to obtain $$\mathbf{J}\!\left(y,z\right)=\mathbb{W}^{\left(I\right)}\big|_{\left(0,z\right)\to\left(y,z\right)}\mathbf{J}\!\left(0,z\right)=\mathbb{W}^{\left(I\right)}\big|_{\left(0,z\right)\to\left(y,z\right)}\mathbb{W}^{\left(I\right)}\big|_{\left(0,0\right)\to\left(0,z\right)}\mathbf{C},\label{eq:de-integration-order-zy}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{W}^{\left(I\right)}\big|_{\left(0,z\right)\to\left(y,z\right)} & =\mathrm{P}\exp\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\int_{0}^{y}dt\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,y\right)}\!\left(t,z\right)\right)=\\
& =\mathds{1}+{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\int_{0}^{y}dt\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,y\right)}\!\left(t,z\right)+{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\int_{0}^{y}dt\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,y\right)}\!\left(t,z\right)\int_{0}^{t}dt'\,\mathbb{S}^{\left(I,y\right)}\!\left(t',z\right)+\dots.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
### Solution as multiple polylogarithms {#solution-as-multiple-polylogarithms .unnumbered}
Because the $\mathbb{S}$ matrices have the structure of eq. , the iterated integrals in the general solution will result in terms of the form $$\label{eq:hlog-definition}
G\!\left(a,b,\dots;x\right)=\int_{0}^{x}\frac{dt}{t-a}\int_{0}^{t}\frac{dt'}{t'-b}\int_{0}^{t'}\dots=\int_{0}^{x}\frac{dt}{t-a}G\!\left(b,\dots;t\right).$$ This is a class of functions known as “multiple polylogarithms” [@Goncharov98], “Goncharov polylogarithms” (GPLs), or “hyperlogarithms”. If the set of parameters is restricted to $\{0,1,-1\}$, these correspond to a well known class of “harmonic polylogarithms” [@RV99]. The set $\{0,1,1-x,-x\}$ corresponds to “2d harmonic polylogarithms” [@GR00].
Note that for a consistent definition of GPLs, one needs to introduce a special case for $$G\!(\overbrace{0,\dots,0}^{n};x)=\frac{1}{n!}\ln\!\left(x\right).$$ Because we have chosen to first integrate along the $\left(0,0\right)\to\left(0,z\right)$ direction, and our alphabet is limited to eq. , eq. will result in each $J_{i}$ having the form $$\sum\mathcal{C}\,G\!\left(\overrightarrow{w_{z}};y\right)G\!\left(\overrightarrow{w_{c}};z\right),\label{eq:hlogs-y-z}$$ where $\mathcal{C}$ are some constants, and the parameters of $G$ are taken from sets $$w_{z}\in\{0,1,1-z,-z\},\qquad\text{and}\qquad w_{c}\in\{0,1\}.$$
### Finding the combined ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form {#finding-the-combined-ensuremathvarepsilon-form .unnumbered}
The possibility and usefulness of transforming the differential equations into the form of eq. were first pointed out in [@Henn13]. Later in [@Lee14] an algorithm was described that constructs such transformations (in the form of the matrices $T_{ij})$ for differential equation systems in one variable. The algorithm was later updated in [@LP17] and [@Blondel18 section 8]. Two implementations of that algorithm followed, in the form of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fuchsia</span>]{} [@GM17] and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Epsilon</span>]{} [@Prausa17] tools. Other approaches include [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Canonica</span>]{} [@Meyer17] with its own algorithm based on a rational ansatz for $T_{ij}$ explicitly designed for differential equations in multiple variables, and an approach based on finding integrals with constant leading singularities [@Wasser18].
While not being described in the original paper [@Lee14], the same algorithm treating single-variable case can be reused for the case of multiple variables too. Here is how:
1. Look at the first system from eq. , the differential equation system in $y$, and construct a transformation $I_{i}=T_{ij}^{\left(I,y\right)}J_{j}^{\left(y\right)}$ that reduces it to an ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form as described in [@Lee14]. The variable $z$ stands as a free parameter during this reduction.
2. Write down the differential equation system in the second variable, $z$, for the new basis $J_{j}^{\left(y\right)}$, and reduce that into the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form as well, $J_{i}^{\left(y\right)}=T_{ij}^{\left(I,yz\right)}J_{j}$.
3. If $T_{ij}^{\left(I,yz\right)}$ is independent of $y$ and $d$—and this is the case in practice—then it will not spoil the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form in $y$, so that the combined transformation $I_{i}=T_{ij}^{\left(I,y\right)}T_{ij}^{\left(I,yz\right)}J_{j}$ will result in an ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form in both $y$ and $z$.
4. Iterate from step 2 for each of the remaining variables, if any.
This is an outline of the approach that [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fuchsia</span>]{} uses to find ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-form transformations for multi-variate systems,[^1] and how it was possible for us to compute the three $T_{ij}^{\left(I\right)}$ from eq. .
### Fixing the integration constants {#fixing-the-integration-constants .unnumbered}
To determine all the integration constants, it is sufficient to use the following three conditions.
1. Some of the simpler integrals are known for arbitrary $d$ in terms of Gamma functions $\Gamma$, and hypergeometric functions $\!_{2}F_{1}$ and $\!_{3}F_{2}$. In particular we fix the values of integrals 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 from the PA topology; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 19 from NA; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, and 15 from NB. We have collected the expressions for these integrals in .\
Note that all 2-loop integrals have a common prefactor of the form $\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{d}$. The $i0$ prescription is specified here explicitly to fix the analytic continuation of the $\ln\!\left(-1\right)$ terms that will appear if one is to expand this prefactor in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$. Practically speaking, because all the integrals are proportional to this factor, there is no need to expand it: it is better to separate it out into a common prefactor, and only work with the remaining part of the integral, which is free of imaginary numbers.
2. All of our integrals are massless, and therefore must only have discontinuities at limits $s_{ij}\to0$ and nowhere else. On the other hand, the differential equations we are solving also have poles at $s_{ij}\to1$, as the list of denominators in eq. demonstrates. Thus, requiring that the apparent discontinuities of the general solution at $s_{ij}\to1$ vanish will generate nontrivial identities between the integration constants. This requirement can be written down by separating the terms proportional to $\ln\!\left(1-s_{ij}\right)$, and enforcing that the coefficient in front of them vanishes in the limit.
3. The planar integrals only have discontinuities at limits where adjacent momenta go to zero. For the PA topology this means that it should be regular at $s_{12}\to0$ (i.e. $y+z\to1$), as long as $q^{2}\neq0$. Similarly for the planar integrals from other topologies. Here again we are looking at the logarithmic terms like $\ln\!\left(s_{12}\right)$, enforcing the cancellation of the coefficients in front of them in the limit.
To apply the regularity conditions above one needs to separate the terms proportional to $\ln^{k}\left(1-s_{ij}\right)$, and require that the coefficient of each is exactly zero in the limit $s_{ij}\to1$. For the limit $y\to1$, to separate the divergent logarithms, it is enough to employ the GPL shuffle relations to rewrite every $G\!\left(1\dots,\overrightarrow{w_{y}};y\right)$ in eq. into a product of the divergent factor $G\!\left(1\dots;y\right)$ and a part finite at $y\to1$. For the limit $z\to1$ the same cannot be done directly on eq. , because $z$ appears in the parameter list of $G\!\left(\dots;y\right)$. Instead, we can rewrite eq. into the reverse form, $$A=\sum C\,G\!\left(\overrightarrow{w_{y}};z\right)G\!\left(\overrightarrow{w_{c}};y\right),$$ where $$w_{y}\in\{0,1,1-y,-y\},$$ and factor our logarithmic terms from that.
Such a rewrite can be achieved by the quite general technique of recursively differentiating the GPL and then integrating it back: $$G\!\left(\overrightarrow{w_{z}};y\right)=\left.G\!\left(\overrightarrow{w_{z}};y\right)\right|_{z=0}+\int_{0}^{z}dz\frac{\partial}{\partial z}G\!\left(\overrightarrow{w_{z}};y\right).\label{eq:hlogs-z-y}$$ Practically speaking, a much more general incarnation of this technique is implemented in the [`fibrationBasis`]{} routine from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HyperInt</span>]{} [@Panzer14]. In our experience it is powerful enough to perform these transformations up to weight 9. At weight 10 the recursion results in too many terms so that memory and performance optimizations become necessary. For this reason we had to implement this transformation manually in C++ with the help of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GiNaC</span>]{} [@BFK00].
Note that applying the regularity conditions above to the weight-10 expansion of eq. only fixes the constants $\mathbf{C}$ up to weight 8. These results are quite large (megabytes of text), and we are providing them in machine-readable format in the ancillary files, as described in .
Interestingly, weight 8 amplitudes are insufficient to compute all of the VVRR integrals to weight 8 as well: because of an apparent cancellation during DRR, some of the weight 8 information is lost, and VRRR integrals 20-23 can only be obtained to weight 7. Still, this is sufficient for practical needs, because weight 7 corresponds to terms of the order ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^1$ or higher. Moreover, after cross-checking these results we shall improve upon them in .
Cross-checks {#sec:num-check-VVRR-VRRV}
------------
One way to cross-check the obtained 3-particle cut integrals is to calculate them numerically. This can be conveniently done by using sector decomposition as implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fiesta4</span>]{} [@Smirnov15], all that is required is a parametrization of the integrals suitable for the `SDEvaluateDirect` function ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fiesta</span>]{} does not construct such parametrizations automationcaly for cut integrals). To that end, the Feynman parametrization can be used for the loop parts of the integrals, and the naive parameterization from eq. can be used for the phase-space parts.
Proceeding this way we were able to calculate the first 3 terms of the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-expansion for each VVRR and VRRV integral numerically in $d=6-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ and $d=8-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$. Note that we were unable to do the same for the integrals in $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$: due to fairly high pole orders, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fiesta</span>]{} has identified thousands of sectors in some cases, and the whole calculation effectively froze. Still, a numerical match within 1% of accuracy for both $6-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ and $8-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ gives us confidence in both the $4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ results and the DRR matrices.
Additionally, we have compared our results to the weight-6 series for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{16}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{8}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{9}}}$ reported in [@CFHMSS15], and find them to match fully.
3-loop 2-particle cut integrals (VVVR, VVRV)
============================================
There are 22 distinct 2-particle cuts in total, all depicted in and . These integrals correspond to 3-loop form factors, and have been calculated in [@HHM07; @HHKS09; @LSS10]. We list these integrals here for completeness, and as a reference to the order in which their values are presented in the ancillary files (as described in ).
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $1,\mathrm{L}_{1110100*11*}$ & $2,\mathrm{H}_{10**0111110}$ & $3,\mathrm{L}_{0111100*01*}$ & $4,\mathrm{H}_{10**0101101}$ & $5,\mathrm{H}_{01**0101001}$ & & & & & & & & $6,\mathrm{N}_{101**101111}$ & $7,\mathrm{L}_{1101110*01*}$ & $8,\mathrm{H}_{10**1110101}$ & $9,\mathrm{H}_{01**1110001}$ & $10,\mathrm{H}_{01**0110011}$ & & & & & & & & $11,\mathrm{N}_{110**101111}$ & $12,\mathrm{N}_{101**110111}$ & $13,\mathrm{H}_{01**0111011}$ & $14,\mathrm{N}_{*011110*111}$ & $15,\mathrm{M}_{111**111111}$ & & & & & & & & $16,\mathrm{N}_{111**111110}$ & $17,\mathrm{L}_{**011101011}$ & $18,\mathrm{H}_{11**1101101}$ & $19,\mathrm{N}_{111**111111}$ & $20,\mathrm{H}_{11**1111111}$ & & & & & & & & $21,\mathrm{J}_{**101111111}$ & $22,\mathrm{J}_{1110111*11*}$ & & &
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & $1,\mathrm{L}_{0111*0010*1}$ & $2,\mathrm{L}_{1101*1010*1}$ & $3,\mathrm{L}_{1110*0011*1}$ & $4,\mathrm{J}_{11*01111*11}$
5-particle phase-space integrals (RRRR)
=======================================
There are 31 master integrals for the 5-particle cuts. All of these have been calculated in [@GMP18], and we list them here for completeness. These integrals will be important for the Cutkosky relations in .
[>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}>p[2.6cm]{}]{} & & & & $1,\mathrm{H}_{00*00*0**0*}$ & $2,\mathrm{M}_{01*101*1***}$ & $3,\mathrm{H}_{10*10*0**0*}$ & $4,\mathrm{N}_{*101*101***}$ & $5,\mathrm{H}_{11*11*0**0*}$ & & & & & & & & $6,\mathrm{H}_{11*11*1**1*}$ & $7,\mathrm{H}_{10*0*0***10}$ & $8,\mathrm{M}_{011*011****}$ & $9,\mathrm{N}_{1*011*01***}$ & $10,\mathrm{H}_{01*10**00**}$ & & & & & & & & $11,\mathrm{N}_{110*110****}$ & $12,\mathrm{H}_{01*10**10**}$ & $13,\mathrm{N}_{11*1**1**10}$ & $14,\mathrm{N}_{101*110****}$ & $15,\mathrm{M}_{111*111****}$ & & & & & & & & $16,\mathrm{N}_{111*111****}$ & $17,\mathrm{H}_{01*0*1***10}$ & $18,\mathrm{M}_{11*1**1*1*1}$ & $19,\mathrm{M}_{11*11****11}$ & $20,\mathrm{M}_{11*111*1***}$ & & & & & & & & $21,\mathrm{N}_{1*11***1*10}$ & $22,\mathrm{N}_{1*11***1*11}$ & $23,\mathrm{N}_{1*111*11***}$ & $24,\mathrm{N}_{11*1**1**11}$ & $25,\mathrm{H}_{11*1*1***11}$ & & & & & & & & $26,\mathrm{H}_{01*01**00**}$ & $27,\mathrm{N}_{*011*110***}$ & $28,\mathrm{H}_{*11*110**0*}$ & $29,\mathrm{N}_{*111*111***}$ & $30,\mathrm{N}_{1*11*1**1*1}$ & & & & & & & & $31,\mathrm{H}_{11*11**11**}$ & & & &
Relations from Cutkosky rules {#sec:Cutkosky-rules}
=============================
By this point we already know all the cuts of VVVV integrals to at least weight 7. A good test for the consistency of all these results is the optical theorem (Cutkosky rules, to be more precise), which relates the discontinuity of the VVVV integrals to its cuts.
The general optical theorem comes from the requirement of unitarity of the scattering matrix $S$, $$S^{\dagger}S=\mathds{1}.$$ Introducing the transition matrix $T$ as $$S=\mathds{1}+iT,$$ it follows that $$iT+\left(iT\right)^{\dagger}=-\left(iT\right)^{\dagger}iT.$$ For a decay of a single particle with momentum $q$, rewriting this relation in terms of the transition amplitudes produces $$2\,\mathrm{Re}\left\langle q\right|iT\left|q\right\rangle =-\left\langle q\right|\left(iT\right)^{\dagger}\left(\sum_{x}\left|x\right\rangle \left\langle x\right|\right)iT\left|q\right\rangle =-\sum_{n}\int d\mathrm{PS}_{n}\,\big|\left\langle p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\right|iT\mid q\rangle\,\big|^{2}.$$ This is the optical theorem. Note that once the transition amplitude is expanded in terms of individual Feynman diagrams, the right-hand side will consist precisely of our cut integrals as in eq. .
Cutkosky rules [@Cutkosky60; @tHV74] provide a stronger form of this relation that holds not only for the whole transition amplitude $\left\langle q\right|iT\left|q\right\rangle $, but for each individual Feynman diagram $F$ that comprise it too, $$F+F^{*}=-\sum_{i}\mathrm{Cut}_{i}F,\label{eq:cutkosky}$$ where the sum goes over all possible cuts of the diagram, each cut being a partition into two sides, with the right-hand side complex-conjugated, and the propagators between sides set on shell, exactly like in eq. .
To write down these relations for the VVVV master integrals in this convenient form, we’ll augment our integrals with Feynman rules stemming from a simple scalar field theory with the Lagrangian of the form $$L=\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial\phi\right)^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{3}}{3!}\phi^{3}+\frac{\lambda_{4}}{4!}\phi^{4}+\dots.$$
The momenta-space Feynman rules corresponding to this Lagrangian are $$\fig{3pt}=i\lambda_{3}\hspace{4em}\fig{4pt}=i\lambda_{4}\hspace{4em}\fig{5pt}=\dots$$ $$\fig{propagator}=\frac{i}{p^{2}+i0}\hspace{4em}\fig{cut-propagator}=2\pi\delta^{+}\!\left(p^{2}\right)$$
An additional prescription for cut integrals is this: every vertex and propagator to the right side of the cut needs to be conjugated.
Note that the values of $\lambda_{n}$ are not important for us here, because a cut of a diagram will have the same overall $\lambda$ factor as the initial diagram, which will thus factor out from eq. .
With this in mind, writing down eq. for each Feynman diagram corresponding to a VVVV master integral, and mapping the cuts onto our master integrals, we obtain the following relations: $$\begin{aligned}
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/1}= & +2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/1}-2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvrv/3}\label{eq:ot-1}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/2}= & -I\,\smallfig{vvvr/3}+I\,\smallfig{vvrv/1}+\smallfig{vvrr/4}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/3}= & +2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/1}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/4}= & +I\,\smallfig{vvvr/9}+\smallfig{vvrr/3}-\smallfig{vrrv/3}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/5}= & +2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/4}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/6}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/2}+4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/9}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/7}= & -\smallfig{rrrr/1}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/8}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/4}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/3}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/9}= & +2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/5}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/7}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/10}= & +2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/6}-\smallfig{vrrv/2}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/11}= & +\smallfig{vvrr/7}+I\,\smallfig{vrrr/1}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/12}= & +2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/8}+4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/5}-4\,\smallfig{rrrr/8}-\\
& -\smallfig{rrrr/2}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/13}= & +I\,\smallfig{vvvr/10}+\smallfig{vvrr/10}-I\,\smallfig{vrrr/2}-\\
& -\smallfig{rrrr/10}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/14}= & +2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/16}+4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/12}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/17}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/15}= & +I\,\smallfig{vvvr/5}+I\,\smallfig{vrrr/16}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/16}= & -I\,\smallfig{vvvr/7}+I\,\smallfig{vvrv/2}+I\,\smallfig{vvvr/17}-\\
& -2I\,\smallfig{vrrr/19}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/17}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/8}-2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/7}+2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/23}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/18}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/11}+2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/12}+2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/24}-\\
& -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/8}-\smallfig{rrrr/11}-\smallfig{rrrr/9}-\nonumber \\
& -\smallfig{rrrr/4}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/19}= & +I\,\smallfig{vvvr/13}+\smallfig{vvrr/14}-2I\,\smallfig{vrrr/10}+\\
& +I\,\smallfig{vrrr/25}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/12}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/20}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/16}+2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/18}+4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/27}-\\
& -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/11}-4\,\smallfig{rrrr/13}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/21}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/21}= & +I\,\smallfig{vvvr/6}-I\,\smallfig{vvvr/14}+2\,\smallfig{vvrr/15}+\\
& +2I\,\smallfig{vrrr/18}-I\,\smallfig{vrrr/30}-4\,\smallfig{rrrr/14}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/22}= & +2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/2}-\smallfig{vrrv/4}-\smallfig{rrrr/26}\\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/23}= & +I\,\smallfig{vvvr/12}+2\,\smallfig{vvrr/9}-\smallfig{vrrv/5}+\label{eq:ot-23-coupled-VVRR}\\
& +\smallfig{vvrr/11}-2I\,\smallfig{vrrr/3}-I\,\smallfig{vrrr/6}+\nonumber \\
& +I\,\smallfig{vrrr/17}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/27}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/24}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/18}-\smallfig{vrrv/6}+2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/13}+\\
& +2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/21}-\smallfig{rrrr/5}-\smallfig{rrrr/28}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/25}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/20}+4\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/21}-\smallfig{vrrv/7}+\\
& +4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/15}+4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/33}+2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/20}-\nonumber \\
& -2\,\smallfig{rrrr/6}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/31}-4\,\smallfig{rrrr/25}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/26}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/15}+4\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/17}+4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/26}+\\
& +2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/31}+4\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/13}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/15}-\nonumber \\
& -2\,\smallfig{rrrr/20}-4\,\smallfig{rrrr/19}-4\,\smallfig{rrrr/18}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/27}= & -2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvr/19}+2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/20}-\smallfig{vrrv/8}+\label{eq:ot-27-coupled-VVRR}\\
& +2\,\mathrm{Re}\,\smallfig{vvrr/19}+2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/22}+2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/32}+\nonumber \\
& +2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/29}+2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/28}-2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vrrr/14}-\nonumber \\
& -\smallfig{rrrr/16}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/24}-\smallfig{rrrr/23}-\nonumber \\
& -2\,\smallfig{rrrr/30}-2\,\smallfig{rrrr/22}-\smallfig{rrrr/29}\nonumber \\
2\,\mathrm{Im}\,\smallfig{vvvv/28}= & -I\,\smallfig{vvvr/22}-I\,\smallfig{vvrv/4}+I\,\smallfig{vvvr/21}+\label{eq:ot-28}\\
& +2\,\smallfig{vvrr/22}-2\,\smallfig{vrrv/9}+I\,\smallfig{vrrr/34}+\nonumber \\
& +4I\,\smallfig{vrrr/35}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Inserting the values of our cut integrals into these relations, we find that they all hold precisely. This concludes our cross-check.
Dimensional recurrence relations for 3-particle cut integrals {#sec:drr-for-3cut}
=============================================================
In we have postponed solving the dimensional recurrence relations for 3-particle cut master integrals because we did not have enough information to fix all the $\omega_i$. Since that time we have obtained multiple terms of the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ expansion, as well as the Cutkosky relations. This information combined will be enough to fix $\omega_i$ and solve the DRR. Such a solution will upgrade our knowledge of 3-particle cut integrals from weight-7 series to weight-12, and more generally will provide expressions that can be evaluated in arbitrary $d$ to arbitrary ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ order numerically with any desired precision.
DRA method by example: VRRV {#sec:drr-for-vrrv}
---------------------------
We have already gone through the process of solving DRR in the simpler case of VRRR integrals in . Let us now consider the more complicated cases. To summarize, following the “dimensional recurrence and analyticity” (DRA) method described in [@Lee09], to solve DRR in the form of eq. for a given integral, one needs to:
1. Solve all integrals in subsectors.
2. Choose a semi-open stripe of width 2 in the complex plane, such that $\Re d \in (d_0,d_0+2]$ or $\Re d \in [d_0,d_0+2)$, and restrict the analysis to this stripe.
3. Construct the homogeneous solution ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ via eq. , trying to minimize the number of its zeros on the chosen stripe.
4. Construct the particular solution ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ via eq. .
5. Determine the set of poles and their multiplicities of ${J\!\left(d\right)}$, ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{-1}\!\left(d\right)}$, and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ on the chosen stripe.
6. Construct an ansatz for the periodic function ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ by looking at the poles and the behaviour at $\Im d\to\pm\infty$ of ${J\!\left(d\right)}$, ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{-1}\!\left(d\right)}$, and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$.
7. Fix the constants in the ansatz by expanding eq. near the poles, and/or other considerations.
Let us illustrate these steps using a simple, but non trivial case of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRV}_{8}}}$ from . The VRRV family of integrals is considerably simpler than the VVRR, because the loop part of these integrals factorizes into a product of two one-loop integrals, for which arbitrary-$d$ expressions are known (see ), and which simplifies the pole analysis and makes a numerical evaluation of the integrals in arbitrary $d$ easy via Monte-Carlo integration.
We shall restrict our analysis to the strip of $\Re d\in(6,8]$, because all normalized VRRV integrals are finite on it. The reason is that IR divergences are suppressed at $d\ge6$, and surface UV divergences are cancelled by the normalization of eq. . We can verify this finiteness numerically via Monte-Carlo integration, which can be performed by parametrizing the three-particle phase-space element entering eq. via eq. , and using the analytical expressions for the remaining two one-loop amplitudes found in . The result for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRV}_{8}}}$ is presented on ; it is finite as expected.
### The homogeneous solution ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ {#the-homogeneous-solution-ensuremathmathcalhleftdright .unnumbered}
Next, to construct the homogeneous solution to eq. , we need the diagonal element of the DRR matrix, $M_{ii}$. For ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRV}_{8}}}$ it has the form of $${M_{ii}\!\left(d\right)} = \frac{3^6}{5^5}
\frac{ \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{7}{3}\right) \left(\frac{d}{2}-2\right)^2 \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{5}{3}\right) \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{2}{3}\right) \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\right)^2 \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{1}{3}\right)}{\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{11}{5}\right) \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{9}{5}\right) \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{8}{5}\right) \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{3}{2}\right)^2 \left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{7}{5}\right) \left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)^2}.$$ Note that the constant subtracted from $d/2$ in the factors is always $\le7/3$. This means that it is possible to construct such a ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ that is free of poles and zeros at $d>14/3$. Using eq. and choosing the first form of factors does precisely that, resulting in $$\label{eq:vrrv8-h}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}=
\left( \frac{3^6}{5^5} \right)^{\frac{d}{2}}
\frac{ {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{7}{3}\right)} {\Gamma^2\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{5}{3}\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{2}{3}\right)} {\Gamma^2\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{1}{3}\right)} }{ {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{11}{5}\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{9}{5}\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{8}{5}\right)} {\Gamma^2\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{3}{2}\right)} {\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-\frac{7}{5}\right)} {\Gamma^2\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)} }.$$ This answer can also be obtained via the `HomogeneousSolution` function from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} package. This solution is indeed finite and free from zeroes on the stripe $(6,8]$ as can be seen on .
\
### The particular solution ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ {#the-particular-solution-ensuremathmathcalrleftdright .unnumbered}
With ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ ready, the particular solution ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ can be constructed via eq. . The numerical evaluation of the nested infinite sums in that formula is the main functionality of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} package, and with its help we can plot ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ on $d\in(6,8]$ with arbitrary precision in many points. The result can be seen on . From this plot it is then easy to find the position of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ poles, $$\label{eq:vrrv8-poles}
d_i = \left\{ \frac{32}{5},\, \frac{13}{2},\, \frac{20}{3},\, \frac{34}{5},\, 7,\, \frac{36}{5},\, \frac{22}{3},\, \frac{15}{2},\, \frac{38}{5},\, 8\right\}.$$ Using [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} again, we can now evaluate the series for ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ at $d=d_i-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, and find out the multiplicity of the poles. Only $d=7$ and $d=8$ turn out to be double poles, other poles are single.
Because ${J\!\left(d\right)}$ has no poles, and ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}^{-1}\!\left(d\right)}$ has neither poles nor zeros on the stripe $(6,8]$, from eq. it follows that ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ must have the same pole structure as ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$.
### The ansatz for the periodic function ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ {#the-ansatz-for-the-periodic-function-omegaleftdright .unnumbered}
With this information it is now possible to construct an ansatz for ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$. Note that just as it was for VRRR integrals, applying eq. to eq. the asymptotic of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ at $\Im d\to\pm\infty$ can be found as $$\abs{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)}} \approx
\frac{1}{4} \left( \frac{3^6}{5^5} \right)^{\Re \frac{d}{2}} \abs{\Im d}^2.$$ With similar arguments as in , one can also show that $\abs{{J\!\left(d\right)}}$ and $\abs{{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}}$ asymptotically behave as $\abs{\Im d}^\alpha$, for some $\alpha$, and thus, so does $\abs{{\omega\!\left(d\right)}}$. For VRRR integrals ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ was free from poles, and together with this asymptotic that meant that ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ was a constant. The difference with the case of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRV}_{8}}}$ is that ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ does have poles to compensate for the poles of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$. To deal with them observe that if one is able to subtract from ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ an expression that would cancel its poles while simultaneously not altering the form of its asymptotic behavior, then the resulting difference will have no poles, and by the same argument could only be a constant.
For a function that cancels a pole at $d_i$, but does not spoil the asymptotic behavior at $\Im d\to\pm\infty$, one convenient choice is a cotangent function, $$\label{eq:cotangent}
{C_{d_i}\!\left(d\right)} \equiv {\cot\!\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\left(d-d_i\right)\right)},$$ which in terms of eq. is just $${C_{d_i}\!\left(z\right)}=i\frac{z+z_i}{z-z_i},$$ one of the simplest functions with a single pole that is constant at both $z\to0$ and $z\to\infty$.
The whole ansatz can then be constructed as a sum of a constant term and ${C^n_{d_i}\!\left(d\right)}$ for each pole of multiplicity $n$, $$\label{eq:omega-ansatz}
{\omega\!\left(d\right)} = a_0 + \sum_{i,k} a_{i,k} \, {C_{d_i}^k\!\left(d\right)},$$ where $a_{i,k}$ are unknown are constants that need to be determined. Specifically for ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VRRV}_{8}}}$ we might use $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vrrv8-omega-ansatz}
\omega(d) =
a_0 \Big[ 1& + a_1 \, {C_{\frac{32}{5}}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_2 \, {C_{\frac{13}{2}}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_3 \, {C_{\frac{20}{3}}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_4 \, {C_{\frac{34}{5}}\!\left(d\right)}
+\\
&
+ a_{5,1} \, {C_{7}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_{5,2} \, {C^2_{7}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_6 \, {C_{\frac{36}{5}}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_7 \, {C_{\frac{22}{3}}\!\left(d\right)}
+\nonumber\\
&
+ a_8 \, {C_{\frac{15}{2}}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_9 \, {C_{\frac{38}{5}}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_{10,1} \, {C_{8}\!\left(d\right)}
+ a_{10,2} \, {C^2_{8}\!\left(d\right)}
\Big].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
### Fixing the constants in the ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ ansatz {#fixing-the-constants-in-the-omegaleftdright-ansatz .unnumbered}
To fix these constants numerically it is enough to insert the series for ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d_i-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)}$ obtained via [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} into eq. , and for each $d_i$ from eq. demand the cancellation of poles, $$\label{eq:drr-cancel-poles}
\lim_{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\to 0} {\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\left({\omega\!\left(d_i-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)} {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d_i-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)} + {{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d_i-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)}\right) = 0.$$ Note that because ${J\!\left(d\right)}$ is finite, it drops out from these equations.
After $a_i$ have all been fixed numerically with high enough precision, we can reconstruct their analytic values, obtaining the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:vrrv8-ansatz-constants}
&a_0 =\frac{2^6 5^{10} \sqrt{5} \pi^2}{3^{12}},\quad
a_1 = -a_9 = \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}},\quad
-a_2 = a_8 = \frac{45}{8},\\
&a_3 = -a_7 = \frac{10}{\sqrt{3}},\quad
-a_4 = a_6 = \frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}},\quad
a_{5,1} = a_{10,1} = 0,\nonumber\\
&a_{5,2} = \frac{45}{16},\quad
a_{10,2} = -\frac{29}{16}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Reconstructing the rational constants here is easy enough; for the irrational ones we had to resort to using an educated guess and the Inverse Symbolic Calculator[^2]. The result of inserting these values into the ansatz is plotted on .
With the constants from eq. now fixed, all that is left is to use [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dream</span>]{} to calculate the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series for ${J\!\left(4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)}$, and restore them in terms of MZVs. The results of this calculation for all VRRV integrals up to weight 6 are listed in , and weight-12 results along with the full expressions in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} format are available in the ancillary files, as described in . All of these results of course match what we have calculated via direct integration in .
Solving DRR for VVRR integrals
------------------------------
The case of the VVRR integrals brings another complication on top of what VRRV had: not only the periodic function ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$, but also the full normalized integral ${J\!\left(d\right)}$ has poles now. These are ultraviolet poles coming from subdivergences. For VRRR and VRRV integrals UV poles only came from surface divergences, and thus were suppressed by the normalization factors from eq. ; this is not the case for VVRR integrals.
Knowing the location and multiplicity of these poles is important because the ansatz for ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ from eq. must now include them too. To determine these locations one can apply [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fiesta</span>]{} to the same parametrization as in .
The way poles of ${J\!\left(d\right)}$ complicate the calculations is by preventing the usage of eq. when ${J\!\left(d_i\right)}$ is divergent, because ${J\!\left(d_i-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)}$ no longer drops out. In these cases one needs to find additional sources of information to fix the corresponding constants in the ansatz.
### VVRR integrals entering Cutkosky relations alone {#vvrr-integrals-entering-cutkosky-relations-alone .unnumbered}
One source of additional information are the Cutkosky relations from . Looking closely at relations in eq. through eq. , one can see that most of them contain no more that one VVRR integral. Only ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{9}}}$ with ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{11}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{19}}}$ with ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{20}}}$ enter in pairs in eqs. and respectively. The rest of VVRR integrals can be directly determined from those relations, since we already have DRR solutions for all the other cuts.
Practically speaking, to obtain VVRR integrals in the same format as the other DRR solution, we only use Cutkosky relations numerically: to evaluate ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ in 1000 points using eq. with 100 digits of precision. From this plot we determine the poles of ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$, construct an ansatz in terms of the cotangent functions from eq. , fix its constants numerically via the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mathematica</span>]{} function `FindFit`, and reconstruct them analytically (more on this later).
The DRR solutions obtained this way can be double-checked by inserting their numerical values into the Cutkosky relations at multiple $d$ with high precision, by inserting their reconstructed analytical expressions into the same relations, and also by comparing them with the series at $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ calculated in . All of these checks hold.
### VVRR~9~ and VVRR~11~ {#vvrr9-and-vvrr11 .unnumbered}
Integrals ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{9}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{11}}}$ enter the Cutkosky relation eq. in a pair. Being different cuts of the same VVVV integral both have identical diagonal DRR matrix elements, $M_{9,9} = M_{11,11}$, and thus identical homogeneous solutions. It might seem like untangling them is impossible, but because they enter with different prefactors—one being $2B$, and the other $B^*$—and because each Cutkosky relation can be split into the real and imaginary parts, this turns out to be enough to uniquely fix both ${\omega_9\!\left(d\right)}$ and ${\omega_{11}\!\left(d\right)}$ just from eq. , and then proceed as explained above.
### VVRR~19~ and VVRR~20~ {#vvrr19-and-vvrr20 .unnumbered}
In the case of ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{19}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{20}}}$ the Cutkosky relation from eq. only constrains the sum of ${\omega_{19}\!\left(\nu\right)} + {\omega_{20}\!\left(\nu\right)}$. For these integrals we proceed in the same way as in , using eq. with $d_i$ for which ${J\!\left(d_i\right)}$ is finite—this is enough to fix most of the constants. For the rest, we compare the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series for ${J\!\left(4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)}$ with the ones calculated in : using the first few terms of those series is enough to fix the remaining constants. The rest of the terms can be used to cross-check the results, together with eq. , which provides another independent check.
### Restoring the analytic expressions for the $\omega$ ansatz constants {#restoring-the-analytic-expressions-for-the-omega-ansatz-constants .unnumbered}
Once the constants $a_{i,k}$ in the ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ ansatz from eq. are fixed numerically with high precision, it is desired—even though not strictly speaking necessary—to reconstruct their analytical forms.
For most integrals an educated guess and the Inverse Symbolic Calculator do the job, but ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{17}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{19}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{VVRR}_{20}}}$ proved to be a challenge.
The basic difficulty is that as we have seen in eq. these constants contain algebraic numbers, and for example an MZV basis with rational coefficients is insufficient to reconstruct them. In the simple cases when $a_{i,k}$ is a product of an algebraic number and some power of $\pi$, one can try dividing its value by consecutive powers of $\pi$, and reconstructing the rest in terms of radicals. If however $a_{i,k}$ is a sum of terms with different $\pi$ powers, or even general MZVs, one would need to split these terms beforehand.
Fortunately we have experimentally observed that the particular solutions ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}}}\!\left(d\right)}$ for each of these integrals can in fact be reconstructed in terms of an MZV basis with rational coefficients. Keeping in mind that the full solution ${J\!\left(d\right)}$ should be representable in terms of MZVs as well, from eq. it follows that ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(d\right)} {\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ should be too. Then, expanding around $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, $$\label{eq:omegaH-MZV}
{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)} {\omega\!\left(4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)} = \sum\limits_{k=-4}^{\infty} c_k\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^k,
\qquad{c_k=\sum_{j_1, j_2, \dots} c_{k,j}\,\zeta_{j_1}\zeta_{j_2}\dots},$$ where constants $c_{k,j}$ are rational numbers, and can be reconstructed analytically via PSLQ.
From here it is possible to evaluate the left hand side numerically using eq. for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}$ and eq. for $\omega$, reconstruct $c_{k,j}$ via PSLQ in the basis of MZVs, then evaluate the left hand side again symbolically, and finally solve for the constants $a_{i,k}$ from the $\omega$ ansatz. The radicals we have seen in eq. will appear here as the result of the expansion of ${{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}\!\left(4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}\right)}$ in an ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series.
The practical complication here is that fixing $\mathcal{O}(20)$ of $a_{i,k}$ constants this way means working with about the same number of terms in the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series in eq. , and thus with higher and higher transcendentality weights, and larger and larger MZV bases, all requiring increasingly high numerical precision. This quickly becomes computationally expensive.
The trick is to exploit the observation that $a_{i,k}$ seem to only contain powers of $\pi$, and are free from MZVs otherwise. With this conjecture in mind, we can evaluate the left hand side of eq. symbolically, drop all terms multiplied by MZVs that are not powers of $\pi$, then evaluate the resulting series numerically, reconstruct them via PSLQ in the basis of even powers of $\pi$, and finally return to the symbolical series, solving for $a_{i,k}$ in the form of $$a_{i,k}=\sum_p a_{i,k,p} \, \pi^{2p},$$ where $a_{i,k,p}$ are algebraic numbers. Because the basis of $\pi$ powers is much smaller than the general MZV basis, this procedure becomes computationally tractable.
With all ${\omega\!\left(d\right)}$ ansatz constants finally fixed, we proceed to evaluate the VVRR master integrals as ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series around $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ with 4000 digits of precision, and restore the results in terms of MZVs up to weight 12 using the basis from . These series truncated after weight 6 are listed in . The full weight-12 results along with the expressions in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} format are available in the ancillary files, as described in . As a final check, these reconstructed series match what we have calculated up to weight 7 via direct integration in .
Conclusions
===========
We have presented the calculation of the previously unknown master integrals for 3- and 4-particle cuts of massless four-loop propagators. Together with the already known 2- and 5-particle cuts this completes the knowledge of all such cuts. Both direct integration over the phase space and the solution of dimensional recurrence relations were used in the calculation, with the latter finally resulting in expressions that allow the numerical evaluation of the integrals as ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series to arbitrary order with arbitrary precision via the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} package.
In we have provided analytic expressions for 3- and 4-particle cut master integrals restored via PSLQ in the basis of MZVs up to weight 6. The ancillary files described in contain analytic results for all cut structures (including 2- and 5-particle cuts, as well as the uncut virtual loop integrals) up to weight 12, as well as the corresponding [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} files. We hope that these results gathered in one place will serve as a complete reference.
All the results have been cross-checked via numerical integration, by comparing values obtained via different methods, by comparing with the known results from the literature, as well as by showing consistency with Cutkosky rules.
The same methods used here are applicable to the cuts of five-loop propagators as well, although we expect that calculation to be harder for two reasons: firstly, solving IBP relations for five-loop problems is computationally much more challenging; secondly, five-loop propagators will have multiple master integrals per sector, so we expect the appearance of coupled blocks in the DRR equations, as well as the appearance of elliptic integrals in the amplitudes. Still, this is one viable direction for further research.
Another direction to go is investigating massive propagators and their cuts, with the massless ones serving as boundary conditions for the differential equations.
Finally, our original motivation of calculating semi-inclusive cut integrals and time-like splitting functions through them now becomes feasible, with the presented cut integrals allowing us to fix the integration constants in the differential equations for the semi-inclusive master integrals.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
The work of V.M. is supported by the DFG with the grant MO 1801/4-1 within research unit FOR 2926 “Next Generation Perturbative QCD for Hadron Structure: Preparing for the Electron-Ion Collider”. The work of A.P. is supported by the Foundation for the Advancement of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics “BASIS” and by the RFBR grant No. 17-02-00872-a. This article is based upon work from COST Action CA16201 PARTICLEFACE supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology).
We would like to thank Sven-Olaf Moch for support and for providing the original motivation for this work; Oleksandr Gituliar for initiating this project, and helping during the early stages of the calculations; and Vsevolod Chestnov for discussions about the properties of Goncharov polylogarithms.
Results {#sec:Results}
=======
Here we provide the values of the master integrals for 3- and 4-particle cuts of 4-loop propagators as ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-series around $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$. The normalization of the integrals is as discussed in , with prefactors $B$ and $\mathrm{PS}_n$ defined in eqs. and respectively.
For brevity, the series here are truncated after transcendentality weight 6, which is enough to cover all the ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$-finite parts of the integrals. The full results up to weight 12 are available in the ancillary files on arXiv, see for a description of those.
Note that in all our results MZVs are defined as $$\label{eq:mzv}
\zeta_{a,b,\dots} = \sum_{n_1>n_2>\ldots>0}\frac{{\mathrm{sgn}(a)}^{n_1}}{n_1^{|a|}}\frac{{\mathrm{sgn}(b)}^{n_2}}{n_2^{|b|}}\ldots,$$ which is a common “physicist” notation adopted by e.g. [@BBV09; @HM07], but which has the opposite order of parameters compared to the “mathematician” notation used in [@Goncharov98; @Panzer14].
VRRR {#sec:results-vrrr}
----
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{VRRR}_{1} & =\smallfig{vrrr/1}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[1+\frac{5}{6}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{143}{36}-2\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{4409}{216}-\\
& -\frac{5}{3}\zeta_{2}-14\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{136295}{1296}-\frac{143}{18}\zeta_{2}-\frac{35}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{142}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(\frac{4171625}{7776}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{4409}{108}\zeta_{2}-\frac{1001}{18}\zeta_{3}-\frac{71}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}+28\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-378\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(\frac{126614375}{46656}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{136295}{648}\zeta_{2}-\frac{30863}{108}\zeta_{3}-\frac{10153}{90}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{70}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-315\zeta_{5}-\frac{1772}{5}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +98\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{2} & =\smallfig{vrrr/2}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[3+\Big(14-6\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{141}{2}+5\zeta_{2}-\\
& -60\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{1401}{4}-23\zeta_{2}+68\zeta_{3}-141\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{13901}{8}-129\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -146\zeta_{3}+\frac{1733}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}+84\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-1890\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(\frac{138177}{16}-\frac{1345}{2}\zeta_{2}-867\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{2801}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}-70\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+2331\zeta_{5}-\frac{65307}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+240\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{3} & =\smallfig{vrrr/3}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[3\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{59}{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{203}{2}-12\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\\
& +\Big(-144+118\zeta_{2}-108\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(72-406\zeta_{2}+1062\zeta_{3}-246\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\nonumber \\
& +\Big(576\zeta_{2}-3654\zeta_{3}+2419\zeta_{2}^{2}+216\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-3348\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-288\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +5184\zeta_{3}-8323\zeta_{2}^{2}-2124\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+32922\zeta_{5}-\frac{111702}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+792\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{4} & =\smallfig{vrrr/4}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[1+\frac{7}{3}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{193}{18}-4\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{5611}{108}-\\
& -\frac{28}{3}\zeta_{2}-24\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{166621}{648}-\frac{386}{9}\zeta_{2}-56\zeta_{3}-\frac{192}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(\frac{4985347}{3888}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{5611}{27}\zeta_{2}-\frac{772}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{448}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+96\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-528\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(\frac{149515789}{23328}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{166621}{162}\zeta_{2}-\frac{11222}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{6176}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}+224\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-1232\zeta_{5}-\frac{1824}{5}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +288\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{5} & =\smallfig{vrrr/5}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[10\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{445}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(980-68\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\\
& +\Big(-\frac{12290}{3}+\frac{3026}{3}\zeta_{2}-396\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(13490-6664\zeta_{2}+5874\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{2732}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(-40950+\frac{83572}{3}\zeta_{2}-38808\zeta_{3}+\frac{121574}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}+2104\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -7780\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(122850-91732\zeta_{2}+162228\zeta_{3}-\frac{267736}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{93628}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{346210}{3}\zeta_{5}-\frac{58376}{15}\zeta_{2}^{3}+6228\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{6} & =\smallfig{vrrr/6}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[9\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{177}{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{609}{2}-36\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\\
& +\Big(-432+354\zeta_{2}-204\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(216-1218\zeta_{2}+2006\zeta_{3}-\frac{1512}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\nonumber \\
& +\Big(1728\zeta_{2}-6902\zeta_{3}+\frac{14868}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+816\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-4116\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-864\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +9792\zeta_{3}-\frac{51156}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-8024\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+40474\zeta_{5}-\frac{19296}{7}\zeta_{2}^{3}+2376\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{7} & =\smallfig{vrrr/7}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\Big(-12+12\zeta_{2}\Big)+\Big(-74-34\zeta_{2}+\\
& +132\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-450+72\zeta_{2}-374\zeta_{3}+\frac{1608}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-2570+296\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +552\zeta_{3}-\frac{4556}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-432\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+4836\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(-14130+1800\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +1776\zeta_{3}+1104\zeta_{2}^{2}+1224\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-13702\zeta_{5}+\frac{158912}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-1056\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{8} & =\smallfig{vrrr/8}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[6\zeta_{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-59\zeta_{2}+72\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\\
& +\Big(203\zeta_{2}-708\zeta_{3}+\frac{927}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(-288\zeta_{2}+2436\zeta_{3}-\frac{18231}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -264\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+2862\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(144\zeta_{2}-3456\zeta_{3}+\frac{62727}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}+2596\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -28143\zeta_{5}+\frac{94067}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-768\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{9} & =\smallfig{vrrr/9}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\Big(-12+12\zeta_{2}\Big)+\Big(-62-46\zeta_{2}+\\
& +144\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-352+82\zeta_{2}-552\zeta_{3}+\frac{1872}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-1924+244\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +696\zeta_{3}-\frac{7176}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-432\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+5688\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(-10268+1400\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +1440\zeta_{3}+\frac{7608}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+1656\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-21804\zeta_{5}+5472\zeta_{2}^{3}-864\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{10} & =\smallfig{vrrr/10}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-12\zeta_{3}+\Big(34\zeta_{3}-\frac{114}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-96\zeta_{3}+\\
& +\frac{323}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+168\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-432\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-156\zeta_{3}-\frac{912}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-476\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +1224\zeta_{5}-\frac{4062}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+480\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{11} & =\smallfig{vrrr/11}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[2\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{89}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(196+20\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\\
& +\Big(-\frac{2458}{3}-\frac{890}{3}\zeta_{2}+316\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(2698+1960\zeta_{2}-\frac{14062}{3}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{4348}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(-8190-\frac{24580}{3}\zeta_{2}+30968\zeta_{3}-\frac{193486}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-1848\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +15028\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(24570+26980\zeta_{2}-\frac{388364}{3}\zeta_{3}+\frac{426104}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+27412\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{668746}{3}\zeta_{5}+\frac{498824}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-5380\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{12} & =\smallfig{vrrr/12}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[24\zeta_{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-164\zeta_{3}+\frac{372}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(464\zeta_{3}-\\
& -\frac{2542}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-264\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+1368\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-456\zeta_{3}+\frac{7192}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+1804\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -9348\zeta_{5}+\frac{33024}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-780\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{13} & =\smallfig{vrrr/13}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-3\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}+\frac{191}{6}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(-\frac{73}{9}+\\
& +42\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(-1704-\frac{1285}{3}\zeta_{2}+\frac{1394}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{132922}{9}+\frac{6268}{9}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{42197}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{6338}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{685640}{9}+\frac{33116}{3}\zeta_{2}+10222\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{189191}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{7124}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{66670}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(\frac{2702030}{9}-\frac{870556}{9}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{637816}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{88733}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{209378}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{1962631}{9}\zeta_{5}+\frac{2268184}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}-\nonumber \\
& -4818\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{14} & =\smallfig{vrrr/14}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{16}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}-\frac{238}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(-\frac{2327}{9}-\\
& -\frac{196}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{26788}{9}+\frac{4378}{9}\zeta_{2}-600\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-\frac{129430}{9}+\frac{6812}{9}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +5080\zeta_{3}-1334\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(\frac{147622}{3}-\frac{184828}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{6410}{3}\zeta_{3}+\frac{36509}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +3592\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-22188\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(-150150+\frac{986380}{9}\zeta_{2}-128560\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{53195}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{95476}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+207498\zeta_{5}-\frac{624186}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+10044\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{15} & =\smallfig{vrrr/15}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[14\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{427}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{1838}{9}-\\
& -\frac{380}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{37964}{9}+\frac{12998}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{2924}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{343292}{9}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{41716}{9}\zeta_{2}+\frac{104942}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{5872}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(\frac{1837780}{9}-\frac{130648}{9}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{410540}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{1094576}{45}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{16304}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{95596}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-890644+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1894120}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{223568}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{972364}{9}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{578600}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{3582094}{9}\zeta_{5}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{2594504}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}+13656\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{16} & =\smallfig{vrrr/16}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{17} & =\smallfig{vrrr/17}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[48\zeta_{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-472\zeta_{3}+\frac{984}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\\
& +\Big(1624\zeta_{3}-\frac{9676}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+192\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+2712\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-2304\zeta_{3}+\frac{33292}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -1888\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-26668\zeta_{5}+\frac{124784}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+192\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{18} & =\smallfig{vrrr/18}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-\frac{96}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\Big(112\zeta_{2}^{2}+144\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\\
& -696\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-\frac{1776}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-840\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+4060\zeta_{5}-\frac{26672}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+1008\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{19} & =\smallfig{vrrr/19}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\Big(-12+12\zeta_{2}\Big)+\Big(-26-58\zeta_{2}+\\
& +108\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-82+44\zeta_{2}-522\zeta_{3}+\frac{1212}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-254-8\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +396\zeta_{3}-\frac{5858}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+216\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+2484\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(-778-16\zeta_{2}-72\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{4444}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-1044\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-12006\zeta_{5}+\frac{13128}{5}\zeta_{2}^{3}+972\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{20} & =\smallfig{vrrr/20}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{50}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{1325}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(-\frac{482}{3}-\\
& -\frac{440}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{76900}{9}+\frac{17420}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{4040}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-66216-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{29960}{3}\zeta_{2}+\frac{154100}{9}\zeta_{3}-3488\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(\frac{3077692}{9}+\frac{193520}{9}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{732680}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{129920}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{640}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{138040}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-1477440+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{97120}{3}\zeta_{2}+\frac{1134640}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{583096}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{160}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{5131660}{9}\zeta_{5}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1085488}{21}\zeta_{2}^{3}+2720\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{21} & =\smallfig{vrrr/21}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{42}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{497}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-168\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\\
& +552\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(\frac{2247}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+1988\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-6532\zeta_{5}+\frac{21874}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-768\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{22} & =\smallfig{vrrr/22}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{16}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}-\frac{298}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(-151-\\
& -\frac{160}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{19439}{9}+\frac{3376}{9}\zeta_{2}-592\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-\frac{91330}{9}+\frac{2008}{3}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{12928}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{7648}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(\frac{91964}{3}-\frac{123716}{9}\zeta_{2}+\frac{17420}{3}\zeta_{3}+\frac{170392}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +2112\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-23496\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(-\frac{218764}{3}+\frac{457792}{9}\zeta_{2}-148424\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{186116}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-17440\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+179108\zeta_{5}-\frac{828648}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+11432\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{23} & =\smallfig{vrrr/23}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[24\zeta_{3}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-68\zeta_{3}+\frac{312}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(48\zeta_{3}-\\
& -\frac{884}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-432\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+1488\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{624}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+1224\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-4216\zeta_{5}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{32864}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-1200\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{24} & =\smallfig{vrrr/24}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-6\zeta_{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(59\zeta_{2}-60\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\\
& +\Big(-203\zeta_{2}+590\zeta_{3}-129\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(288\zeta_{2}-2030\zeta_{3}+\frac{2537}{2}\zeta_{2}^{2}+192\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -1806\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-144\zeta_{2}+2880\zeta_{3}-\frac{8729}{2}\zeta_{2}^{2}-1888\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+17759\zeta_{5}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{58089}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+828\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{25} & =\smallfig{vrrr/25}=B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-48\zeta_{3}+\Big(136\zeta_{3}-96\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\\
& +\Big(-384\zeta_{3}+272\zeta_{2}^{2}+672\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-1872\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-624\zeta_{3}-768\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -1904\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+5304\zeta_{5}-\frac{5568}{7}\zeta_{2}^{3}+2400\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{26} & =\smallfig{vrrr/26}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{7}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}+\frac{217}{18}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(-\frac{3014}{9}-\\
& -30\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{12386}{9}+\frac{163}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{422}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{21226}{9}+\frac{18530}{9}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{635}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{214}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{135160}{3}-\frac{36280}{3}\zeta_{2}+\frac{36016}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{5801}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{4612}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{5174}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(\frac{742994}{3}+\frac{48452}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{612964}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{281747}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{61234}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{343535}{9}\zeta_{5}+\frac{2138552}{315}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\frac{15190}{3}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{27} & =\smallfig{vrrr/27}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[2\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{89}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(196+24\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\\
& +\Big(-\frac{2458}{3}-356\zeta_{2}+280\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(2698+2352\zeta_{2}-\frac{12460}{3}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{3292}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(-8190-9832\zeta_{2}+27440\zeta_{3}-\frac{146494}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-600\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +9240\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(24570+32376\zeta_{2}-\frac{344120}{3}\zeta_{3}+\frac{322616}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+8900\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -137060\zeta_{5}+\frac{966272}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}-1620\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{28} & =\smallfig{vrrr/28}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{58}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}-\frac{1633}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(\frac{2990}{9}-\\
& -\frac{340}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{21622}{9}+\frac{9838}{9}\zeta_{2}-480\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-\frac{153638}{9}-\frac{7010}{3}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{15136}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{1294}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(\frac{188774}{3}-\frac{108892}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{139048}{9}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{61961}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}+3512\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-3908\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(-193830+\frac{288952}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{66136}{3}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1228993}{45}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{96748}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{179942}{3}\zeta_{5}+\frac{126054}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+8276\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{29} & =\smallfig{vrrr/29}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{26}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}-\frac{443}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(-\frac{2893}{9}-\\
& -96\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{37001}{9}+\frac{2320}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{2584}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-\frac{177920}{9}+\frac{680}{9}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{65836}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{28048}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(\frac{194738}{3}-\frac{63820}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{43136}{9}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{732388}{45}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{10928}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-28032\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(-183834+\frac{971392}{9}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1405216}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{732362}{45}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{293168}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+248032\zeta_{5}-\frac{2545792}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{39608}{3}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{30} & =\smallfig{vrrr/30}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[72\zeta_{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-420\zeta_{3}+\frac{456}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\\
& +\Big(1332\zeta_{3}-532\zeta_{2}^{2}-1152\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+1824\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-336\zeta_{3}+\frac{8436}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +6720\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-10640\zeta_{5}-\frac{2656}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-4752\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{31} & =\smallfig{vrrr/31}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{38}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}-\frac{239}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(-\frac{7270}{9}-\\
& -124\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{41438}{9}+\frac{1630}{3}\zeta_{2}-564\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{1678}{3}+\frac{14984}{3}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{5530}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{172}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{933718}{9}-\frac{358712}{9}\zeta_{2}+\frac{278552}{9}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{38146}{9}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{16952}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{4300}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(\frac{5766122}{9}+\frac{575704}{9}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{2007832}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{2367992}{45}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{299420}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{678790}{9}\zeta_{5}+\frac{82072}{5}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{52276}{3}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{32} & =\smallfig{vrrr/32}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[36\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}}-\frac{916}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\Big(\frac{1339}{9}-\\
& -208\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{66805}{9}+1920\zeta_{2}-1368\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-\frac{386258}{9}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{29780}{9}\zeta_{2}+\frac{38620}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{12688}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(147080-\frac{225220}{9}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{223600}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{72232}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}+3728\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-34640\zeta_{5}\Big)+\Big(-\frac{1263472}{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{480872}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{453260}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{439760}{9}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{106360}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{985760}{3}\zeta_{5}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{3208376}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}+11624\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{33} & =\smallfig{vrrr/33}=B\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[18\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-175\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(\frac{370}{3}-\frac{488}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\\
& +\Big(6564+\frac{17564}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{3952}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{165664}{3}-\frac{69428}{9}\zeta_{2}+\frac{145456}{9}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -2900\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(288908-\frac{29276}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{619612}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{540178}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{10856}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{125008}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-1243464+\frac{1613084}{9}\zeta_{2}+\frac{250196}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{2389216}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{416660}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{4705888}{9}\zeta_{5}-\frac{2463464}{63}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\frac{32948}{3}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber\\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{34} & =\smallfig{vrrr/34}=B^*\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[60\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^4}-590\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^3}+2030\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^2}+\\
& +\Big(-2880+48\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(1440-472\zeta_{3}+144\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(1624\zeta_{3}-1416\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +1728\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-2304\zeta_{3}+4872\zeta_{2}^{2}-16992\zeta_{5}+\frac{10560}{7}\zeta_{2}^{3}+192\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^2+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^3\right)\Big] \nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRR}_{35} & =\smallfig{vrrr/35}=B^*\,\mathrm{PS}_{4}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[9\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^4}-\frac{177}{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^3}+\Big(\frac{609}{2}-30\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^2}+\\
& +\Big(-432+295\zeta_{2}-294\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(216-1015\zeta_{2}+2891\zeta_{3}-\frac{3414}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\nonumber \\
& +\Big(1440\zeta_{2}-9947\zeta_{3}+\frac{33571}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-492\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-7266\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-720\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +14112\zeta_{3}-\frac{115507}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+4838\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+71449\zeta_{5}-\frac{262796}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-2310\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^2+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^3\right)\Big]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
VVRR {#sec:results-vvrr}
----
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{VVRR}_{1} & =\smallfig{vvrr/1}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-\frac{1}{4}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}-\frac{5}{8}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}-\frac{27}{16}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(-\frac{153}{32}+\\
& +\frac{3}{2}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(-\frac{891}{64}+\frac{15}{4}\zeta_{3}+\frac{9}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(-\frac{5265}{128}+\frac{81}{8}\zeta_{3}+\frac{9}{4}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{21}{2}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\Big(-\frac{31347}{256}+\frac{459}{16}\zeta_{3}+\frac{243}{40}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{105}{4}\zeta_{5}+\frac{36}{7}\zeta_{2}^{3}-\frac{9}{2}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{8}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{2} & =\smallfig{vvrr/2}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{1}{2}+2\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{37}{4}-3\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{343}{8}-\\
& -9\zeta_{2}-15\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{3223}{16}-\frac{87}{2}\zeta_{2}-48\zeta_{3}-\frac{189}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(\frac{30763}{32}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{855}{4}\zeta_{2}-\frac{459}{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{117}{2}\zeta_{2}^{2}+84\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-282\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(\frac{297703}{64}-\frac{8475}{8}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{4449}{4}\zeta_{3}-\frac{1125}{4}\zeta_{2}^{2}+252\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-867\zeta_{5}-\frac{9657}{70}\zeta_{2}^{3}+213\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{3} & =\smallfig{vvrr/3}=\left(B^{*}\right)^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[1+\frac{3}{2}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{11}{2}-2\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(21-\\
& -3\zeta_{2}-10\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(82-11\zeta_{2}-15\zeta_{3}-14\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(324-42\zeta_{2}-55\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -21\zeta_{2}^{2}+20\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-150\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(1288-164\zeta_{2}-210\zeta_{3}-77\zeta_{2}^{2}+30\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -225\zeta_{5}-\frac{476}{5}\zeta_{2}^{3}+50\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{4} & =\smallfig{vvrr/4}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{5} & =\smallfig{vvrr/5}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{1}{2}+2\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{41}{4}-\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{415}{8}-4\zeta_{2}-\\
& -14\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{4175}{16}-\frac{41}{2}\zeta_{2}-56\zeta_{3}-\frac{116}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(\frac{41875}{32}-\frac{415}{4}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -287\zeta_{3}-\frac{464}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+28\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-282\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(\frac{419375}{64}-\frac{4175}{8}\zeta_{2}-\frac{2905}{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{2378}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+112\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-1128\zeta_{5}-\frac{1156}{5}\zeta_{2}^{3}+196\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{6} & =\smallfig{vvrr/6}=\left(B^{*}\right)^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[1+3\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{29}{2}-4\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{285}{4}-\\
& -12\zeta_{2}-24\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{2825}{8}-58\zeta_{2}-72\zeta_{3}-\frac{192}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(\frac{28125}{16}-\nonumber \\
& -285\zeta_{2}-348\zeta_{3}-\frac{576}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+96\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-528\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(\frac{280625}{32}-\frac{2825}{2}\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -1710\zeta_{3}-\frac{2784}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+288\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-1584\zeta_{5}-\frac{1824}{5}\zeta_{2}^{3}+288\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{7} & =\smallfig{vvrr/7}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-\frac{1}{12}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}-\frac{25}{72}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-\frac{691}{432}+\frac{1}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\\
& +\Big(-\frac{20005}{2592}+\frac{25}{18}\zeta_{2}+\frac{5}{2}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(-\frac{590875}{15552}+\frac{691}{108}\zeta_{2}+\frac{125}{12}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{7}{2}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(-\frac{17603125}{93312}+\frac{20005}{648}\zeta_{2}+\frac{3455}{72}\zeta_{3}+\frac{175}{12}\zeta_{2}^{2}-10\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{95}{2}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\Big(-\frac{526406875}{559872}+\frac{590875}{3888}\zeta_{2}+\frac{100025}{432}\zeta_{3}+\frac{4837}{72}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{125}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{2375}{12}\zeta_{5}+\frac{1082}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-\frac{75}{2}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{8}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{8} & =\smallfig{vvrr/8}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{2}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}-\frac{23}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{122}{3}-6\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\\
& +\Big(-146+69\zeta_{2}-\frac{94}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(450-366\zeta_{2}+\frac{1081}{3}\zeta_{3}-26\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\nonumber \\
& +\Big(-1350+1314\zeta_{2}-\frac{5734}{3}\zeta_{3}+299\zeta_{2}^{2}+224\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-422\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(4050-\nonumber \\
& -4050\zeta_{2}+6862\zeta_{3}-1586\zeta_{2}^{2}-2576\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+4853\zeta_{5}-\frac{1552}{21}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{2014}{3}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{9} & =\smallfig{vvrr/9}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}-\frac{13}{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{27}{2}-6\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-9+\\
& +39\zeta_{2}-38\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(-81\zeta_{2}+247\zeta_{3}-\frac{259}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(54\zeta_{2}-513\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{3367}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}+202\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-755\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(342\zeta_{3}-\frac{6993}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}-1313\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{9815}{2}\zeta_{5}-\frac{44701}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}+646\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{10} & =\smallfig{vvrr/10}=\left(B^{*}\right)^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{3}{4}+\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-\frac{19}{8}+\\
& +\frac{5}{2}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(-\frac{551}{16}+\frac{27}{2}\zeta_{2}+\frac{15}{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{9}{2}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(-\frac{8259}{32}+\frac{145}{2}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +60\zeta_{3}+\frac{69}{4}\zeta_{2}^{2}-30\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{165}{2}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(-\frac{103951}{64}+\frac{1535}{4}\zeta_{2}+\frac{1545}{4}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{435}{4}\zeta_{2}^{2}-75\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{1065}{4}\zeta_{5}+\frac{3937}{70}\zeta_{2}^{3}-75\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{11} & =\smallfig{vvrr/11}=\left(B^{*}\right)^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[4\zeta_{3}+\Big(-26\zeta_{3}+12\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\\
& +\Big(54\zeta_{3}-78\zeta_{2}^{2}+28\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+76\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-36\zeta_{3}+162\zeta_{2}^{2}-182\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -494\zeta_{5}+\frac{4412}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-88\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{12} & =\smallfig{vvrr/12}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[2\zeta_{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-13\zeta_{2}+16\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(27\zeta_{2}-\\
& -104\zeta_{3}+\frac{156}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-18\zeta_{2}+216\zeta_{3}-\frac{1014}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-90\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+448\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\Big(-144\zeta_{3}+\frac{2106}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+585\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-2912\zeta_{5}+\frac{34304}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}-401\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{13} & =\smallfig{vvrr/13}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\Big(-2\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-20\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(17\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\\
& +170\zeta_{5}-\frac{448}{15}\zeta_{2}^{3}-42\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{14} & =\smallfig{vvrr/14}=\left(B^{*}\right)^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[-8\zeta_{3}\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-4\zeta_{3}-\frac{42}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\\
& +\Big(-88\zeta_{3}-\frac{21}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+56\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-114\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(-424\zeta_{3}-\frac{462}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+28\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -57\zeta_{5}-\frac{566}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+308\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{15} & =\smallfig{vvrr/15}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[12\zeta_{3}+\Big(-30\zeta_{3}+12\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(138\zeta_{3}-\\
& -30\zeta_{2}^{2}-120\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+188\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(396\zeta_{3}+138\zeta_{2}^{2}+300\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-470\zeta_{5}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{296}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-672\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{16} & =\smallfig{vvrr/16}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[4\zeta_{3}+\Big(-14\zeta_{3}+8\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(36\zeta_{3}-\\
& -28\zeta_{2}^{2}-56\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+156\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(36\zeta_{3}+72\zeta_{2}^{2}+196\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-546\zeta_{5}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{464}{7}\zeta_{2}^{3}-224\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{17} & =\smallfig{vvrr/17}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{19}{36}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}+\frac{29}{24}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(-\frac{103}{3}-\\
& -\frac{26}{3}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{772}{9}+\frac{113}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{599}{18}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(\frac{881}{2}+320\zeta_{2}-\frac{907}{36}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{707}{18}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(-\frac{12587}{3}-\frac{3751}{3}\zeta_{2}+1836\zeta_{3}-\frac{85421}{180}\zeta_{2}^{2}+446\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{9619}{18}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{39819}{2}-\frac{15985}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{52933}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{26666}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{10945}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{248249}{36}\zeta_{5}+\frac{1307018}{945}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\frac{22225}{18}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{18} & =\smallfig{vvrr/18}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{1}{6}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}-\frac{23}{12}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{61}{6}+2\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\\
& +\Big(-\frac{73}{2}-23\zeta_{2}+\frac{29}{3}\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(\frac{225}{2}+122\zeta_{2}-\frac{667}{6}\zeta_{3}+\frac{79}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{675}{2}-438\zeta_{2}+\frac{1769}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{1817}{30}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\frac{484}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{889}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{2025}{2}+\nonumber \\
& +1350\zeta_{2}-2117\zeta_{3}+\frac{4819}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{5566}{3}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{20447}{6}\zeta_{5}-\frac{18932}{315}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1057}{3}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{19} & =\smallfig{vvrr/19}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{43}{18}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{449}{36}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(-\frac{229}{9}-\\
& -\frac{188}{9}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{2227}{6}+\frac{1106}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{1021}{9}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{3017}{2}+\frac{496}{9}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{12719}{18}\zeta_{3}-\frac{608}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(\frac{8679}{2}-\frac{6818}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{604}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{12182}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{7024}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{6185}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-\frac{22341}{2}+9136\zeta_{2}-\frac{33785}{3}\zeta_{3}-\frac{9301}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{40312}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{76147}{6}\zeta_{5}-\frac{86417}{105}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\frac{16543}{9}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{20} & =\smallfig{vvrr/20}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{14}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{17}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(-\frac{133}{3}-\\
& -\frac{143}{9}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{3458}{9}+\frac{437}{6}\zeta_{2}-\frac{1099}{9}\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-\frac{4388}{3}+\frac{533}{2}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{1239}{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{3439}{15}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(4152-\frac{25106}{9}\zeta_{2}+\frac{8641}{6}\zeta_{3}+\frac{37493}{30}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{6616}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{10861}{3}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-10608+\frac{29690}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{171190}{9}\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{8908}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-3968\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{40027}{2}\zeta_{5}-\frac{796774}{315}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\frac{21877}{9}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{21} & =\smallfig{vvrr/21}=B^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{4}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}-\frac{20}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-\frac{137}{3}-\\
& -\frac{179}{9}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(637+\frac{3185}{18}\zeta_{2}-\frac{1267}{9}\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(-\frac{11773}{3}-\frac{4030}{9}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{22597}{18}\zeta_{3}-\frac{12007}{45}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(18333-\frac{11806}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{29687}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{213787}{90}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +736\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{37105}{9}\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-75579+\frac{49348}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{67181}{9}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{113723}{18}\zeta_{2}^{2}-6768\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\frac{669355}{18}\zeta_{5}-\frac{2858368}{945}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\frac{6749}{3}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VVRR}_{22} & =\smallfig{vvrr/22}=\left(B^{*}\right)^{2}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-2-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[5\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}-\frac{65}{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{135}{2}-24\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\\
& +\Big(-45+156\zeta_{2}-128\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(-324\zeta_{2}+832\zeta_{3}-\frac{896}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(216\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -1728\zeta_{3}+\frac{5824}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+320\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-2000\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(1152\zeta_{3}-\frac{12096}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -2080\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+13000\zeta_{5}-\frac{18208}{15}\zeta_{2}^{3}+832\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
VRRV {#sec:results-vrrv}
----
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{VRRV}_{1} & =\smallfig{vrrv/1}=\frac{B}{B^{*}}\smallfig{vvrr/4}=\frac{B}{B^{*}}\mathrm{VVRR}_{4}=B\,B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{2} & =\smallfig{vrrv/2}=\frac{B^{*}}{B}\smallfig{vvrr/6}=\frac{B^{*}}{B}\mathrm{VVRR}_{6}\\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{3} & =\smallfig{vrrv/3}=\frac{B}{B^{*}}\smallfig{vvrr/3}=\frac{B}{B^{*}}\mathrm{VVRR}_{3}\\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{4} & =\smallfig{vrrv/4}=B\,B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[1+3\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{29}{2}-5\zeta_{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(\frac{285}{4}-\\
& -15\zeta_{2}-28\zeta_{3}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\Big(\frac{2825}{8}-\frac{145}{2}\zeta_{2}-84\zeta_{3}-\frac{389}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}+\Big(\frac{28125}{16}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1425}{4}\zeta_{2}-406\zeta_{3}-\frac{1167}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}+140\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-564\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{5}+\Big(\frac{280625}{32}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{14125}{8}\zeta_{2}-1995\zeta_{3}-\frac{11281}{20}\zeta_{2}^{2}+420\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-1692\zeta_{5}-\frac{653}{2}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +392\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{6}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{7}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{5} & =\smallfig{vrrv/5}=B\,B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}-\frac{13}{2}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{27}{2}-8\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\\
& +\Big(-9+52\zeta_{2}-48\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(-108\zeta_{2}+312\zeta_{3}-\frac{334}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(72\zeta_{2}-\nonumber \\
& -648\zeta_{3}+\frac{2171}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+300\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-1058\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(432\zeta_{3}-\frac{4509}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\nonumber \\
& -1950\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+6877\zeta_{5}-\frac{20522}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+880\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{6} & =\smallfig{vrrv/6}=B\,B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-1-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{7}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\Big(-\frac{119}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}-38\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+\\
& +97\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(\frac{371}{10}\zeta_{2}^{2}+323\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-\frac{1649}{2}\zeta_{5}+\frac{2361}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}-128\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{7} & =\smallfig{vrrv/7}=B\,B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{52}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}-\frac{314}{9}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(-\frac{946}{9}-\\
& -\frac{736}{9}\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(\frac{18290}{9}+\frac{6092}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{5008}{9}\zeta_{3}\Big)+\Big(-\frac{38710}{3}-\frac{10502}{9}\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{42824}{9}\zeta_{3}-\frac{4424}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(60010-\frac{86690}{9}\zeta_{2}-\frac{91352}{9}\zeta_{3}+\frac{38402}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{35536}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-15192\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\Big(-243930+\frac{255430}{3}\zeta_{2}-\frac{446504}{9}\zeta_{3}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{88991}{5}\zeta_{2}^{2}-\frac{323768}{9}\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+135836\zeta_{5}-\frac{3043568}{315}\zeta_{2}^{3}+\frac{106448}{9}\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{8} & =\smallfig{vrrv/8}=B\,B^{*}\mathrm{PS}_{3}\left(q^{2}\right)^{-3-4{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}\Big[\frac{14}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{4}}-\frac{55}{3}\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}}+\Big(-\frac{353}{3}-\\
& -58\zeta_{2}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}}+\Big(\frac{3214}{3}+273\zeta_{2}-400\zeta_{3}\Big)\,\frac{1}{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}}+\Big(-4096+881\zeta_{2}+\nonumber \\
& +1960\zeta_{3}-\frac{1799}{3}\zeta_{2}^{2}\Big)+\Big(11556-9596\zeta_{2}+5224\zeta_{3}+\frac{18035}{6}\zeta_{2}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +3320\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}-10760\zeta_{5}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}+\Big(-29124+33360\zeta_{2}-62032\zeta_{3}+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{214823}{30}\zeta_{2}^{2}-17340\zeta_{2}\zeta_{3}+55500\zeta_{5}-\frac{211783}{35}\zeta_{2}^{3}+10600\zeta_{3}^{2}\Big)\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}+\nonumber \\
& +\mathcal{O}\!\left({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{3}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\mathrm{VRRV}_{9} & =\smallfig{vrrv/9}=\frac{B}{B^{*}}\smallfig{vvrr/22}=\frac{B}{B^{*}}\mathrm{VVRR}_{22}\end{aligned}$$
Table of loop integrals\[sec:Table-of-loop-integrals\]
======================================================
Here we collect integrals used during the 1$\to$3 amplitude calculation. Most of them are taken from [@GR99], eq. is from [@GHM05].
To obtain a series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ from these integrals, the hypergeometric function $\!_{p}F_{q}$ needs to be expanded about its parameters. This can be conveniently done using the Mathematica package [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">HypExp</span>]{} [@HM07].
$$\begin{aligned}
\smallfig{known/bubble} & =\frac{i\pi^{\frac{d}{2}}}{\left(2\pi\right)^{d}}\frac{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(2-\frac{d}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(d-2\right)}\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{\frac{d}{2}-2}\label{eq:known-bubble}\\
\smallfig{known/box} & =\frac{i\pi^{\frac{d}{2}-1}}{\left(2\pi\right)^{d-1}}\frac{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-\frac{d}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(d-3\right)}\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{\frac{d}{2}-4}\frac{1}{s_{12}s_{23}}\Big[\label{eq:known-box}\\
& +\left(\frac{s_{12}s_{23}}{1-s_{12}}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\!\!_{2}F_{1}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2,\frac{d}{2}-2;\frac{d}{2}-1;\frac{1-s_{12}-s_{23}}{1-s_{12}}\right)+\nonumber \\
& +\left(\frac{s_{12}s_{23}}{1-s_{23}}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\!\!_{2}F_{1}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2,\frac{d}{2}-2;\frac{d}{2}-1;\frac{1-s_{12}-s_{23}}{1-s_{23}}\right)+\nonumber \\
& -\left(\frac{s_{12}s_{23}}{\left(1-s_{12}\right)\left(1-s_{23}\right)}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\!\!_{2}F_{1}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2,\frac{d}{2}-2;\frac{d}{2}-1;\frac{1-s_{12}-s_{23}}{\left(1-s_{12}\right)\left(1-s_{23}\right)}\right)\Big]\nonumber \\
\smallfig{known/sunset} & =\frac{1}{\left(4\pi\right)^{d}}\frac{\Gamma^{3}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-d\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(3\frac{d}{2}-3\right)}\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{d-3}\\
\smallfig{known/triangle2l-1} & =\frac{-2}{\left(4\pi\right)^{d}}\frac{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-\frac{d}{2}\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-d\right)\Gamma\!\left(d-4\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(\frac{3d}{2}-4\right)}\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{d-4}\\
\smallfig{known/triangle2l-2} & =\frac{1}{\left(4\pi\right)^{d}}\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{d-4}\Big[\left(1-s_{12}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\frac{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-d\right)\Gamma\!\left(2-\frac{d}{2}\right)\Gamma\!\left(d-3\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(\frac{3d}{2}-4\right)}-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{1}{2}\frac{3d-8}{d-3}\frac{\Gamma^{3}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-d\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(\frac{3d}{2}-3\right)}\left(s_{12}\right)^{d-3}\,_{2}F_{1}\!\left(1,\frac{d}{2}-1;d-2;\frac{p_{12}^{2}}{q^{2}}\right)\Big]\\
\smallfig{known/triangle2l-3} & =\frac{-1}{\left(4\pi\right)^{d}}\frac{\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)^{2}\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-d\right)}{\Gamma\left(3\frac{d}{2}-4\right)}\times\\
& \times\!_{2}F_{1}\!\left(\frac{d-2}{2},2-\frac{d}{2};3-\frac{d}{2};1-\frac{p_{12}}{q^{2}}\right)\left(s_{12}\right)^{\frac{d-4}{2}}\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{d-4}\nonumber \\
\smallfig{known/tricross} & =\frac{1}{\left(4\pi\right)^{d}}\left(-q^{2}-i0\right)^{d-6}\Big[-16\frac{\Gamma^{4}\!\left(d-4\right)\Gamma^{3}\!\left(5-d\right)\Gamma\!\left(3-\frac{d}{2}\right)\Gamma\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)}{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(2d-7\right)\Gamma\!\left(9-2d\right)}+\label{eq:known-tricross}\\
& +32\frac{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right)\Gamma\!\left(4-d\right)\Gamma\!\left(d-6\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(2d-7\right)}\,_{3}F_{2}\!\left(1,1,5-d;6-d,4-\frac{d}{2};1\right)+\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\Gamma^{2}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2\right)\Gamma\!\left(4-d\right)\Gamma\!\left(2-\frac{d}{2}\right)\Gamma\!\left(d-3\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(3\frac{d}{2}-5\right)}\,_{3}F_{2}\!\left(1,d-4,2d-8;d-3,3\frac{d}{2}-5;1\right)-\nonumber \\
& -\frac{\Gamma^{3}\!\left(\frac{d}{2}-2\right)\Gamma\!\left(4-d\right)}{\Gamma\!\left(3\frac{d}{2}-5\right)}\,_{4}F_{3}\!\left(1,\frac{d}{2}-1,d-4,2d-8;d-3,d-3,3\frac{d}{2}-5;1\right)\Big]\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Multiple zeta values basis up to weight 12 {#sec:mzv}
==========================================
For the purposes of reconstructing the analytical expressions from high precision numerical results we use the following linear basis of irrational MZV combinations:
------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight 0: $1$
Weight 2: $\zeta_2$
Weight 3: $\zeta_3$
Weight 4: $\zeta_2^2$
Weight 5: $\zeta_2\,\zeta_3$, $\zeta_5$
Weight 6: $\zeta_2^3$, $\zeta_3^2$
Weight 7: $\zeta_2^2\,\zeta_3$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_5$, $\zeta_7$
Weight 8: $\zeta_2^4$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_3^2$, $\zeta_3\,\zeta_5$, $\zeta_{5,3}$
Weight 9: $\zeta_2^3\,\zeta_3$, $\zeta_3^3$, $\zeta_2^2\,\zeta_5$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_7$, $\zeta_9$
Weight 10: $\zeta_2^5$, $\zeta_2^2\,\zeta_3^2$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_3\,\zeta_5$, $\zeta_5^2$, $\zeta_3\,\zeta_7$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_{5,3}$, $\zeta_{7,3}$
Weight 11: $\zeta_2^4\,\zeta_3$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_3^3$, $\zeta_2^3\,\zeta_5$, $\zeta_3^2\,\zeta_5$, $\zeta_2^2\,\zeta_7$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_9$, $\zeta_{11}$, $\zeta_3\,\zeta_{5,3}$, $\zeta_{5,3,3}$
Weight 12: $\zeta_2^6$, $\zeta_2^3\,\zeta_3^2$, $\zeta_3^4$, $\zeta_2^2\,\zeta_3\,\zeta_5$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_5^2$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_3\,\zeta_7$, $\zeta_5\,\zeta_7$, $\zeta_3\,\zeta_9$, $\zeta_2^2\,\zeta_{5,3}$, $\zeta_2\,\zeta_{7,3}$, $\zeta_{9,3}$, $\zeta_{6,4,1,1}$
------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MZVs here are defined as in eq. ; the basis itself is extracted from the files provided in [@BBV09].
Ancillary files\[sec:Ancillary-files\]
======================================
Along with this article we provide ancillary files with all the results in machine-readable (Mathematica) form. To quickly summarize their content, we provide:
[[\*]{}.d4]{}
: \
The values of master integrals for VVVV, VVVR, VVRV, VVRR, VRRV, VRRR, and RRRR cut structures as series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, expanded around $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ up to MZVs of weight 12. The notation “[`Mzv[n,...]`]{}” in these files stands for $\zeta_{n,\dots}$, as defined by eq. . These values correspond to those from , with the prefactors of $B$, $B^{*}$, $\mathrm{PS}_{n}$, and $\left(q^{2}\right)^{k}$ omitted.
[topologies]{}
: \
A mapping from a topology name (“[`L`]{}”, “[`J`]{}”, “[`H`]{}”, “[`M`]{}”, and “[`N`]{}”, as listed in ), into a list of propagators. Here “[`p1`]{}”…”[`p4`]{}” denote loop momenta, and “[`q`]{}” denotes the incoming momenta.
[masters]{}
: \
A mapping from master names, for example “[`VVVR[2]`]{}” into integral definition via the topologies, for example “[`H[1,0,x,x,0,1,1,1,1,1,0]`]{}”, where integers denote powers of the corresponding propagators, and “[`x`]{}” denotes which propagators have been cut.
[[\*]{}.ldrr]{}
: \
Lowering dimensional recurrence relation matrices as in eq. for each of the master sets. In these files “[`nu`]{}” stands for $\frac{d}{2}$.
[[\*]{}.st]{}
: \
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">SummerTime</span>]{} [@LM15] files for each of the master sets. One can use these to calculate series expansion of any master set around arbitrary $d$, with arbitrary precision. For example, to calculate the values of the VRRV master integrals as series around $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ up to order ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}^{2}$ with 30 digits of precision, use this command:\
[`Get[VRRV.st] /. nu->2-ep // Map[TriangleSumsSeries[#,{ep,2},30]&]`]{}
[1to3/[\*]{}.d4]{}
: \
The values of the 2-loop 1$\to$3 master integrals in topologies PA, NA, and NB (defined in ) as series in ${\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$, expanded around $d=4-2{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}}$ up to MZVs of weight 8. In these files the notation [`Hlog[x,{w,...}]`]{} stands for $G\!\left(w,\dots;x\right)$ as defined in eq. . Variables $y$ and $z$ are as defined in eq. .
[1to3/[\*]{}.ldrr]{}
: \
Lowering dimensional recurrence relation matrices for PA, NA, and NB topologies of the 1$\to$3 master integrals.
[1to3/[\*]{}.my, 1to3/[\*]{}.mz]{}
: \
Differential equation matrices $M_{ij}^{\left(I,y\right)}$ and $M_{ij}^{\left(I,z\right)}$, as defined in eq. .
[1to3/[\*]{}.t]{}
: \
Transformation matrices $T_{ij}^{\left(I\right)}$ as defined in eq. .
[^1]: We are using the new C++ version of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fuchsia</span>]{} available at <https://github.com/magv/fuchsia.cpp>.
[^2]: <http://wayback.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/ISC/ISCmain.html>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper provides the basis for new methods of inference for max-stable processes $\xi$ on general spaces that admit a certain incremental representation, which, in important cases, has a much simpler structure than the max-stable process itself. A corresponding peaks-over-threshold approach will incorporate all single events that are extreme in some sense and will therefore rely on a substantially larger amount of data in comparison to estimation procedures based on block maxima.\
Conditioning a process $\eta$ in the max-domain of attraction of $\xi$ on being *extremal*, several convergence results for the increments of $\eta$ are proved. In a similar way, the shape functions of mixed moving maxima (M3) processes can be extracted from suitably conditioned single events $\eta$. Connecting the two approaches, transformation formulae for processes that admit both an incremental and an M3 representation are identified.
bibliography:
- 'HREstimation.bib'
title: |
Representations of max-stable processes\
based on single extreme events
---
Introduction
============
The joint extremal behavior at multiple locations of some random process $\{\eta(t): t\in T\}$, $T$ an arbitrary index set, can be captured via its limiting *max-stable process*, assuming the latter exists and is non-trivial everywhere. Then, for independent copies $\eta_i$ of $\eta$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, the functions $b_n: T \to {\mathbb R}$, $c_n : T\to (0,\infty)$ can be chosen such that the convergence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{MDA}
\xi(t) = \lim_{n\to\infty} c_n(t) \Big(\max_{i=1}^n \eta_i(t) - b_n(t)\Big),
\quad t\in T,\end{aligned}$$ holds in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions. The process $\xi$ is said to be *max-stable* and $\eta$ is in its max-domain of attraction (MDA). The theory of max-stable processes is mainly concerned with the dependence structure while the marginals are usually assumed to be known. Even for finite-dimensional max-stable distributions, the space of possible dependence structures is uncountably infinite-dimensional and parametric models are required to find a balance between flexibility and analytical tractability [@deh2006a; @res2008].
A general construction principle for max-stable processes was provided by [@deh1984; @smi1990]: Let $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i, S_i)}$ be a Poisson point process (PPP) on $(0,\infty)\times{\mathcal S}$ with intensity measure $u^{-2}\rd u\cdot \nu(\rd s)$, where $({\mathcal S},
\mathfrak S)$ is an arbitrary measurable space and $\nu$ a positive measure on ${\mathcal S}$. Further, let $f:{\mathcal S}\times T \to [0, \infty)$ be a non-negative function with $\int_{{\mathcal S}} f(s,t) \nu(\rd s) = 1$ for all $t\in T$. Then the process $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i f(S_i, t), \quad t\in T,\label{constr_max_stable}\end{aligned}$$ is max-stable and has standard Fréchet margins with distribution function $\exp(-1/x)$ for $x \geq 0$. In this paper, we restrict to two specific choices for $f$ and $({\mathcal S}, \mathfrak S, \nu)$ and consider processes that admit one of the resulting representations. First, let $\{W(t) : t\in T\}$ be a non-negative stochastic process with $\sE W(t) = 1$, $t\in T$, and $W(t_0) = 1$ a.s. for some point $t_0 \in T$. The latter condition means that $W(t)$ simply describes the multiplicative increment of $W$ w.r.t. the location $t_0$. For $({\mathcal S}, \mathfrak S, \nu)$ being the canonical probability space for the sample paths of $W$ and with $f(w,t)=w(t)$, $w\in{\mathcal S}$, $t\in T$, we refer to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_xi}
\xi(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i W_i(t), \quad t\in T,\end{aligned}$$ as the *incremental representation* of $\xi$, where $\{W_i\}_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ are independent copies of $W$. Since $T$ is an arbitrary index set, the above definition covers multivariate extreme value distributions, i.e. $T=\{t_1,\dots,t_k\}$, as well as max-stable random fields, i.e. $T = {\mathbb R}^d$.\
For the second specification, let $\{F(t): \ t \in {\mathbb R}^d\}$ be a stochastic process with sample paths in the space $C({\mathbb R}^d)$ of non-negative continuous functions, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{assumption_integral}
\textstyle \sE \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} F(t) \rd t = 1.\end{aligned}$$ With $S_i = (T_i,F_i)$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, in ${\mathcal S}= {\mathbb R}^d\times C({\mathbb R}^d)$, intensity measure $\nu(\rd t \times \rd g)=\rd t\sP_F(\rd g)$ and $f((t,g), s)=g(s-t)$, $(t,g)\in{\mathcal S}$, we obtain the class of *mixed moving maxima (M3) processes* $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i F_i(t- T_i), \quad t\in{\mathbb R}^d. \label{def_M3}\end{aligned}$$ These processes are max-stable and stationary on ${\mathbb R}^d$ (see for instance [@wan2010]). The function $F$ is called *shape function of $\xi$* and can also be deterministic (e.g., in case of the Smith process). In Smith’s “rainfall-storm” interpretation [@smi1990], $U_i$ and $T_i$ are the strength and center point of the $i$th storm, respectively, and $U_i F_i(t- T_i)$ represents the corresponding amount of rainfall at location $t$. In this case, $\xi(t)$ is the process of extremal precipitation.
When i.i.d. realizations $\eta_1, \ldots, \eta_n$ of $\eta$ in the MDA of a max-stable process $\xi$ are observed, a classical approach for parametric inference on $\xi$ is based on generating (approximate) realizations of $\xi$ out of the data $\eta_1, \ldots, \eta_n$ via componentwise block maxima and applying maximum likelihood (ML) estimation afterwards. A clear drawback of this method is that it ignores all information on large values that is contained in the order statistics below the within-block maximum. Further, ML estimation needs to evaluate the multivariate densities while for many max-stable models only the bivariate densities are known in closed form. Thus, composite likelihood approaches have been proposed [@pad2010; @dav2012].\
In univariate extreme-value theory, the second standard procedure estimates parameters by fitting a certain PPP to the *peaks-over-thresholds* (POT), i.e., to the empirical process of exceedances over a certain critical value [@lea1991; @emb1997]. Also in the multivariate framework we can expect to profit from using all extremal data via generalized POT methods instead of aggregated data. In contrast to the ML approach, in this paper, we assume that $\xi$ admits one of the two representations and and we aim at extracting realizations of the processes $W$ and $F$, respectively, from *single extreme events*. Here, the specification of a single extreme event will depend on the respective representation.\
In [@eng2012a], this concept is applied to derive estimators for the class of Brown-Resnick processes [@bro1977; @kab2009], which have the form by construction. With $a(n)$ being a sequence of positive numbers with $\lim_{n\to\infty} a(n) = \infty$, the convergence in distribution $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigg( \frac{\eta(t_1)}{\eta(t_0)}, \ldots,
\frac{\eta(t_k)}{\eta(t_0)}
\ \Bigg|\
\eta(t_0) > a(n) \Bigg)\cvgdist \bigl(
W(t_1),\dots, W(t_k) \bigr),
\label{cond_incr_conv}\end{aligned}$$ $t_0,t_1,\dots,t_k\in T$, $k\in {\mathbb N}$, is established for $\eta$ being in the MDA of a Brown-Resnick process and with $W$ being the corresponding log-Gaussian random field. A similar approach exists in the theory of homogeneous discrete-time Markov chains. For instance, [@seg2007] and [@ehl2011] investigate the behavior of a Markov chain $\{M(t): t\in {\mathbb Z}\}$ conditional on the event that $M(0)$ is large. The resulting extremal process is coined the tail chain and turns out to be Markovian again. In this paper, the convergence result is generalized in different aspects. Arbitrary non-negative processes $\{W(t) : t\in T\}$ with $\sE W(t) = 1$, $t\in T$, are considered, and convergence of the conditional increments of $\eta$ in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions as well as weak convergence in continuous function spaces is shown (Theorems \[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\] and \[theo\_cond\_increments\_cont\]). Moreover, in Section \[M3representation\], similar results are established for M3 processes by considering realizations of $\eta$ around their (local) maxima. Since one and the same max-stable process $\xi$ might admit both representations and we provide formulae for switching between them in Section \[sec:switching\]. Section \[sec:application\] gives an exemplary outlook on how our results can be applied for statistical inference.
Incremental representation {#examples_increment_representation}
==========================
Throughout this section, we suppose that $\{\xi(t): \ t\in T\}$, where $T$ is an arbitrary index set, is normalized to standard Fréchet margins and admits a representation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_xi2}
\xi(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i V_i(t), \quad t\in T,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}}\delta_{U_i}$ is a PPP on $(0,\infty)$ with intensity $u^{-2}du$, which we call *Fréchet point process* in the following. The $\{V_i\}_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ are independent copies of a non-negative stochastic process $\{V(t): \ t\in T\}$ with $\sE V(t) =
1$, $t\in T$. Note that is slightly less restrictive than the representation in that we do not require that $V(t_0)=1$ a.s. for some $t_0\in T$. For any fixed $t_0\in T$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{decomp_V}
\xi(t) \eqdist \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i
\left({\mathbf 1}_{P_i=0}V^{(1)}_i(t) + {\mathbf 1}_{P_i=1}V^{(2)}_i(t)\right),
\quad t\in T,\end{aligned}$$ where $\{P_i\}_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ are i.i.d. Bernoulli variables with parameter $p=\sP(V(t_0) = 0)$ and the $V^{(1)}_i$ and $V^{(2)}_i$ are independent copies of the process $\{V(t): \ t\in T\}$, conditioned on the events $\{V(t_0) > 0\}$ and $\{V(t_0)= 0\}$, respectively.
Note that for $k\in{\mathbb N}$, $t_0, \ldots, t_k\in T$, the vector $\Xi =
(\xi(t_0),\dots,\xi(t_k))$ follows a $(k+1)$-variate extreme-value distribution and its distribution function $G$ can therefore be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_mu}
G(\mathbf{x}) = \exp( -\mu( [{\mathbf 0},\mathbf{x}]^C) ),
\quad \mathbf{x} \in {\mathbb R}^{k+1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is a measure on $E = [0,\infty)^{k+1}\setminus\{{\mathbf 0}\}$, the so-called *exponent measure* of $G$ [@res2008 Prop. 5.8], and $[{\mathbf 0},\mathbf{x}]^C = E\setminus
[{\mathbf 0},\mathbf{x}]$.
The following convergence result provides the theoretical foundation for statistical inference based on the incremental process $V$.
\[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\] Let $\{\eta(t): \ t\in T\}$ be non-negative and in the MDA of some max-stable process $\xi$ that admits a representation and suppose that $\eta$ is normalized such that holds with $c_n(t) = 1/n$ and $b_n(t) = 0$ for $n\in{\mathbb N}$ and $t\in T$. Let $a(n)\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$. For $k\in {\mathbb N}$ and $t_0,\dots,t_k\in T$ we have the convergence in distribution on ${\mathbb R}^{k+1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\eta(t_0)}{a(n)}, \frac{\eta(t_1)}{\eta(t_0)} ,\dots,
\frac{\eta(t_k)}{\eta(t_0)}
\ \Bigg|\
\eta(t_0) > a(n)\right) \cvgdist
\left(Z, \Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)}\right),\quad n\to \infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where the distribution of $\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sP(\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)}\in d \mathbf z) =
(1-p)\sP(\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}\in d \mathbf z)
\sE\bigl( V^{(1)}(t_0) \big|
\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}=\mathbf z \bigr), \quad \mathbf{z} \geq {\mathbf 0}.
\label{density_increment}
\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}$ denotes the vector of increments $\left(\frac{V^{(1)}(t_1)}{V^{(1)}(t_0)}, \ldots,
\frac{V^{(1)}(t_k)}{V^{(1)}(t_0)}\right)$ with respect to $t_0$, and $Z$ is an independent Pareto variable.
Note that any process $\eta$ that satisfies the convergence in for a process $\xi$ with standard Fréchet margins can be normalized such that the norming functions in become $c_n(t) = 1/n$ and $b_n(t) = 0$, $n\in{\mathbb N}$, $t\in T$ [@res2008 Prop. 5.10].
For $\mathbf{X} = (\eta(t_0),\dots,\eta(t_k))$, which is in the MDA of the random vector $\Xi=(\xi(t_0),\dots,\xi(t_k))$, it follows from [@res2008 Prop. 5.17] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conv_resnick}
\lim_{m\to\infty} m \sP( \mathbf{X}/m \in B ) = \mu(B),\end{aligned}$$ for all elements $B$ of the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal B(E)$ of $E$ bounded away from $\{{\mathbf 0}\}$ with $\mu(\partial B)=0$, where $\mu$ is defined by . For $s_0> 0$ and ${\mathbf s}=(s_1, \ldots,
s_k)\in [0, \infty)^{k}$, we consider the sets $A_{s_0}=(s_0,\infty)\times [0, \infty)^k$, $A=A_1$ and $B_{\mathbf{s}} = \{\mathbf{x} \in [0, \infty)^{k+1} :
(x^{(1)},\dots,x^{(k)}) \leq x^{(0)}\mathbf{s}\}$ for ${\mathbf s}$ satisfying $\sP( \Delta\tilde {\mathbf V}^{(1)}\in \partial
[{\mathbf 0},{\mathbf s}])=0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ \eta(t_0) > s_0 a(n),\,
\big( \eta(t_1) / \eta(t_0) ,\dots, \eta(t_k) / \eta(t_0) \big)
\leq \mathbf{s} \right\}
= \{ \mathbf{X} / a(n) \in B_{\mathbf{s}}\cap A_{s_0} \},\end{aligned}$$ since $B_{\mathbf{s}}$ is invariant under multiplication, i.e., $B_{\mathbf s}=cB_{\mathbf s}$ for any $c>0$. Thus, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\sP&\left( \eta(t_0) > s_0 a(n),
\, \left( \eta(t_1) / \eta(t_0) ,\dots,
\eta(t_k) / \eta(t_0) \right) \leq \mathbf{s} \,\Big|\,
\eta(t_0) > a(n) \right) \\
\notag&= \frac{
{a(n)} \sP( \mathbf{X} / a(n)
\in B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A \cap A_{s_0} )}{
{a(n)} \sP( \mathbf{X} / a(n) \in A)} \\
\label{eq:01}
& \longrightarrow
\frac{\mu(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A \cap A_{s_0})}{\mu(A)},\quad (n\to\infty),\end{aligned}$$ where the convergence follows from , as long as $\mu\{ \partial (B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A \cap A_{s_0})\} = 0$.\
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_xi3}
\xi^{(1)}(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i^{(1)} V^{(1)}_i(t),
\quad t\in T,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{U_i^{(1)}}$ is a Poisson point process with intensity $(1-p)u^{-2}\rd u$ and let $\mu^{(1)}$ be the exponent measure of the associated max-stable random vector $(\xi^{(1)}(t_0), \ldots, \xi^{(1)}(t_k))$. Then the choice $A =
(1,\infty)\times [0,\infty)^k$ guarantees that $\mu(\cdot \cap A) =
\mu^{(1)}(\cdot \cap A)$. Comparing the construction of $\xi^{(1)}$ in with the definition of the exponent measure, we see that $\mu^{(1)}$ is the intensity measure of the Poisson point process $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i^{(1)}
V_i^{(1)}(t_0),\, \ldots,\, U_i^{(1)} V_i^{(1)}(t_k))}$ on $E$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(A) &= \int_0^\infty (1-p)u^{-2} \sP(u V^{(1)}(t_0) > 1) \rd u \notag\\
&= (1-p)\int_0^\infty u^{-2} \int_{[u^{-1}, \infty)}
\sP(V^{(1)}(t_0) \in \rd y) \rd u \notag\\
&= (1-p)\int_0^\infty y \sP(V^{(1)}(t_0) \in \rd y)
= (1-p)\sE V^{(1)}(t_0) = 1,
\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from $\sE V^{(1)}(t_0) = \sE
V(t_0)/(1-p)$. Furthermore, for $s_0\geq 1$ and ${\mathbf s}\in[0,\infty)^k$ with $\sP(\Delta\mathbf{\tilde V}^{(1)} \in \partial [{\mathbf 0},{\mathbf s}])=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A \cap A_{s_0}) / ((1-p)\mu(A)) \notag\\
&= \int_0^\infty u^{-2}
\sP\Bigl(u V^{(1)}(t_0) > s_0,\,
\big(u V^{(1)}(t_1),\dots, u V^{(1)}(t_k)\big) \leq
\mathbf{s} u V^{(1)}(t_0) \Bigr) \rd u\notag\\
&=
\int_0^\infty \int_{[s_0 u^{-1},\, \infty)} u^{-2}
\sP\Bigl(V^{(1)}(t_0)\in \rd y
\Big|\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)} \leq \mathbf{s} \Bigr)
\sP(\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)} \leq \mathbf{s} )\rd u
\notag\\
&=
\int_{[{\mathbf 0}, \mathbf s]} \int_{[0,\infty)} y s_0^{-1} \cdot
\sP\Bigl(V^{(1)}(t_0)\in \rd y \Big|
\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}=\mathbf z \Bigr)
\sP(\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}\in \rd{\mathbf z})
\notag\\
&=
s_0^{-1}\int_{[{\mathbf 0}, \mathbf s]} \sE\Bigl( V^{(1)}(t_0) \Big|
\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}=\mathbf z \Bigr)
\sP(\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}\in \rd{\mathbf z}).
\label{mu_expl}
\end{aligned}$$ Equation shows that the convergence in holds for all continuity points ${\mathbf s}\in [0, \infty)^{k}$ of the distribution function of $\Delta{\mathbf V}^{(1)}$. Since $s_0\geq 1$ was arbitrary, this concludes the proof.
1. If $V^{(1)}(t_0)$ is stochastically independent of the increments $\Delta\mathbf V^{(1)}$, we simply have $\sP(\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)}\in d \mathbf z) =
\sP(\Delta\mathbf{{V}}^{(1)}\in d \mathbf z)$.
2. If $p=\sP(V(t_0) = 0)=0$, the exponent measure $\mu$ of any finite-dimensional vector $\Xi=(\xi(t_0), \ldots, \xi(t_k))$, $t_0,
\ldots, t_k\in T$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$, satisfies the condition $\mu\left( \{0\}\times [0,\infty)^k \right)=0,$ and following Proposition \[calculateW\], the incremental representation of $\Xi$ according to is given by $\Xi = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}}
U_i \cdot (1, \Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}_i)^\top$, where $\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}_i$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, are independent copies of $\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}=\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)}$.
3. If $\xi$ admits a representation , we have $\sP(\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)}\in d \mathbf z) =
\sP(\Delta\mathbf{{V}}\in d \mathbf z)$, which shows that is indeed a special case of Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\].
\[rem\_thres\] In the above theorem, the sequence $a(n)$ of thresholds is only assumed to converge to $\infty$, as $n\to\infty$, ensuring that $\{\eta(t_0) > a(n)\}$ becomes a rare event. For statistical applications $a(n)$ should also be chosen such that the number of exceedances $$\begin{aligned}
N(n) = \sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbf 1}\{ \eta_i(t_0) > a(n) \}
\end{aligned}$$ converges to $\infty$ almost surely, where $(\eta_i)_{i\in{\mathbb N}}$ is a sequence of independent copies of $\eta$. By the Poisson limit theorem, this is equivalent to the additional assumption that $\lim_{n\to\infty} a(n)/n = 0$, since in that case $n\sP(\eta(t_0) >
a(n)) = n / a(n) \to \infty$, as $n\to\infty$.
[@eng2012a] consider Hüsler-Reiss distributions [@hue1989; @kab2011] and obtain their limiting results by conditioning on certain extremal events $A\subset E$. They show that various choices of $A$ are sensible in the Hüsler-Reiss case, leading to different limiting distributions of the increments of $\eta$. In case $\xi$ is a Brown-Resnick process and $A =
(1,\infty)\times [0, \infty)^{k}$ the assertions of Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\] and [@eng2012a Thm. 3.3] coincide.
A commonly used class of stationary yet non-ergodic max-stable processes on ${\mathbb R}^d$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{schlather_model}
\xi(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i Y_i(t), \quad t\in{\mathbb R}^d,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{U_i}$ is a Fréchet point process, $Y_i(t)=\max(0, \tilde Y_i(t))$, $i \in {\mathbb N}$, and the $\tilde Y_i$ are i.i.d. stationary, centered Gaussian processes with $\sE(\max(0,
\tilde Y_i(t))) =1$ for all $t\in{\mathbb R}^d$ [@sch2002; @bla2011]. Note that in general, a $t_0\in{\mathbb R}^d$ s.t. $Y_i(t_0)=1$ a.s. does not exist, i.e., the process admits representation but not representation . In particular, for the extremal Gaussian process we have $p=\sP(V(t_0)=0)=1/2$ and the distribution of the increments in becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\sP(\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)} \! \in \rd \mathbf z)
&= \frac12 \sE\Bigl[ Y(t_0) \, \Big|\,
(Y(t_1)/Y(t_0), \ldots, Y(t_k)/Y(t_0)) = \mathbf z,
\, Y(t_0)>0\Bigr]\\
& \qquad \cdot\sP\Bigl( \bigl(Y(t_1)/Y(t_0), \ldots,
Y(t_k)/Y(t_0)\bigr)
\in \rd{\mathbf z}\, \Big|\, Y(t_0)>0 \Bigr).\end{aligned}$$
While the Hüsler-Reiss distribution is already given by the incremental representation , cf. [@kab2011], other distributions can be suitably rewritten, provided that the cumulative distribution function and hence the respective exponent measure $\mu$ is known.
\[calculateW\] Let $\Xi = (\xi(t_0),\dots,\xi(t_k))$ be a max-stable process on $T = \{t_0, \ldots, t_k \}$ with standard Fréchet margins and suppose that its exponent measure $\mu$ is concentrated on $(0, \infty) \times [0, \infty)^{k}$. Define a random vector ${\mathbf W}=(W^{(1)}, \ldots, W^{(k)})$ via its cumulative distribution function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_W}
\sP( {\mathbf W}\leq \mathbf{s}) = \mu(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A),
\quad \mathbf{s}\in [0,\infty)^{k},
\end{aligned}$$ where $A = (1,\infty)\times [0, \infty)^{k}$ and $B_{\mathbf s} =
\{{\mathbf x}\in [0,\infty)^{k+1}: \, (x^{(1)},\ldots,x^{(k)}) \leq
x^{(0)} {\mathbf s}\}$. Then, $\Xi$ allows for an incremental representation with ${\mathbf W}_i$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, being independent copies of ${\mathbf W}$.
First, we note that indeed defines a valid cumulative distribution function. To this end, consider the measurable transformation $$\begin{aligned}
T: (0, \infty)\times [0, \infty)^{k}
\to (0, \infty)\times [0, \infty)^{k}, \ (x_0,\dots, x_k)
\mapsto \left(x_0, \frac{x_1}{x_0}, \dots, \frac{x_k}{x_0}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $ T(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A) = (1, \infty) \times [{\mathbf 0}, {\mathbf s}]$ and the measure $\mu^T(\cdot) = \mu(T^{-1}((1,\infty)\times \,\cdot\,))$ is a probability measure on $[0, \infty)^{k}$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A)
= \mu(T^{-1}((1,\infty)\times[{\mathbf 0}, {\mathbf s}]))
= \mu^T([{\mathbf 0}, {\mathbf s}]),
\end{aligned}$$ the random vector ${\mathbf W}$ is well-defined and has law $\mu^T$.
By definition of the exponent measure, we have $\Xi \eqdist \max_{i
\in {\mathbb N}} {\mathbf X}_i$, where $\Pi = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{{\mathbf X}_i}$ is a PPP on $E$ with intensity measure $\mu$. Then, the transformed point process $T\Pi = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{(X_i^{(0)},\,
X_i^{(1)}/X_i^{(0)},\, \ldots,\, X_i^{(k)} /X_i^{(0)})}$ has intensity measure $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \mu((c,\infty) \times [{\mathbf 0},{\mathbf s}])
={}& \mu\left(T^{-1}\left( (c,\infty) \times [{\mathbf 0},{\mathbf s}] \right)
\right)\\
={} & \mu(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap ((c,\infty) \times [0,\infty)^k)) {}
={} c^{-1} \mu(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A)
\end{aligned}$$ for any $c > 0$, $\mathbf{s} \in [0,\infty)^k$, where we use the fact that $\mu$, as an exponent measure, has the homogeneity property $c^{-1}\mu(\rd{\mathbf x})=\mu(\rd(c{\mathbf x}))$. Thus, $T\Pi$ has the same intensity as $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i, {\mathbf W}_i)}$, where $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{U_i}$ is a Fréchet point process and ${\mathbf W}_i$, $i \in {\mathbb N}$, are i.i.d. vectors with law $\sP({\mathbf W}\leq
\mathbf{s}) = \mu(B_{\mathbf{s}} \cap A)$. Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi\eqdist{}& \max_{i \in {\mathbb N}} T^{-1}\left(\big(X_i^{(0)}, X_i^{(1)} / X_i^{(0)},
\ldots, X_i^{(k)} / X_i^{(0)}\big)\right)\\
\eqdist{}& \max_{i \in {\mathbb N}} T^{-1}\left(\big(U_i,{\mathbf W}_i\big)\right) {}
={} \max_{i \in {\mathbb N}} U_i {\mathbf W}_i,
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
\[ex:symm\_log\] For $T=\{t_0,\dots,t_k\}$, the symmetric logistic distribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sP(\xi(t_0) \leq x_0,\dots, \xi(t_k) \leq x_k) =
\exp\left[ - \left( x_0^{-q}+ \dots + x_k^{-q}\right)^{1/q} \right],
\label{eq:cdf_symm_log}
\end{aligned}$$ for $x_0,\dots,x_k>0$ and $q > 1$. Hence, the density of the exponent measure is $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(\rd x_0,\dots,\rd x_k) =
\left(\sum_{i=0}^k x_i^{-q}\right)^{1/q -(k+1)}
\left(\prod_{i=1}^k(iq-1)\right)
\prod_{i=0}^k x_i^{-q-1} \rd x_0\dots \rd x_k.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Proposition \[calculateW\], the incremental process $W$ in the representation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sP(W(t_1) \leq s_1, \dots W(t_k) \leq s_k)
= \left(1 + \sum_{i=1}^k s_i^{-q}\right)^{1/q - 1}.
\end{aligned}$$
Continuous sample paths
-----------------------
In this subsection, we provide an analog result to Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\], in which convergence in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions is replaced by weak convergence on function spaces. In the following, for a Borel set $U\subset{\mathbb R}^d$, we denote by $C(U)$ and $C^+(U)$ the space of non-negative and strictly positive continuous functions on $U$, respectively, equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on compact sets.
\[theo\_cond\_increments\_cont\] Let $K$ be a compact subset of ${\mathbb R}^d$ and $\{\eta(t): \ t\in K\}$ be a process with positive and continuous sample paths in the MDA of a max-stable process $\{\xi(t): \ t\in K\}$ as in in the sense of weak convergence on $C(K)$. In particular, suppose that $$\frac 1n \max_{i=1}^n \eta_i(\cdot) \cvgdist \xi(\cdot), \quad
n\to\infty.$$ Let $W$ be the incremental process from and $Z$ a Pareto random variable, independent of $W$. Then, for any sequence $a(n)$ of real numbers with $a(n) \to \infty$, we have the weak convergence on $(0,\infty)\times C(K)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{\eta(t_0)}{a(n)},
\frac{\eta(\cdot)}{\eta(t_0)} \ \Big|\ \eta(t_0) > a(n) \right)
\cvgdist (Z, W(\cdot)),
\end{aligned}$$ as $n$ tends to $\infty$.
\[weak\_conv\_Rd\] Analogously to [@whi1970 Thm. 5], weak convergence of a sequence of probability measures $P_n$, $n\in{\mathbb N}$, to some probability measure $P$ on $C({\mathbb R}^d)$ is equivalent to weak convergence of $P_n r_j^{-1}$ to $P r_j^{-1}$ on $C([-j, j]^d)$ for all $j\geq 1$, where $r_j :
C({\mathbb R}^d) \to C([-j,j]^d)$ denotes the restriction of a function to the cube $[-j, j]^d$. Hence the assertion of Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_cont\] remains valid if the compact set $K$ is replaced by ${\mathbb R}^d$.
As the process $\xi$ is max-stable and $\eta\in\text{MDA}(\xi)$, similarly to the case of multivariate max-stable distributions (cf. Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\]), we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conv_dehaan}
\lim_{u \to \infty} u\sP(\eta / u \in B) = \mu(B)
\end{aligned}$$ for any Borel set $B \subset C(K)$ bounded away from $0^K$, i.e., $\inf\{\sup_{s\in K} f(s) : \ f\in B\} > 0$, and with $\mu(\partial
B) = 0$ [@deh2006a Cor. 9.3.2], where $\mu$ is the *exponent measure* of $\xi$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
& \sP(\xi(s) \leq x_j, \ s \in K_j, \ j=1,\ldots,m) \nonumber \\
&={} \exp\left[-\mu\left(\left\{ f \in C(K): \ \textstyle\sup_{s \in K_j} f(s) > x_j \textrm{ for some } j \in \{1,\ldots,m\}
\right\}\right)\right]
\end{aligned}$$ for $x_j \geq 0$, $K_j \subset K$ compact. Thus, $\mu$ equals the intensity measure of the Poisson point process $\sum_{i \in {\mathbb N}}
\delta_{U_i W_i(\cdot)}$. For $z>0$ and $D\subset C(K)$ Borel, we consider the sets $$\begin{aligned}
A_{z} &= \{f \in C(K): \ f(t_0) > z\}\\
B_D &= \{f \in C(K) : f(\cdot)/f(t_0)\in D\}\end{aligned}$$ and $A=A_1$. Note that $B_D$ is invariant w.r.t. multiplication by any positive constant. Then, as $W(t_0) = 1$ a.s., we have $\mu(A_{z}) = \int_{z}^\infty u^{-2} \sd u = z^{-1}$ and for $s_0\geq 1$ and any Borel set $D \subset C(K)$ with $\sP(W \in \partial D) = 0$, by , we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\sP\left\{\eta(t_0) / a(n) > s_0,\ \eta(\cdot)/\eta(t_0) \in D \, \Big|\, \eta(t_0) > a(n) \right\}\\
&= \frac{a(n) \sP\bigl\{\eta(\cdot) / a(n) \in A_{s_0} \cap B_D \cap A\bigr\}}{a(n) \sP\bigl\{\eta(\cdot) / a(n) \in A\bigr\}}\\
&\stackrel{n \to \infty}{\longrightarrow}{} \frac{\mu(B_D \cap A_{s_0})}{\mu(A)}\\
&={} \int_{s_0}^\infty u^{-2}\sP\bigl\{u W(\cdot) \in B_D\bigr\} \sd u\\
&={} s_0^{-1} \sP\bigl\{W(\cdot) \in D\bigr\},
\end{aligned}$$ which is the joint distribution of $Z$ and $W(\cdot)$.
\[BRproc\] For $T={\mathbb R}^d$, $d\geq 1$, let $\{Y(t): \ t\in T\}$ be a centered Gaussian process with stationary increments, continuous sample paths and $Y(t_0) = 0$ for some $t_0\in{\mathbb R}^d$. Note that by [@adl2007 Thm. 1.4.1] it is sufficient for the continuity of $Y$ that there exist constants $C,\alpha,\delta > 0$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sE |Y(s) - Y(t)|^2 \leq \frac{C}{|\log \|s-t\| |^{1+\alpha}}
\end{aligned}$$ for all $s,t\in{\mathbb R}^d$ with $\|s-t\|<\delta$. Further let $\gamma(t) =
\sE(Y(t) - Y(0))^2$ and $\sigma^2(t) = \sE(Y(t))^2$, $t \in {\mathbb R}^d$, denote the variogram and the variance of $Y$, respectively. Then, with a Fréchet point process $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{U_i}$ and independent copies $Y_i$ of $Y$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, the process $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BR_proc}
\xi(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i \exp\left(Y_i(t) - \sigma^2(t) / 2\right),
\quad t\in{\mathbb R}^d,
\end{aligned}$$ is stationary and its distribution only depends on the variogram $\gamma$. Comparing with the incremental representation , the distribution of the increments is given by the log-Gaussian random field $W(t) = \exp\left(Y(t) -
\sigma^2(t) / 2\right)$, $t\in{\mathbb R}^d$, and Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_cont\] applies.
Mixed moving maxima representation {#M3representation}
==================================
A large and commonly used class of max-stable processes is the class of M3 processes . Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pi0}
\Pi_0 = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i.T_i,F_i)}
\end{aligned}$$ be the corresponding PPP on $(0,\infty)\times{\mathbb R}^d\times C({\mathbb R}^d)$ with intensity $u^{-2}\rd u \,\rd t \,\sP_F(\rd f)$. In the sequel, M3 processes are denoted by $$\begin{aligned}
M(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i F_i(t- T_i), \quad t\in{\mathbb R}^d.\end{aligned}$$ The marginal distributions of $M$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& \sP(M(t_0)\leq s_0, \ldots, M(t_k)\leq s_k) \notag\\
&= \sP\left[ \Pi_0
\left(\left\{(u,t,f):
\max_{l=0}^k u f(t_l-t)/s_l > 1\right\}\right) = 0\right] \notag\\
&= \exp\left(- \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}
\max_{l=0}^k (f(t_l-t)/s_l)\, \rd t \, \sP_F(\rd f) \right),\label{M3_marginal}\end{aligned}$$ $t_0, \ldots, t_k\in{\mathbb R}^d$, $s_0, \ldots, s_k\geq 0$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$.
In Section \[examples\_increment\_representation\], we were interested in recovering the incremental process $W$ from processes in the MDA of a max-stable process with incremental representation. In case of M3 processes, the object of interest is clearly the distribution of the shape function $F$. Thus, in what follows, we provide the corresponding convergence results for processes $\eta$ in the MDA of an M3 process. We distinguish between processes on ${\mathbb R}^d$ with continuous sample paths and processes on a grid (${\mathbb Z}^d$). The main idea is to consider $\eta$ in the neighborhood of its own (local) maximum, conditional on this maximum being large.
Continuous Case
---------------
Let $\{\eta(t): \, t \in {\mathbb R}^d\}$ be strictly positive and in the MDA of a mixed moving maxima process $M$ in the sense of weak convergence in $C({\mathbb R}^d)$. We assume that $\eta$ is normalized such that the norming functions in are given by $c_n(t) = 1 / n$ and $b_n(t) = 0$, for any $n\in{\mathbb N}$ and $t\in{\mathbb R}^d$. Further suppose that the shape function $F$ of $M$ is sample-continuous and satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F({\mathbf}0) &= \lambda \quad a.s., \\
F(t) & \in [0,\lambda) \ \forall t \in {\mathbb R}^d \setminus \{{\mathbf}0\} \quad a.s.
\label{eq:Fmaxatorigin}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\lambda > 0$ and $$\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \sE\left\{ \max_{t_0 \in K} F(t_0 - t) \right\} \sd t < \infty
\label{eq:sup-integrability-cont}$$ for any compact set $K \subset {\mathbb R}^d$. Under these assumptions, there is an analog result to Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_cont\].
\[thm\_conv\_mmm\] Let ${Q}, K \subset {\mathbb R}^d$ be compact such that $\partial {Q}$ is a Lebesgue null set and let $$\tau_{Q}: \ C({Q}) \to {\mathbb R}^d, \ f \mapsto \inf\left( \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{t \in {Q}}
f(t) \right),$$ where [“inf”]{} is understood in the lexicographic sense. Then, under the above assumptions, for any Borel set $B \subset C(K)$ with $\sP(F / \lambda \in \partial B) = 0$, and any sequence $a(n)$ with $a(n) \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \lim_{\substack{\{{\mathbf}0\} \in L \nearrow {\mathbb R}^d\\ {\rm compact}}}
\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sP\Big\{ \eta\big(\tau_{Q}(\eta|_{Q})+\cdot\big) \big/ \eta(\tau_{Q}(\eta|_{Q})) \in B \ \Big| \\[-1em]
& \hspace{2.5cm} \max_{t\in {Q}}\eta(t) = \max_{t \in {Q}\oplus L} \eta(t),
\ \max_{t\in {Q}}\eta(t) \geq a(n)\Big\} \hfill {}={} \hfill \sP\big\{F(\cdot) / \lambda \in B\big\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\oplus$ denotes morphological dilation.
The same result holds true if we replace $\limsup_{n \to \infty}$ by $\liminf_{n \to \infty}$.
First, we consider a fixed compact set $L\subset{\mathbb R}^d$ large enough such that $K \cup \{{\bf 0}\} \subset L$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
A_L = \left\{ f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t) \geq 1, \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t) = \max_{t \in {Q}\oplus L} f(t)\right\}
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
C_B = \left\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L):
\ f\big(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}) + \,\cdot\,\big) \big/ f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q})) \in B\right\}
\end{aligned}$$ for any Borel set $B \subset C(K)$. Note that $C_B$ is invariant w.r.t. multiplication by any positive constant. Thus, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \sP\Big\{\eta\big(\tau_{Q}(\eta|_{Q}) + \cdot\big)
\big/ \eta(\tau_{Q}(\eta|_{Q})) \in B \ \Big|\ \max_{t\in {Q}}\eta(t) = \max_{t \in {Q}\oplus L} \eta(t) \geq a(n)\Big\}
\nonumber \\
& ={} \sP\big\{\eta / a(n) \in C_B \,\big|\, \eta / a(n) \in A_L\big\}
\nonumber\\
& ={} \frac{a(n) \sP\big\{\eta/a(n) \in C_B,\,\eta/a(n)
\in A_L \big\}}{a(n) \sP\big\{\eta/a(n) \in A_L \big\}}.
\label{eq:expand-cont}
\end{aligned}$$
By [@deh2006 Cor. 9.3.2] and [@res2008 Prop. 3.12] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{u \to \infty} u\sP(\eta / u \in C) \leq{}& \mu(C), \quad C \subset C({Q}\oplus L) \text{ closed},\\
\liminf_{u \to \infty} u\sP(\eta / u \in O) \geq{}& \mu(O), \quad O \subset C({Q}\oplus L) \text{ open},
\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ and $O$ are bounded away from $0^K$. Here, $\mu$ is the intensity measure of the PPP $\sum_{i \in {\mathbb N}} \delta_{U_i F_i(\,\cdot\, -
T_i)}$ restricted to $C({Q}\oplus L)$. Thus, by adding or removing the boundary, we see that all the limit points of Equation lie in the interval $$\label{eq:liminterval}
\left[ \frac{\mu(C_B \cap A_L) - \mu(\partial (C_B \cap A_L))}{\mu(A_L) + \mu(\partial A_L)}, \frac{\mu(C_B \cap A_L) + \mu(\partial (C_B \cap A_L))}{\mu(A_L) - \mu(\partial A_L)}\right].$$ We note that $A_L$ is closed and the set $$\begin{aligned}
A_L^* ={} & \bigg\{ f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \\[-.5em]
&\quad \, \tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}) \in {Q}^o, \ \max_{t\in {Q}} f(t) > \max\big\{1, f(t)\big\} \ \forall t \in {Q}\oplus L \setminus\{\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q})\} \bigg\}
\end{aligned}$$ is in the interior of $A_L$ (Lemma \[lem:AL\]). Hence, we can assess $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(\partial A_L) \leq{} & \quad \ \mu(\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t) = 1\}) \notag\\
& + \mu\bigg( \quad \bigg( \quad \{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ \tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}) \in \partial {Q}\} \notag\\
& \hspace{1.55cm} \cup \left\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{t \in {Q}\oplus L} f(t) \text{ is not unique}\right\}\bigg) \notag\\
& \qquad \cap \left\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t) = \max_{t \in {Q}\oplus L} f(t) \geq 1 \right\}\bigg) \notag \\
\leq{} & 0 + \int_{\partial {Q}} \int_{\lambda^{-1}}^\infty u^{-2} \sd u \sd t_0 \notag\\
& \phantom{0} + \int_{{\mathbb R}^d \setminus ({Q}\oplus L)} \int_{\lambda^{-1}}^\infty u^{-2} \sP\left\{u \max_{t_0 \in {Q}} F(t_0 -x) \geq 1\right\} \sd u \sd x \label{eq:partAL}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the equality $\mu(\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t) = 1\}) = 0$ holds as $\max_{t \in {Q}} M(t)$ is Fréchet distributed (cf. [@deh2006 Lemma 9.3.4]). Since $\partial {Q}$ is a Lebesgue null set, the second term on the right-hand side of also vanishes. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(\partial A_L) \leq{} & \int_{{\mathbb R}^d \setminus ({Q}\oplus L)} \int_{\lambda^{-1}}^\infty u^{-2} \sP\left\{u \max_{t_0 \in {Q}} F(t_0 -x) \geq 1\right\} \sd u \sd x =: c(L) \label{eq:partAL2}.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, let $B \subset C(K)$ a be Borel set such that $\sP(F / \lambda \in \partial B) = 0$. For the set $C_B$, we obtain that the set $$\begin{aligned}
C_B^* ={} & \bigg\{ f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{f \in {Q}} f(t) \text{ is unique},\ \frac{f\big(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}) + \cdot\big)}{f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}))} \in B^o \bigg\}
\end{aligned}$$ is in the interior of $C_B$ and that the closure of $C_B$ is a subset of $$\begin{aligned}
C_B^* \cup{} & \left\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \, \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{t \in {Q}} f(t) \text{ is not unique}\right\}\\
\cup{} & \left\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \, f\big(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}) + \cdot\big) \big/ f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q})) \in \partial B\right\}
\end{aligned}$$ (Lemma \[lem:interCB\] and Lemma \[lem:CB\]). Thus, by , we can assess $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(\partial (C_B \cap A_L)) \leq{} & \mu(\partial A_L) + \mu(\partial C_B \cap A_L) \notag\\
\leq{} & c(L) + \int_{{\mathbb R}^d \setminus ({Q}\oplus L)} \int_{\lambda^{-1}}^\infty u^{-2}
\sP\left\{u \max_{t_0 \in {Q}} F(t_0 -x) \geq 1\right\}\sd u \sd x \notag\\
& \hspace{0.7cm} + \int_{{Q}} \int_{\lambda^{-1}}^\infty u^{-2} \sP(F / \lambda \in \partial B) \sd u \sd t \quad
{}={} \quad 2 c(L). \label{eq:partCB}
\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \mu(C_B \cap A_L) \nonumber \\
={} & \int_{Q}\int_{\lambda^{-1}}^\infty u^{-2} \sP\Big\{F(\cdot) / \lambda \in B\Big\}
\sd u \sd t_0 \nonumber \\
& + \int_{{\mathbb R}^d \setminus({Q}\oplus L)} \int_{\lambda^{-1}}^\infty u^{-2}
\sP\bigg\{u \max_{t_0 \in {Q}} F(t_0 -x) \geq 1,\ \nonumber \\
& \hspace{2.5cm}
F\left(\Big(\tau_{Q}(F(\cdot-x)|_{Q})\Big)+\cdot-x\right) \Big/ \max_{t_0 \in {Q}} F(t_0-x) \in B,\nonumber \\
& \hspace{2.5cm} F(t-x) / \max_{t_0 \in {Q}} F(t_0-x) \leq 1
\ \forall t \in {Q}\oplus L \bigg\} \sd u \sd x. \label{eq:CB}
\end{aligned}$$ The second term in is positive and can be bounded from above by $c(L)$. Setting $B= C(K)$, $\mu(A_L)$ can be expressed in an analogous way. Now, we plug in the results of , and into to obtain that all the limit points of are in the interval $$\begin{aligned}
\left[\frac{\lambda \cdot |{Q}| \cdot \sP\big\{F(\cdot) / \lambda \in B\big\} - 2c(L)}{\lambda \cdot |{Q}| + 2c(L)},
\frac{\lambda \cdot |{Q}| \cdot \sP\big\{F(\cdot) / \lambda \in B\big\} + 3c(L)}{\lambda \cdot |{Q}| - c(L)} \right].
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we note that $c(L)$ can be bounded from above by $$\int_{{\mathbb R}^d \setminus ({Q}\oplus L)} \sE \Big\{\max_{t_0 \in {Q}}
F(t_0-x)\Big\} \sd x,$$ which vanishes for $L \nearrow {\mathbb R}^d$ because of assumption . This yields the assertion of the theorem.
We conclude the treatment of the continuous case with an example of a process $\eta$ that allows for an application of Theorem \[thm\_conv\_mmm\]. As $\eta$ will be composed of a (locally) finite number of shape functions from the M3 construction in , $\eta$ may directly model rainfall data and has therefore the potential for various practical applications.
\[ex:mmm-mda\] Let $\{F(t): \ t \in {\mathbb R}^d\}$ be a random shape function as defined in . For $c, \epsilon >
0$ let $\Pi_{c, \epsilon} = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i.T_i,F_i)}$ be a PPP on $(0,\infty)\times{\mathbb R}^d\times C({\mathbb R}^d)$ with intensity $$\begin{aligned}
c{\mathbf 1}_{\{u\geq\epsilon\}}u^{-2}\rd u\,\rd t\,\sP_F(\rd f).\end{aligned}$$ and, for $\kappa > 0$, define a process $\tilde M=\tilde M_{c,\epsilon,\kappa}$ by $$\tilde M(\cdot) = \kappa \vee \max_{(u, t, f)\in \Pi_{c, \epsilon}}
u f(\,\cdot\, - t).$$ Then, the following statements hold.
1. $\tilde M$ is in the MDA of the M3 process $M$ associated to $F$ in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions.
2. If $F$ satisfies , then $\tilde M$ is in the MDA of $M$ in the sense of weak convergence on $C({\mathbb R}^d)$.
For a proof of this example, the reader is referred to Appendix \[sec:proof\_ex\_mmm-mda\].
Discrete Case
-------------
Theorem \[thm\_conv\_mmm\] allows for estimation of $F$ if the complete sample paths of $\eta$ are known, at least on a large set ${Q}\oplus L \subset {\mathbb R}^d$. For many applications, this assumption might be too restrictive. Therefore, we seek after a weaker assumption that only requires to know $\eta$ on a grid. This needs a modification of the underlying model leading to a discretized mixed moving maxima process.
Let $\{F(t): \ t \in {\mathbb Z}^d\}$ be a measurable stochastic process with values in $[0, \infty)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{assumption_integral_discr}
\sum_{t \in {\mathbb Z}^d} \sE F(t) = 1.\end{aligned}$$ Further, let $\Pi_{0,\operatorname{discr}} = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i.T_i,F_i)}$ be a Poisson point process on $(0,\infty) \times {\mathbb Z}^d\times
[0,\infty)^{{\mathbb Z}^d}$ with intensity $u^{-2}\rd u\, \delta_{{\mathbb Z}^d}(\rd t)
\, \sP_F(\rd f)$. Then, the discrete mixed moving maxima process $M_{\operatorname{discr}}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\operatorname{discr}}(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i F_i(t- T_i), \quad t\in{\mathbb Z}^d.
\label{def_M3_discr}\end{aligned}$$ The process $M_{\operatorname{discr}}$ is max-stable and stationary on ${\mathbb Z}^d$ and has standard Fréchet margins.
Let $\{\eta(t), \ t \in {\mathbb Z}^d\}$ be in the MDA of a discrete mixed moving maxima process $M_{\operatorname{discr}}$ in the sense of convergence of finite-dimensional distributions with norming functions $c_n(t) = 1/n$ and $b_n(t) = 0$ in , $n\in{\mathbb N}$ and $t\in{\mathbb Z}^d$. Furthermore, we assume that the shape function $F$ satisfies with ${\mathbb R}^d$ being replaced by ${\mathbb Z}^d$. Then, analogously to Theorem \[thm\_conv\_mmm\], the following convergence result can be shown.
Under the above assumptions, for any $k \in {\mathbb N}$, $k+1$ distinct points $t_0, \ldots, t_k \in {\mathbb Z}^d$, any Borel sets $B_1, \ldots, B_k
\subset [0,\infty)$ such that $$\sP\big\{(F(t_1)/\lambda,\ldots,F(t_k)/\lambda) \in
\partial(B_1\times\cdots\times B_k)\big\}=0,$$ and any sequence $a(n)$ with $a(n) \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\substack{\{{\mathbf}0\} \in L \nearrow {\mathbb Z}^d\\ {\rm compact}}}
\lim_{n \to \infty} &\sP\big\{ \eta(t_0+t_i) / \eta(t_0) \in B_i, \ i=1,\ldots,k \ \big| \\[-1em]
& \hspace{3.5cm} \eta(t_0) = \max_{t \in L} \eta(t_0+t),\ \eta(t_0) \geq a(n)\big\}\\[.5em]
= &\sP\big\{F(t_i) / \lambda \in B_i, \ i=1,\ldots,k\big\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Switching between the different representations {#sec:switching}
===============================================
In the previous sections we analyzed processes that admit the incremental representations or and, on the other hand, processes of M3 type as in . We show that under certain assumptions, we can switch from one representation to the other.
Incremental representation of mixed moving maxima processes
-----------------------------------------------------------
We distinguish between M3 processes with strictly positive shape functions, for which we can find an incremental representation , and general non-negative shape functions, for which only the weaker representation can be obtained.
### Mixed moving maxima processes with positive shape functions {#ex:M3}
Let $M$ be an M3 process on ${\mathbb R}^d$ as in with a shape function $F$ with $F(t) > 0$ for all $t \in {\mathbb R}^d$. Then $M$ admits a representation with $t_0 = 0$ and incremental process $W$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sP(W\in L)
= \int_{C^+({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} {\mathbf 1}_{\{f(\cdot - t)/f(-t)\in L\}} f(-t)
\sd t \, \sP_F(\rd f), \quad L\in\mathcal B(C^+({\mathbb R}^d)).\label{defWofM3}\end{aligned}$$
We consider the two Poisson point processes on $(0,\infty)\times C^+({\mathbb R}^d)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_1 = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}}\delta_{(U_i F_i(-T_i), F_i(\cdot - T_i)/F_i(-T_i))}, \label{auxPPP1}\end{aligned}$$ as a transformation of $\Pi_0$ in , and $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_2 = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}}\delta_{(U'_i, W_i(\cdot))}, \label{auxPPP2}\end{aligned}$$ with $W_i$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, being independent copies of $W$, and with $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}}\delta_{U'_i}$ being a Fréchet point process. Then the intensity measures of $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&\sE\Pi_1([z,\infty)\times L)\\
&=\int_{C^+({\mathbb R}^d)}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}\int_0^\infty u^{-2} {\mathbf 1}_{\{u f(-t) \geq z\}}
{\mathbf 1}_{\{f(\cdot - t)/f(-t)\in L\}}
\, \rd u \, \rd t \, \sP_F(\rd f)\\
&= z^{-1} \int_{C^+({\mathbb R}^d)}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} {\mathbf 1}_{\{f(\cdot - t)/f(-t)\in L\}} f(-t)
\, \rd t \, \sP_F(\rd f)\\
&=z^{-1} \sP(W\in L)\\
&=\sE\Pi_2([z,\infty)\times L), \end{aligned}$$ $L\in\mathcal B({C^+({\mathbb R}^d)})$, $z> 0$, and hence $\Pi_1\eqdist\Pi_2$. The assertion follows from the fact that $M$ is uniquely determined by $\Pi_1$ via the relation $M(t) = \max_{(v,g)\in\Pi_1} v g(t)$, $t\in{\mathbb R}^d$.
While the definition of $W$ in is rather implicit, in the following, we provide an explicit construction of the incremental process $W$, which can also be used for simulation. To this end, let $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}}\delta_{U_i''}$ be a Fréchet point process and let the distribution of $(S,G)\in C^+({\mathbb R}^d)\times{\mathbb R}^d$ be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hat_distr}
&\sP\bigl((S, G)\in (B\times L)\bigr)\\ &=
\int_{C^+({\mathbb R}^d)}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} {\mathbf 1}_{s\in B}{\mathbf 1}_{f\in L}
\frac{f(-s)}{\int f(r) \rd r} \,\rd s \left(\int f(r) \rd r\right)
\sP_F(\rd f) \notag\\
\notag &= \int_{C^+({\mathbb R}^d)}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} {\mathbf 1}_{s\in B}{\mathbf 1}_{f\in L} f(-s) \, \rd s \, \sP_F(\rd f),\end{aligned}$$ $B\in\mathcal B^d$, $L\in\mathcal B({C^+({\mathbb R}^d)})$. In other words, $\sP_G(\rd f)= (\int f(r)\sd r)\,\sP_F(\rd f)$ and, conditional on $\{G=f\}$, the density function of the shift $S$ is proportional to $f(- \cdot)$. Putting $W(\cdot) = G(\cdot - S)/G(-S)$, equation is satisfied and with i.i.d. copies $W_i$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, of $W$, we get that $\max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i'' W_i(\cdot)$ is indeed an incremental representation of the mixed moving maxima process $M$.
\[mmm\_BRproc\] We consider the following two special cases of mixed moving maxima processes:
1. Let $\Sigma\in{\mathbb R}^{d\times d}$ be a positive definite matrix and let the shape function be given by $F(t) = (2\pi)^{-d/2} |\Sigma|^{-1/2}
\exp\left\{-\frac{1}{2}t^\top\Sigma^{-1} t\right\}$, $t\in{\mathbb R}^d$. Then, $M$ becomes the well-known Smith process. At the same time, by , $S\sim N(0,\Sigma)$ and $G \equiv F$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
Y(t)&=\exp\left\{-\textstyle\frac{1}{2}(t-S)^\top\Sigma^{-1}(t-S) + \frac{1}{2}S^\top\Sigma^{-1}S\right\}\\
&= \exp\left\{-\textstyle\frac{1}{2}t^\top\Sigma^{-1}t + t^\top \Sigma^{-1} S\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\sE(t^\top \Sigma^{-1} S)^2 = t^\top\Sigma^{-1}t $, $M$ is equivalent to the Brown-Resnick process in with variogram $\gamma(h) = h^\top \Sigma^{-1}h$.
2. For the one-dimensional Brown-Resnick process $\xi$ in with variogram $\gamma(h) =|h|$, i.e., $Y$ is the exponential of a standard Brownian motion with drift $-|t| / 2$, [@eng2011] recently showed that the M3 representation is given by $\{F(t): \, t\in{\mathbb R}\} = \{ Y(t) \mid Y(s)\leq 0 \ \forall s \in {\mathbb R}:
\, t\in{\mathbb R}\}$, i.e., the shape function is the exponential of a conditionally negative drifted Brownian motion. Having these two representations, it follows that the law of the conditional Brownian motion $F$, re-weighted by $\int F(t) \rd t$ and randomly shifted with density $F(-\cdot) / \int F(t) \rd t$, coincides with the law of $Y$.
### Mixed moving maxima processes with finitely supported shape functions {#ex:M32}
Let $M$ be an M3 process on ${\mathbb R}^d$ as in . In contrast to Section \[ex:M3\], where the shape functions are required to take positive values, here, we allow for arbitrary shape functions with values in $[0, \infty)$.
\[finite\_supp\] The M3 process $M$ as in allows for an incremental representation of the form , with incremental processes $V_i$ given by $$V_i(\cdot) = F_i(\cdot -R_i) / g(R_i).$$ Here $R_i$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, are i.i.d. copies of a random vector $R$ with arbitrary density $g$ satisfying $g(t)>0$ for all $t\in{\mathbb R}^d$, and $F_i$, $i\in{\mathbb N}$, are i.i.d. copies of the random shape function $F$.
With $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb N}} \delta_{U_i}$ being a Fréchet point process, we consider the process $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde M(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i F_i(t-R_i) / g(R_i), \qquad t\in{\mathbb R}^d,\end{aligned}$$ which clearly is of the form . Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\sP&(\tilde M(t_0)\leq s_0, \ldots, \tilde M(t_k)\leq s_k) \\
&= \exp\left(- \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}
\max_{l=0}^k (f(t_l-t)/(g(t)s_l)) g(t) \, \rd t \, \sP_F(\rd f)\right)\\
&= \exp\left(- \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)}\int_{{\mathbb R}^d}
\max_{l=0}^k (f(t_l-t)/s_l)) \, \rd t \, \sP_F(\rd f)\right).$$ The right-hand side coincides with the marginal distribution of $M$, which is given by . This concludes the proof.
Decomposing $V$ as in with $t_0=0$, we obtain the equality in distribution $$\begin{aligned}
V^{(1)}(\cdot) \eqdist \bigl(F(\cdot -R) / g(R) \ \big|
-R\in \operatorname{supp}(F) \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Applying Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
&\sP\bigl(\Delta\mathbf{\tilde{V}}^{(1)}\in \rd{\mathbf z}\bigr)\notag\\
&= \sP\bigl( F(-R) / g(R) > 0\bigr)
\cdot\int_0^\infty y
\sP\big(V^{(1)}(0)\in \rd y,\ \Delta{\mathbf V}^{(1)}\in\rd{\mathbf z}\big)\notag\\
&= \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{-\operatorname{supp}(f)} g(s)\sd s \,\sP_F(\rd f)\notag\\
&\hspace{1cm}
\cdot\int_0^\infty y \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{-\operatorname{supp}(f)} {\mathbf 1}_{f(-t)/g(t)\in \rd y} {\mathbf 1}_{(f(t_l-t)/f(-t))_{l=1}^k \in \rd{\mathbf z}} \notag\\
&\hspace{6cm} \cdot g(t)
\left(\textstyle\int_{-\operatorname{supp}(f)} g(s)\rd s\right)^{-1} \sd t \,\sP_F(\rd f) \sd y\notag\\
&= \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{\operatorname{supp}(f)} g(-s)\sd s \sP_F(\rd f)\notag\\
&\hspace{1cm}
\cdot \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{\operatorname{supp}(f)} f(t) {\mathbf 1}_{(f(t_l+t)/f(t))_{l=1}^k \in \rd{\mathbf z}} \left(\textstyle\int_{\operatorname{supp}(f)} g(-s)\rd s\right)^{-1} \sd t \,\sP_F(\rd f).
\label{distr_gen_incr}\end{aligned}$$ If the shape function $F$ is deterministic, the right-hand side of simplifies to $ \int_{\operatorname{supp}(f)} f(t) {\mathbf 1}_{(f(t_l+t)/f(t))_{l=1}^k \in \rd{\mathbf z}} \sd t$, i.e., the asymptotic conditional increments of $\eta\in\text{MDA}(M)$ can be seen as a convolution of the shape function’s increments with a random shift, whose density is given by the shape function itself. Note in particular, that this distribution is independent of the choice of the density $g$ in Theorem \[finite\_supp\].
Section \[ex:M3\] considers the subclass of M3 processes with strictly positive shape functions and provides an incremental representation as in , which is nicely related to the conditional increments of $\eta$ due to the property $W(0)=1$. Section \[ex:M32\] applies to arbitrary M3 processes but only yields an incremental representation as in , for which the incremental process $V$ does not directly represent the conditional increments of $\eta$.
Mixed moving maxima representation of the incremental construction
------------------------------------------------------------------
\[theo:M3ofIncremental\] Let $\sum_{i \in {\mathbb N}} \delta_{U_i}$ be a Fréchet point process and let $W_i$, $i \in {\mathbb N}$, be independent copies of a non-negative, sample-continuous process $\{W(t),
\ t\in{\mathbb R}^d\}$, satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{||t|| \to \infty} W(t) &= 0 && a.s.,\\
\sE W(t) &=1 &&\text{for all } t \in {\mathbb R}^d,\\
\text{and} \quad \sE\left\{\textstyle\max_{t \in K} W(t)\right\} & < \infty
&&\text{for any compact set $K \subset {\mathbb R}^d$.}
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, let $W$ be Brown-Resnick stationary, i.e., the process $\xi$, defined by $$\xi(t) = \max_{i \in {\mathbb N}} U_i W_i(t), \quad t \in {\mathbb R}^d,$$ is stationary with standard Fréchet margins. Then, the following assertions hold:
1. The random variables $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_i = \inf \left\{\operatorname*{arg\,sup}_{t \in {\mathbb R}^d} W_i(t)\right\} \quad \text{and}
\quad \gamma_i = \sup_{t \in {\mathbb R}^d} W_i(t)
\end{aligned}$$ are well-defined. Furthermore, $\sum_{i \in {\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i \gamma_i, \tau_i, W_i(\cdot + \tau_i)
/ \gamma_i)}$ is a Poisson point process on $(0,\infty) \times
{\mathbb R}^d \times C({\mathbb R}^d)$ with intensity measure $ \Psi(\rd u, \sd t,
\sd f) = c u^{-2} \sd u \, \sd t \, \sP_{\tilde F}(\rd f)$ for some $c >
0$ and some probability measure $\sP_{\tilde F}$.
2. $\xi$ has an M3 representation with $\sP_F(\rd f) = \sP_{\tilde F}(c\sd f)$ being the probability measure of the shape function $F$. The constant $c>0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:c}
c = \left(\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} f(t) \, \sP_{\tilde F}(\rd f) \sd t\right)^{-1}
\end{aligned}$$ and the probability measure $\sP_{\tilde F}$ is defined by $$\sP_{\tilde F}(A) = \frac{\int_0^\infty y \sP(W(\cdot +\tau) / y \in A, \ \tau \in
K \mid \gamma=y) \, \sP_\gamma(\rd y)} {\int_0^\infty y \sP(\tau \in K
\mid \gamma=y) \, \sP_\gamma(\rd y)}$$ for any Borel set $A \subset C({\mathbb R}^d)$ and any compact set $K \subset {\mathbb R}^d$, where $\tau$ and $\gamma$ are defined as $\tau_i$ and $\gamma_i$, respectively, replacing $W_i$ by $W$, and $\sP_\gamma$ is the probability measure belonging to $\gamma$.
<!-- -->
1. Analogously to the proof of [@kab2009 Thm. 14].
2. From the first part it follows that $$\Phi_0 = \sum_{i \in {\mathbb N}} \delta_{(U_i \gamma_i / c,\, \tau_i,\,
c \cdot W_i(\cdot + \tau_i) / \gamma_i)}$$ is a PPP with intensity measure $\Psi_0(\rd u, \sd t, \sd f) = u^{-2} \sd u \times \sd t \times \, \sP_F(\rd f)$ where $\sP_F(\rd f) = \sP_{\tilde F}(c \sd f)$. Hence, $\Phi_0$ is of the same type as $\Pi_0$ from the beginning of Section \[M3representation\] and $$\xi(t) = \max_{(y,s,f) \in \Phi_0} y f(\cdot - s), \quad
t \in {\mathbb R}^d,$$ is a mixed moving maxima representation. The integrability condition follows from the fact that $\xi$ has standard Fréchet marginals. Thus, $$\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} c f(t) \, \sP_{\tilde F}(\rd f) \sd t= 1,$$ which implies . In order to calculate $\sP_{\tilde F}$, let $A \in \mathcal B (C({\mathbb R}^d))$ and $K \in \mathcal{B}^d$ be compact. The first part of this Theorem implies that $$\Psi([1, \infty)\times K \times A) = c \cdot |K| \cdot \sP_{\tilde F}(A).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qlim}
\sP_{\tilde F}(A) = \frac{ \Psi([1, \infty) \times K \times A)}{
\Psi([1, \infty) \times K \times C({\mathbb R}^d))},
\end{aligned}$$ and both the enumerator and the denominator are finite. For the enumerator, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(&[1, \infty) \times K \times A)\\
={} & \int_0^\infty u^{-2} \int^{\infty}_{u^{-1}} \sP(W(\cdot + \tau) / \gamma \in A, \ \tau \in K \mid \gamma=y) \, \sP_\gamma(\rd y) \sd u\\
={} & \int_0^\infty \int^{\infty}_{y^{-1}} u^{-2} \sd u \cdot \sP(W(\cdot + \tau) / y \in A, \ \tau \in K \mid \gamma=y) \, \sP_\gamma(\rd y)\\
={} & \int_0^\infty y \sP(W(\cdot + \tau) / y \in A, \ \tau \in K \mid \gamma=y) \, \sP_\gamma(\rd y).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by , $$\begin{aligned}
\sP_{\tilde F}(A) = \frac{\int_0^\infty y \sP(W(\cdot + \tau) / y \in A, \ \tau \in K \mid \gamma=y) \, \sP_\gamma(\rd y)}{\int_0^\infty y \sP(\tau \in K \mid \gamma=y) \, \sP_\gamma(\rd y)},
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
Outlook: Statistical applications {#sec:application}
=================================
In univariate extreme value theory, a standard method for estimating the extreme value parameters fits all data exceeding a high threshold to a certain Poisson point process. This peaks-over-threshold approach has been generalized in [@roo2006] to the multivariate setting. Therein, generalized multivariate Pareto distributions are obtained as the max-limit of some multivariate random vector in the MDA of an extreme value distribution by conditioning on the event that at least one of the components is large. Conditioning on the same extremal events, the recent contribution [@fal2012] analyzes the asymptotic distribution of exceedance counts of stationary sequences.\
Here, we have suggested conditioning a stochastic process $\eta(t) : t\in
T\}$ in the MDA of a max-stable process $\{\xi(t) : t\in T\}$ such that it converges to the incremental processes $W$ in or the shape functions $F$ in . In this section we provide several examples how these theoretical results can be used for statistical inference. The approach is based on a multivariate peaks-over-threshold method for max-stable processes, though the definition of extreme events differs from that in [@roo2006; @fal2012].\
In the sequel, suppose that $\eta_1,\dots,\eta_n,$ $n\in{\mathbb N},$ are independent observations of the random process $\eta$, already normalized to standard Pareto margins.
Incremental representation {#incremental-representation}
--------------------------
For a max-stable process $\xi$ that admits an incremental representation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def_xi_again}
\xi(t) = \max_{i\in{\mathbb N}} U_i W_i(t), \quad t\in T,\end{aligned}$$ as in , the statistical merit of the convergence results in Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_general\] and Theorem \[theo\_cond\_increments\_cont\] is the “deconvolution” of $U$ and $W$ which allows to substitute estimation of $\xi$ by estimation of the process $W$. As only the single *extreme* events converge to $W$, we define the index set of extremal observations as $$\begin{aligned}
I_1(n) = \bigl\{ i\in \{1,\dots n\}: \ \eta_i(t_0) > a(n) \bigr\},\end{aligned}$$ for some fixed $t_0\in T$. The set $\{ \eta_i(\cdot) / \eta_i(t_0) :
\ i \in I_1(n) \}$ then represents a collection of independent random variables that approximately follow the distribution of $W$. Thus, once the representation in is known, both parametric and non-parametric estimation for the process $W$ is feasible. For statistical inference it is necessary that the number of extremal observations $|I_1(n)|$ converges to $\infty$, as $n\to\infty$. This is achieved by choosing the sequence of thresholds $a(n)$ according to Remark \[rem\_thres\].
The dependence parameter $q\geq 1$ of the symmetric logistic distribution can be estimated by perceiving the conditional increments of $\eta$ in the MDA as realizations of $W$ and maximizing the likelihood $$\begin{aligned}
&\sP\big(W(t_1) \in \rd s_1, \dots W(t_k) \in \rd s_k \,\big|\, q\big) \\
&= \left(1+\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^k s_i^{-q}\right)^{1/q -(k+1)}
\left(\textstyle\prod_{i=1}^k(iq-1)\right)
\textstyle\prod_{i=0}^k s_i^{-q-1} \ \rd s_1\dots \rd s_k.\end{aligned}$$
Recall that the Brown-Resnick processes in Example \[BRproc\] admit a representation with log-Gaussian incremental process $W(t) = \exp\left\{Y(t) - \sigma^2(t) / 2\right\}, t\in{\mathbb R}^d$. Hence, standard estimation procedures for Gaussian vectors or processes can be applied for statistical inference. [@eng2012a] explicitly construct several new estimators of the variogram $\gamma$ based on the incremental representation, which also covers Hüsler-Reiss distributions, and they provide some basic performance analyses.
Mixed moving maxima representation {#mixed-moving-maxima-representation}
----------------------------------
Similarly, in case of the mixed moving maxima representation $$\begin{aligned}
M(t) = \max_{i \in {\mathbb N}} U_i F_i(t - S_i), \quad t \in {\mathbb R}^d,\end{aligned}$$ the convergence results of Theorem \[thm\_conv\_mmm\] can be used to estimate $F$ (or $F_1 = F / \lambda$) on some compact domain $K$ instead of estimating $M$ directly. Here, the index set $T$ of the observed processes $\{\eta_i(t): \ t \in T\}$, $i=1,\ldots, n$, can be identified with ${Q}\oplus L$ from Theorem \[thm\_conv\_mmm\]. The set $L$ should be sufficiently large such that it is reasonable to assume that the components $\{U_i F_i(\cdot - S_i): \ S_i \notin {Q}\oplus L\}$ hardly affect the process $M$ on ${Q}\oplus K$ (that is, $\mu(C_B \cap A_L) / \mu(A_L) \approx \sP(F(\cdot) - \lambda \in B)$ in the proof of Theorem \[thm\_conv\_mmm\]). At the same time, a large set ${Q}$ leads to a rich set of usable observations $ \widetilde
F_1^{(i)} = \eta_i(\tau_{Q}(\eta_i)+\cdot) / \eta_i(\tau_{Q}(\eta_i)),
\ i \in I_2(n),$ where $$I_2(n) = \left\{ i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}: \ \max_{t\in {Q}}\eta_i(t) =
\max_{t \in {Q}\oplus L} \eta_i(t) \geq a(n)\right\}.$$ The resulting processes $\widetilde F_1^{(i)},\ i \in I_2(n),$ can be interpreted as independent samples from an approximation to $F_1$. This approach can be expected to be particularly promising in case of F having a simple distribution or even being deterministic.
Some examples of mixed moving maxima processes have already been analyzed for statistical inference by [@deh2006] who use normal, exponential and t densities as shape functions. More precisely, they consider M3 models with $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(t) &= \exp\left\{- \frac{\beta^2 t^2} 2\right\}, \quad &\lambda {}={}& \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{2\pi}}, \label{eq:mmm-ex-1}\\
F_1(t) &= \exp\left\{- \beta |t|\right\}, \quad &\lambda {}={}& \frac{\beta}{2}, \label{eq:mmm-ex-2}\\
\text{and} \quad F_1(t) &= \left( 1 + \frac{\beta^2 t^2}{\nu} \right)^{- \frac{\nu+1} 2}, \quad
&\lambda {}={}& \frac{\beta \Gamma\left( \frac{\nu+1} 2\right)}{\sqrt{\pi\nu} \Gamma\left(\frac \nu 2\right)}\, \quad \nu > 0, \label{eq:mmm-ex-3}\end{aligned}$$ all parametrized by $\beta > 0$. [@deh2006] introduce consistent and asymptotically normal estimators based on the interpretation of $\beta$ as a dependence parameter. From the samples $\widetilde F_1^{(i)}$, $i \in I_2(n)$, we get a new estimator $$\widehat F_1 = \frac 1 {|I_2(n)|} \sum_{i \in I_2} \widetilde F_1^{(i)}$$ for $F_1$. Applying this estimator, $\beta$ can be estimated by a least squares fit of – to $\widehat F_1$ at some locations $t_1, \ldots t_m \in K$. Note that in case of the normal model and the exponential model , the logarithm of the shape function $F_1$ depends linearly on $\beta^2$ and $\beta$, respectively, and $\log \widehat F_1$ can be fitted by ordinary least squares.
The mixed moving maxima representation can also be employed for estimation of Brown-Resnick processes although the distribution of $F$ is much more sophisticated than the one of $W$ in the incremental representation (cf. [@eng2011; @oes2012]). A relation between the shape function $F$ and the variogram $\gamma$ of the Brown-Resnick process can be obtained via the *extremal coefficient function* $\theta(\cdot)$. For a stationary, max-stable process $\xi$ with identically distributed marginals, [@sch2003] defined the extremal coefficient function $\theta$ via the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\sP(\xi(0)\leq u,\, \xi(h) \leq u) = \sP(\xi(0) \leq u)^{\theta(h)},
\quad h \in {\mathbb R}^d.\end{aligned}$$ For mixed moving maxima processes, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:theta-mmm}
\theta(h)
=\sE\left. \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \{ F(t) \vee F(t+h)\} \sd t\right.
=\frac{\sE\left. \int_{{\mathbb R}^d} \{ F_1(t) \vee F_1(t+h)\} \sd t\right.}{
\sE\left.\int_{{\mathbb R}^d} F_1(t) \sd t\right.}\end{aligned}$$ and, at the same time, for Brown-Resnick processes [@kab2009], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:theta-br}
\theta(h) = 2\Phi\left(\sqrt{\gamma(h)}/ 2\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi$ is the standard Gaussian distribution function. Identifying with and plugging in the samples $\widetilde F_1^{(i)}$, $i \in I_2(n)$, we get the variogram estimator $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat \gamma(h) =
\left\{2 \Phi^{-1}\left(
\frac{\displaystyle \sum_{i \in I_2(n)} \int_{\widetilde K} \widetilde F_1^{(i)}(t)
\vee \widetilde F_1^{(i)}(t+h) \sd t}{2 \displaystyle \sum_{i \in I_2(n)} \int_{\widetilde K} \widetilde F_1^{(i)}(t) \sd t}
\right)\right\}^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde K$ is a large set such that $\widetilde K, \widetilde K +h \subset K$.
Auxiliary Results for the Proof of Theorem \[thm\_conv\_mmm\]
=============================================================
\[lem:AL\] $A_L$ is closed. The set $A_L^*$ is in the interior of $A_L$.
The first assertion is obvious. For the second one, let $f^* \in
A_L^*$. Then, we have $f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q})) =: \alpha >
1$. Furthermore, there is $\delta > 0$ such that $B_\delta(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q})) = \{t \in {\mathbb R}^d: \ ||t - \tau_{Q}(f|_{Q})||
< \delta \} \in {Q}^o$ and we have $$\beta := \sup_{t \in {Q}\oplus L \setminus B_\delta(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q}))} f^*(t) - \max_{t\in {Q}}f^*(t) < 0.$$ Now, we choose $\varepsilon < \min \{ \frac {\alpha-1} 2, \frac {|\beta|} 2\}$ and show that $B_\varepsilon(f^*) = \{ f \in C({Q}\oplus L):\ ||f - f^*||_\infty < \varepsilon\} \subset A_L$. This holds, as for any $f \in B_\varepsilon(f^*)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q})) \geq f(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q})) > \alpha - \varepsilon > \frac {1+\alpha }2 > 1\\
\text{and} \quad & \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t) \leq \max_{t \in {Q}\oplus L} f(t) = \max\left\{\max_{t \in {Q}\oplus L \setminus {Q}^o} f(t), \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t)\right\}\\
& {}\leq{} \max\left\{ \beta + \alpha + \varepsilon, \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t)\right\} {}\leq{} \max\left\{ \alpha - \varepsilon, \ \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t)\right\} {}={} \max_{t\in {Q}}f(t),
\end{aligned}$$ which means equality.
\[lem:interCB\] The set $C_B^*$ is in the interior of $C_B$.
Let $f^* \in C_B^*$. Then, $t^* = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{t \in {Q}} f^*(t)$ is well-defined and necessarily, as $f \geq 0$, $$\label{eq:alpha}
\alpha := f^*(t^*) \in (0,||f^*||_\infty].$$ Since $f^*(t^* + \cdot) / f^*(t^*) \in B^o$, there is some $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:ball}
\left\{f \in C(K): \ \left|\left|f^*(t^* + \cdot) \Big/ f^*(t^*) - f\right|\right|_\infty < \varepsilon\right\} \subset B.$$ Furthermore, $f^*$ is uniformly continuous on the compact set ${Q}\oplus L$, i.e. there exists some $\delta > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:unifcont}
\sup_{s,t \in {Q}\oplus L, \ ||s-t|| < \delta} |f^*(s) - f^*(t)| < \frac \varepsilon 3 \alpha.$$ Then, as $\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{t \in {Q}} f^*(t)$ is unique, we have that $$\label{eq:beta}
\beta := \max_{t \in {Q}\setminus \{t \in {\mathbb R}^d: \ ||t-t^*|| < \delta\}} f^*(t) - f^*(t^*) \in [-\alpha,0).$$ Choose $\varepsilon^* < \min\left\{\frac {|\beta|} {2\alpha}, \frac \varepsilon 6 \frac \alpha {||f^*||_\infty}\right\}$. We will show that $B_{\varepsilon^*\alpha}(f^*) =\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \ ||f-f^*||_\infty < \varepsilon^*\alpha\} \subset C_B$. To this end, let $f_0 \in B_{\varepsilon^*\alpha}(f^*)$. Then, because of Equation and $\varepsilon^*\alpha < \frac {|\beta|} 2$, we have that $||t_0 - t^*|| \leq \delta$ for $t_0 = \tau_{Q}(f_0|_{Q})$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{t \in K} \left| \frac{f^*(t^*+ \cdot)}{f^*(t^*)} - \frac{f_0(t_0 + \cdot)}{f_0(t_0)} \right| \notag\\
\leq{} & \sup_{t \in K} \left| \frac{f^*(t^*+\cdot)}{f^*(t^*)} - \frac{f^*(t_0+\cdot)}{f^*(t^*)}\right|
+ \sup_{t \in K} \left| \frac{f^*(t_0+\cdot)}{f^*(t^*)} - \frac{f^*(t_0+\cdot)}{f_0(t_0)}\right| \notag\\
& + \sup_{t \in K} \left| \frac{f^*(t_0+\cdot)}{f_0(t_0)} - \frac{f_0(t_0+\cdot)}{f_0(t_0)}\right| \qquad
\leq \qquad \frac \varepsilon 3 + \frac{\varepsilon^*}{1-\varepsilon^*} \frac{||f^*||_\infty}{\alpha} + \frac{\varepsilon^*}{1-\varepsilon^*}, \label{eq:dist}
\end{aligned}$$ where we used Equation and the fact that $f_0 \in B_{\varepsilon^*\alpha}(f^*)$. Equations and and the choice of $\varepsilon^*$ yield that $\varepsilon^*/(1-\varepsilon^*) \leq (\varepsilon^* ||f^*||_\infty)/((1-\varepsilon^*)\alpha) \leq 2\varepsilon^*||f^*||_\infty / \alpha < \varepsilon/3$, i.e. each summand on the right-hand side of is smaller than $\varepsilon/3$. Thus, $f_0(t_0 + \cdot) / f_0(t_0) \in \{f \in C(K): \ ||f^*(t^* + \cdot) / f^*(t^*) - f||_\infty < \varepsilon\} \subset B$ by Equation and $f_0 \in C_B$.
\[lem:CB\] The closure of $C_B$ is a subset of $$\begin{aligned}
B^* \cup{} & \left\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \, \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{t \in {Q}} f(t) \text{ is not unique} \right\}\\
\cup{} & \left\{f \in C({Q}\oplus L): \, f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}) + \cdot) \Big/ f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q})) \in \partial B \right\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $\{f_n\} \subset C_B$ be a sequence converging uniformly to some $f^* \in C({Q}\oplus L)$. We have to verify that $f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q}) + \cdot) / f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q})) \in B \cup \partial B$ if $\operatorname*{arg\,max}_{t \in {Q}} f^*(t)$ is unique. Analogously to the proof of Lemma \[lem:interCB\] we can show that for any $\varepsilon_2 > 0$ there is some $\varepsilon_1 > 0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
& ||f-f^*||_{\infty,{Q}\oplus L} < \varepsilon_1\\
{}\Longrightarrow{} \quad & \left|\left|\frac{f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q})+\cdot)}{f(\tau_{Q}(f|_{Q}))} - \frac{f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q})+\cdot)}{f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q}))}\right|\right|_{\infty,K} < \varepsilon_2.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $f_n(\tau_{Q}(f_n|_{Q}) + \cdot)/f_n(\tau_{Q}(f_n|_{Q}))$ converges to $f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q}) + \cdot)/f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q}))$ in $C(K)$. Hence, as $B \cup \partial B$ is closed, $f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q}) + \cdot)/f^*(\tau_{Q}(f^*|_{Q})) \in B \cup \partial B$.
Proof of Example \[ex:mmm-mda\] {#sec:proof_ex_mmm-mda}
===============================
Let $\tilde M_j$, $j\in{\mathbb N}$, be independent copies of the process $\tilde M$ and consider $$M_n(\cdot) = \frac{1}{cn} \max_{i=1}^n \tilde M_i(\cdot).$$ Further, suppose that $L \subset {\mathbb R}^d$ is an arbitrary compact set. Note that by Remark \[weak\_conv\_Rd\] it suffices to show weak convergence of $M_n \cvgdist M$, $n\to\infty$, on $C(L)$.
To prove the first assertion, note that, for $t_0, \ldots, t_k\in{\mathbb R}^d$, $s_0, \ldots, s_k\geq 0$, $k\in{\mathbb N}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sP(M_n(t_0)\leq s_0, \ldots, M_n(t_k)\leq s_k) \notag\\
&= \left[{\mathbf 1}_{\kappa \leq \min_{l=0}^k cns_l }\cdot \sP\left\{ \Pi_{c, \epsilon}
\left(\left\{(u,t,f):
\max_{l=0}^k u f(t_l-t)/(cns_l) > 1\right\}\right) = 0\right\}\right]^n \notag\\
&= {\mathbf 1}_{\kappa \leq \min_{l=0}^k cns_l }\cdot \exp\left(- n\int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}
\min\left\{\frac{1}{\epsilon}, \max_{l=0}^k \frac{f(t_l-t)}{cns_l}\right\}\, c\sd t \, \sP_F(\rd f) \right)\notag\\
&\longrightarrow
\exp\left(- \int_{C({\mathbb R}^d)} \int_{{\mathbb R}^d}
\max_{l=0}^k (f(t_l-t)/s_l) \sd t \, \sP_F(\rd f) \right), \label{proofMDAM3}\end{aligned}$$ as $n\to\infty$, where the convergence holds due to monotone convergence. The right-hand side of coincides with the marginal distribution of $M$ (cf. ).
For convergence of $M_n$ to $M$ in the sense of weak convergence in $C^+(L)$ endowed with the topology of uniform convergence, it remains to show that the sequence of restricted processes $\{M_n|_L : n\in {\mathbb N}\}$ is tight. To this end, by [@bil1999 Thm. 7.3], it suffices to verify that for any $\varepsilon > 0$, $\eta \in (0,1)$, there exist $\delta > 0$, $n_0 \in {\mathbb N}$ such that $$\sP\left\{ \sup_{||s-t|| < \delta} |M_n(s) - M_n(t)| \geq \varepsilon\right\} \leq \eta, \qquad n \geq n_0.$$ By Equation , we can choose $R > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:smallintegral}
\int_{{\mathbb R}^d \setminus (L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0}))} \sE\left( \sup_{t \in L} F(t-s) \right) \sd s < \frac {\varepsilon \eta} 2,$$ where $B_R({\mathbf 0}) = \{ x \in {\mathbb R}^d: \ ||x|| \leq R\}$. Furthermore, implies that $\sE\left( \sup_{t \in K} F(s)\right) < \infty$ for any compact set $K \subset {\mathbb R}^d$. Therefore, as each realization of $F$ is uniformly continuous on $B_{R+d(L)}({\mathbf 0})$, where $d(L) = \sup_{s_1,s_2 \in L} ||s_1-s_2||$ denotes the diameter of $L$, dominated convergence yields $$\lim_{\delta \searrow 0} \sE\left( \sup_{s,t \in B_{R+d(L)}({\mathbf 0}), \ ||s-t|| < \delta} |F(s) - F(t)|\right) = 0.$$ In particular, we can choose $\delta > 0$ such that $$\label{eq:delta}
\sE\left( \sup_{s_1,s_2 \in B_{R+d(L)}({\mathbf 0}), \ ||s_1-s_2|| < \delta} |F(s_1) - F(s_2)|\right) < \frac {\varepsilon \eta}{2 |L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0})|}.$$ Then, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \sP\left\{ \sup_{||s_1-s_2|| < \delta, \ s_1,s_2 \in L} | M_n(s_1) - M_n(s_2) | \geq \varepsilon \right\} \\
\leq{} & n \sP\left\{ \sup_{||s_1-s_2|| < \delta, \ s_1,s_2 \in L} |\tilde M_n(s_1) - \tilde M_n(s_2) | \geq c n\varepsilon \right\} \\
\leq{}& n \bigg( \sP\bigg\{ \Pi\bigg(\bigg\{ (u,t,f): \ t \in L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0}), \\
& \hspace{3cm} \sup_{\substack{s_1,s_2 \in B_{R+d(L)}({\mathbf 0}),\\ ||s_1-s_2|| < \delta} } |f(s_1)-f(s_2)| > \frac{cn\varepsilon}{u}
\bigg\}\bigg) > 0\bigg\}\\
& + \sP\bigg\{ \Pi\bigg(\bigg\{ (u,t,f): \ t \in {\mathbb R}^d \setminus (L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0})), \sup_{s \in L} |f(s-t)| > \frac{cn\varepsilon}{u} \bigg\} \bigg) > 0\bigg\}\bigg) \displaybreak[0]\\
\leq{} & n\bigg( 1 - \exp\bigg\{ - \int_{L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0})} \int_\epsilon^\infty u^{-2} \\
& \hspace{3.2cm} \cdot \sP\bigg( \sup_{\substack{s_1,s_2 \in B_{R+d(L)}({\mathbf 0}),\\ ||s_1-s_2|| < \delta} } |F(s_1)-F(s_2)| > \frac{c n\varepsilon}{u}\bigg) \sd u \, c \sd t \bigg\}\\
& + 1- \exp\bigg\{ - \int_{{\mathbb R}^d \setminus (L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0}))} \int_\epsilon^\infty u^{-2}
\sP\bigg( \sup_{s \in L} |F(s-t)| > \frac{c n\varepsilon}{u}\bigg) \sd u \, c \sd t \bigg\} \bigg) \displaybreak[0]\\
\leq{} & n\bigg( 1 - \exp\bigg( - \frac{|L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0})|}{n \varepsilon}
\sE\bigg\{ \sup_{\substack{s_1,s_2 \in B_{R+d(L)}({\mathbf 0}),\\ ||s_1-s_2|| < \delta} } |F(s_1)-F(s_2)| \bigg\} \bigg)\\
& + 1 - \exp\bigg(- \frac 1 {n\varepsilon} \int_{{\mathbb R}\setminus (L \oplus B_R({\mathbf 0}))} \sE\left\{ \sup_{s \in L} |F(s-t)| \right\} \sd t \bigg) \bigg)\\
\leq{} & n\left( 1 - \exp\left(- \frac \eta {2n}\right) + 1 - \exp\left(- \frac \eta {2n}\right)\right) \quad \leq \quad \eta,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used Equation and . Thus, the sequence of processes $\{M_n|_L : n\in {\mathbb N}\}$ is tight.
The authors are grateful to Zakhar Kabluchko for useful suggestions and hints. S. Engelke has been financially supported by Deutsche Telekom Stiftung. A. Malinowski has been financially supported the German Science Foundation (DFG), Research Training Group 1644 ‘Scaling problems in Statistics’. M. Oesting and M. Schlather have been financially supported by Volkswagen Stiftung within the project ‘WEX-MOP’.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Internet of Things (IoT) devices have been increasingly integrated into our daily life. However, such smart devices suffer a broad attack surface. Particularly, attacks targeting the device software at runtime are challenging to defend against if IoT devices use resource-constrained microcontrollers (MCUs). TrustZone-M, a TrustZone extension for MCUs, is an emerging security technique fortifying MCU based IoT devices. This paper presents the first security analysis of potential software security issues in TrustZone-M enabled MCUs. We explore the stack-based buffer overflow (BOF) attack for code injection, return-oriented programming (ROP) attack, heap-based BOF attack, format string attack, and attacks against Non-secure Callable (NSC) functions in the context of TrustZone-M. We validate these attacks using the TrustZone-M enabled SAM L11 MCU. Strategies to mitigate these software attacks are also discussed.'
author:
-
-
-
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'IEEEexample.bib'
title: 'On Runtime Software Security of TrustZone-M based IoT Devices '
---
Internet of Things, microcontroller, TrustZone, software security
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is well known that a combined analysis of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect and the X-ray emission observations can be used to determine the angular diameter distance to galaxy clusters, from which the Hubble constant is derived. The present values of the Hubble constant derived through the SZ/X-ray route have a broad distribution ranging from 30 to 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. We show that this broad distribution is primarily due to the projection effect of aspherical clusters which have been modeled using spherical geometries. The projection effect is also expected to broaden the measured gas mass fraction in galaxy clusters. However, the projection effect either under- or overestimate the Hubble constant and the gas mass fraction in an opposite manner, producing an anticorrelation. Using the published data for SZ/X-ray clusters, we show that the current Hubble constant distribution is negatively correlated with the measured gas mass fraction for same clusters, suggesting that the projection effects are present in current results. If the gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters, when measured out to an outer hydrostatic radius is constant, it may be possible to account for the line of sight geometry of galaxy clusters. However, to perform such an analysis, an independent measurement of the total mass of galaxy clusters, such as from weak lensing, is needed. Using the weak lensing, optical velocity dispersion, SZ and X-ray data, we outline an alternative method to calculate the Hubble constant, which is subjected less to projection effect than the present method based on only the SZ and X-ray data. For A2163, the Hubble constant based on published SZ, X-ray and weak lensing observations is 49 $\pm$ 29 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.'
author:
- 'Asantha R. Cooray'
date: 'Received: May 20th 1998; accepted: August 18th 1998'
subtitle: 'II. Projection Effects on Hubble Constant and Gas Mass Fraction'
title: Cosmology with Galaxy Clusters
---
Introduction
============
Over the last few years, there has been a tremendous increase in the study of galaxy clusters as cosmological probes, initially through the use of X-ray emission observations, and in recent years, through the use of Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect. Briefly, the SZ effect is a distortion of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation by inverse-Compton scattering of thermal electrons within the hot intracluster medium (Sunyaev & Zel’dovich 1980; see Birkinshaw 1998 for a recent review). By combining the SZ intensity change and the X-ray emission observations, the angular diameter distance, $D_{\rm A}$, to a cluster can be derived (e.g., Cavaliere [*et al.*]{} 1977). Combining the distance measurement with redshift allows a determination of the Hubble constant, H$_0$. On the other hand, angular diameter distances with redshift can be used to constrain cosmological world models.
The accuracy of the Hubble constant determined from a SZ and X-ray analysis depends on the assumptions. Using numerical simulations, Inagaki et al. (1995) and Roettiger [*et al.*]{} (1997) showed that the Hubble constant measured through the SZ effect can seriously be affected by systematic effects, which include the assumption of isothermality, cluster gas clumping, and asphericity. The Hubble constant can also be affected by statistical effects, including cluster peculiar velocities and astrophysical confusions, such as radio sources & CMB primary anisotropies. The latter statistical effects are expected to produce a broad distribution in the Hubble constant measured for a sample of galaxy clusters, while the former systematic effects are expected to offset the Hubble constant from the true value.
In recent years, several other effects have also been suggested to explain the difference between the SZ and X-ray Hubble constant and the ones derived from other techniques. These include the preferential removal of the lensed background radio sources in SZ surveys (Loeb & Refregier 1997), which would systematically lower the Hubble constant by as much as 13% for SZ observations at 15 GHz, and gravitational lensing of the arcminute scale CMB anisotropy (Cen 1998), which would broaden the Hubble constant distribution for a sample of galaxy clusters. The first effect is in opposite direction to the radio source contamination in SZ observations due to galaxy cluster member radio sources, which dominate the radio source number counts towards galaxy clusters. As discussed in Cooray [*et al.*]{} (1998a), the two radio source effects are likely to cancel out. The Loeb & Refregier (1997) effect is also not expected to occur for SZ observations at high frequencies. The second effect, due to gravitational lensing of CMB anisotropy through galaxy cluster potential, is not expected to be a dominant source of error in the Hubble constant, given that Cen (1998) considered the largest upper limits to arcminute scale anisotropies, which have not yet been detected.
Apart from the SZ and X-ray Hubble constant, the gas mass fraction, $f_{\rm gas}$, measurements from X-ray (also using SZ, gravitational lensing and optical velocity dispersion measurements), can also be used to constrain the cosmological parameters. The primary assumption in such an analysis is that the gas mass fraction, when measured out to a standard (hydrostatic) radius is constant. Evrard (1997) applied these arguments to a sample of galaxy clusters using X-ray data, and put constraints on the cosmological mass density of the universe, $\Omega_m$, with some dependence on the Hubble constant. Under the assumption that the cluster gas mass fraction is constant in a sample of galaxy clusters, the apparent redshift evolution of the baryonic fraction can also be used to constrain the cosmological parameters (e.g., Pen 1997). Cooray (1998) and Danos & Pen (1998) used the present X-ray gas mass fraction data to derive $\Omega_m < 0.6$ in a flat universe ($\Omega_m + \Omega_{\Lambda}
=1$) and $\Omega_m < 0.7$ in an open universe ($\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$; 90% C.I.). In Shimasaku (1997), the assumption of constant gas mass fraction in galaxy clusters was used to put constrains on $\sigma_8$, the rms linear fluctuations on scales of 8 h$^{-1}$ Mpc, and on $n$, the slope of the fluctuation spectrum.
Given the importance of SZ and X-ray emission observations in cosmological studies, we initiated a program to study the systematic effects in the present SZ and X-ray Hubble constant measurements and gas mass fraction measurements. As part of this study, we found a negative correlation between the broad distribution of the Hubble constant and the gas mass fraction measurements. We explain this observation as due to a projection effect of aspherical clusters modeled with a spherical geometry. In Section 2, we present the effects of projection on the Hubble constant and the gas mass fraction by projecting triaxial ellipsoidal clusters and extending the work of Fabricant et al. (1984). The observational evidence for projection effects in the present Hubble constant values based on SZ and X-ray route are presented in Section 3. In section 4, we outline an alternative method to calculate the Hubble constant, by combining SZ, X-ray, gravitational lensing, and velocity dispersion measurements of clusters, and which is subjected to less projection effects than current method involving only the SZ and X-ray observations. We apply this technique to A2163 based on the published observational data, and derive a new Hubble constant. A summary and conclusions are presented in Section 5.
Projection Effect of Aspherical Clusters
========================================
In order to study the effect of aspherical clusters in present SZ and X-ray Hubble constant, we extend the work of Fabricant et al. (1984) to calculate the X-ray surface brightness and the SZ temperature change produced by clusters with ellipsoidal geometries. Independent of the cluster shape, the X-ray surface brightness towards a clusters is given by: $$S_X = \frac{1}{4 \pi (1+z)^3} \int n ^{2}_{e} \Lambda_e dl,$$ where $\Lambda_e \propto T_e^{1/2}$. In order to model the electron number density profile within clusters, we consider the $\beta$-model, which can be written as: $$n_{\rm e}(x_1,y_1,z_1) = n_{\rm e0} \left[1 + \frac{x_1^2+y_1^2}{r_1^2}+ \frac{z_1^2}{r_2^2}\right]^{-\frac{3 \beta}{2}},$$ where $x_1,y_1$ and $z_1$ are coordinates of the ellipsoid axes, while $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the observed semi-major and semi-minor axes. To simplify the calculations, we assume that the symmetry axis $z_1$ is at an inclination angle $\theta$ to the line of sight along the observer, which we take to be the $z$-axis. Following Fabricant et al. (1984, Appendix A), we integrate along the z-axis to derive: $$\begin{aligned}
S_X (x,y) = &\frac{\sqrt{\pi} n_{\rm e0}^2 \Lambda_{\rm e0}}{4 \pi (1+z)^3} \frac{\Gamma(3 \beta - \frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(3 \beta)} \frac{r_1 r_2}{\sqrt{r_1^2 \cos^2{\theta} + r_2^2 \sin^2{\theta}}} \nonumber \\
&\times \left[1+ \frac{x^2}{r_1^2 \cos^2{\theta} + r_2^2 \sin^2{\theta}} + \frac{y^2}{r_1^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}-3 \beta}.\end{aligned}$$
The other important observable towards clusters is the SZ effect, which is given by: $$\frac{\Delta T}{T_{\rm CMB}} = f(x)
\int \left(\frac{k_B T_e}{m_e c^2}\right) n_e \sigma_T dl,$$ where $$f(x) = \left[ \frac{x (e^{x}+1)}{e^{x}-1} -4 \right]$$ is the frequency dependence with $x = h \nu/k_B T_{\rm CMB}$, $T_{\rm CMB} = 2.728 \pm 0.002$ (Fixsen [*et al.*]{} 1994) and $\sigma_T$ is the cross section for Thomson scattering. The integral is performed along the line of sight through the cluster. As with the X-ray surface brightness, we consider the same ellipsoidal shape to evaluate the observed SZ temperature change. Again by integrating along the line of sight, $z$-axis, we derive: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Delta T (x,y)}{T_{\rm CMB}} = & f(x) \sqrt{\pi} n_{\rm e0} T_{\rm e0} \frac{\Gamma(\frac{3 \beta}{2} - \frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{3 \beta}{2})} \frac{r_1 r_2}{\sqrt{r_1^2 \cos^2{\theta} + r_2^2 \sin^2{\theta}}} \nonumber \\
&\times \left[1+ \frac{x^2}{r_1^2 \cos^2{\theta} + r_2^2 \sin^2{\theta}} + \frac{y^2}{r_1^2}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3 \beta}{2}}. \end{aligned}$$
The Hubble constant is usually derived by combining the X-ray brightness and the SZ temperature change to eliminate the central number density $n_{\rm e0}$. By this combination, one can derive the observed length of one of the axis, e.g.: $$\begin{aligned}
r_2 = & \left [ \left( \frac{\Delta T_{\rm SZ} (x,y)^2}{S_{\rm X} (x,y)}\right) \left(\frac{m_{\rm e} c^2}{k_{\rm B} T_{\rm e0}}\right)^2 \frac{\Lambda_{\rm e0}}{4 \pi f(x)^2 T_{\rm CMB}^2 \sigma_{\rm T}^2 (1+z)^3} \right] \nonumber \\
& \times Z,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is the scale factor first introduced in Birkinshaw et al. (1991), which can now be written as: $$Z = \frac{\left(r_1^2 \cos^2{\theta} + r_2^2 \sin^2{\theta} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{r_2}.$$
When the symmetry axis of the cluster is along the line of sight ($\theta=0$), then $Z = r_1/r_2$ which is directly related to the observed cluster ellipticity, while when the cluster is spherical ($r_1=r_2$), $Z=1$, and no effects due to projection is present in the data. In Eq. 7, we know from SZ and X-ray observations all the quantities except the scale factor Z. Therefore, the length of the cluster along the line of sight can be known up to a multiplicative factor. The Hubble constant is derived based on the angular diameter distance to the cluster, $D_A$, using an assumed cosmological model, and the observed size of the axis, $\theta_{r_2} = r_2/D_A$, used to calculate the distance in Eq. 7. The derived Hubble constant can be written as: $$H_0 \propto \frac{\theta_{r_2}}{Z}.$$ Based on observed ellipticities of galaxy clusters, we can estimate the expected error in the Hubble constant. Using X-ray emission from a sample of clusters, Mohr et al. (1995) showed that the median ellipticity is $\sim$ 0.25. This suggest that the ratio $r_2/r_1$ is $\sim$ 0.7 if clusters are intrinsically prolate or $\sim$ 1.5 if clusters oblate. Therefore, ignoring the effects due to inclination, the Hubble constant as measured from SZ and X-ray observations of an individual cluster can be offseted as much as 30% to 50%, based on a spherical model of clusters where asphericity is ignored. Here, we have assumed that clusters are ellipsoids. The derived scale factor in Eq. 8, as well as the numerical values, are likely to be different if clusters are biaxial or triaxial. Recently, Zaroubi et al. (1998) studied the projection effects of biaxial clusters and determined $h \propto \sin\theta$, where $\theta$ is the inclination angle. The observational evidence which suggest clusters are biaxial is limited. For ellipsoidal clusters, we have determined that $h$ varies with both the inclination angle and the sizes of semi-major and semi-minor axes. For triaxial clusters, it is likely that $h$ will vary with all three rotation angles and the length scales of the three axes that define the cluster. In a future paper, we plan to study the projection effects of triaxial clusters; for the purpose of this paper, we will only consider ellipsoids.
Apart from the Hubble constant, the projection effects are also present in the total gas mass derived from the X-ray emission observations with $M_{gas} \propto D_A^{5/2} Z^{1/2}$, and the total mass based on the virial theorem using X-ray temperature as $M_{\rm total} \propto D_A Z^{-1}$. Then, the gas mass fraction can be written as $f_{\rm gas} \propto D_{A}^{3/2} Z^{3/2}$. Since $H_0 \propto Z^{-1}$ and the $f_{\rm gas} \propto Z^{3/2}$, we expect the $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ to exhibit a negative correlation, if both measurements are affected by the projection effect.
Hubble Constant and Gas Fraction
================================
‘?=?
[llclc]{} Cluster & Redshift &$H_0$ (km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$)& $H_0$ Reference & $f_{\rm gas}$ ($r_{500}$) (h$_{50}^{-3/2}$)\
A2256 & 0.0581 & 68$^{+21}_{-18}$ & Myers [*et al.*]{} 1997 & $0.11^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$\
A478 & 0.0881 & 30$^{+17}_{-13}$ & Myers [*et al.*]{} 1997 & $0.25^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$\
A2142 & 0.0899 & 46$^{+41}_{-28}$ & Myers [*et al.*]{} 1997 & 0.21$^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$\
A1413 & 0.143 & 44$^{+20}_{-15}$ & Saunders 1996 & 0.12$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$\
A2218 & 0.171 & 59 $\pm$ 23 & Birkinshaw & Hughes 1994 & 0.16$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\
A2218 & 0.171 & 34$^{+18}_{-16}$ & Jones 1995 & 0.16$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\
A665 & 0.182 & 46 $\pm$ 16 & Hughes & Birkinshaw 1998b & 0.14$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\
A665 & 0.182 & 48$^{+19}_{-16}$ & Cooray [*et al.*]{} 1998c & 0.14$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$\
A2163 & 0.201 & 58$^{+39}_{-22}$ & Holzapfel [*et al.*]{} 1997 & 0.15$^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$\
Cl0016+16 & 0.5455 & 47$^{+23}_{-15}$ & Hughes & Birkinshaw 1998a & 0.17$^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$\
Table 1 lists the Hubble constant values that have so far been obtained from SZ observations (Cooray [*et al.*]{} 1998b, see also Hughes 1997). These values have been calculated under the assumption of a spherical gas distribution with a $\beta$ profile for the electron number density and an isothermal atmosphere. For the same clusters, we compiled a list of gas mass fraction measurements using X-ray, SZ, and gravitational lensing observations. Most of the clusters in Table 1 have been analyzed by Allen & Fabian (1998), where they included cooling flow corrections to the X-ray luminosity and the gas temperature. For the two clusters (A2256 & Cl0016+16) for which $H_0$ measurements are available, but not analyzed in Allen & Fabian (1998), we used the results from Buote & Canizares (1996) and Neumann & Böhringer (1996), respectively. The gas mass fractions in Allen & Fabian (1998) have been calculated to a radius of 500 kpc, while for the A2256 and Cl0016+16, they have been calculated to different radii, and also under different cosmological models. Using the angular diameter distance dependence on the gas mass fraction measurements with redshift (Cooray 1998), we converted all the gas mass fraction measurements to a cosmology of $\Omega_m=0.2$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0$, and H$_0 = 50$ $h_{50}^{-1}$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. In order to facilitate comparison between the gas mass fractions measured at various radii, we scaled them to the $r_{500}$ radius based on relations presented by Evrard (1997). The $r_{500}$ radius has been shown to be a good approximation to the outer hydrostatic boundary of galaxy clusters (Evrard, Metzler, Navarro 1996). We list the derived cluster gas mass fraction at the $r_{500}$ radius in Table 1.
In Fig. 1, we show the calculated $f_{\rm gas}$ against $H_0$ values for each of the clusters. As shown, the gas fraction measurements have a broad distribution with a scatter of $\sim$ 40% from the mean value. A similar broadening of the Hubble constant, from 30 to 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ with a mean of $\sim$ 50 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ is observed. The correlation is negative, and suggest that clusters with high gas mass fraction measurements produces Hubble constant values at the low end of the distribution, while the opposite is seen for clusters with high gas mass fraction. The solid line in Fig. 1 is the best-fit relation between $h$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ assuming $h \propto f_{\rm gas}^{-0.66}$. For values in Table 1, the best-fit line, when the slope between $h$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ is allowed to vary, scales as $h \propto
f_{\rm gas}^{-0.8 \pm 0.4}$, which is fully consistent with the expected relation. Since the current SZ cluster sample is small, a careful study of a complete sample of galaxy clusters are need to fully justify the projection effects between SZ and X-ray derived Hubble constant and gas mass fractions values. We derived a similar negative correlation between $h$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ when the cluster gas mass fraction is measured from SZ. For example, Myers [*et al.*]{} (1997) derived a gas mass fraction of ($0.120 \pm 0.022$) $h_{50}^{-1}$ for A2256, which is at the low end of the gas mass fraction values, while a gas mass fraction of ($0.33 \pm 0.028$) $h_{50}^{-1}$ was derived for A478, which is the cluster at the high end. We note here that, as we discuss later, the SZ derived gas mass fractions scale with $h$ as only $h^{-1}$, while X-ray derived gas mass fractions, which are presented in Table 1, scale with $h$ as $h^{-3/2}$. In comparison, the gas mass fractions derived from SZ and X-ray observations may be affected similar to the measurements based on only the X-ray data. Additional probes of the total mass are the gravitational lensing measurements and the optical virial analysis of internal galaxy velocity dispersion measurements. In the present SZ/X-ray sample, A2218 (Kneib [*et al.*]{} 1995) and A2163 (Squires [*et al.*]{} 1997) have lensing mass measurements. In both these clusters total virial masses when measured using X-ray gas temperature, agrees with the weak lensing mass measurements at large radii, and since these two clusters are not the ones which are primarily responsible for the observed negative correlation, we cannot state the effect of lensing mass measurements on the above data. Also, in the present SZ cluster sample, A2256 and A2142 (Girardi [*et al.*]{} 1998), and Cl0016+16 (Carlberg [*et al.*]{} 1997) have measured total masses from optical virial analysis. These virial masses are in good agreement with X-ray masses, allowing an independent robust measurement of the total mass (Girardi [*et al.*]{} 1998).
Finally, there is a slight possibility that the observed broad distribution and negative correlation in $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ is not really present. The negative correlation is only present at a level of $\sim$ 2 $\sigma$, assuming that the errors in $h$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ are independent. The removal of either one of the clusters at high or low end reduces the negative correlation, decreasing the significance of the observed correlation. However, both the Hubble constant and, possibly, the gas mass fraction is expected to be constant, suggesting that a point, or a region when considering errors in $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$, is preferred. We rule out the possibility that both $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ are constants in the present data with a confidence greater than 95%.
Evidence for a Projection Effect?
---------------------------------
Usually, the broad distribution of the SZ and X-ray Hubble constants has been explained in literature based on the expected systematic effects. The systematic effects in the gas mass fraction measurements are reviewed in Evrard (1997) and Cooray (1998). We briefly discuss these systematic uncertainties in the context of their combined effects on $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$.
It has been suggested that cluster gas clumping may overestimate $H_0$ from the true value. As reviewed in Evrard (1997), cluster gas clumping also overestimates $f_{\rm gas}$, suggesting that if gas clumping is responsible for the observed trend, a positive correlation should be present. The nonisothermality underestimates $H_0$ by as much as 25% (e.g. Roettiger [*et al.*]{} 1997). To explain the distribution of $H_0$ values, the cluster temperature profile from one cluster to another is expected to be different. However, Markevitch [*et al.*]{} (1997) showed the similarity between temperature profiles of 30 clusters based on ASCA data (including A478, A2142 & A2256 in present sample). Since SZ and X-ray structural fits weigh the gas distribution differently, even a similar temperature profile between clusters can be expected to cause the change in the Hubble constant from one cluster to another. Another result from the Markevitch [*et al.*]{} (1997) study is that the $f_{\rm gas}$ measurements as measured using $\beta$-models and standard isothermal assumption is underestimated. The similarity of cluster temperature profiles also suggests that the gas mass fractions are affected by changes in temperature from one cluster to another. It is likely that the present isothermal assumption has underestimated both $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$, and that temperature profiles are responsible for the observed behavior. A large sample of clusters, perhaps the same cluster sample studied by Markevitch [*et al.*]{} (1997), should be studied in SZ to determine the exact effect of radial temperature profiles on $H_0$, and its distribution.
The third possibility is the cluster asphericity. The effect of cluster projection on $H_0$ was first suggested by Birkinshaw [*et al.*]{} (1991), who showed that the derived values for $H_0$ can be offset by as much as a factor of 2 if the line of sight along the cluster is different by the same amount. The present cluster isophotal ellipticities suggest that $H_0$ may be offset as much as $\pm$ 27% (e.g., Holzapfel [*et al.*]{} 1997). The present $f_{\rm gas}$ distribution is suggestive of this behavior. Cen (1997), using numerical simulations, studied the effects of cluster projection on gas mass fraction measurements, and suggested differences of the order $\sim$ 40%. The $f_{\rm gas}$ distribution is similar to what has been seen in Cen (1997). It is more likely that the projection effects are causing the distribution of $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ values, unless a systematic effect still not seen in numerical simulations is physically present in galaxy clusters. Such effects could come from effects due to variations in the temperature profiles from one cluster to another. For the rest of the discussion, we assume that the present values are affected by projection effects, rather than temperature profiles.
Hubble Constant without Projection Effects
==========================================
Here, we consider the possibility of deriving the Hubble constant in a meaningful manner without any biases due to cluster projections. It has been suggested in literature that observations of a large sample of galaxy clusters can be used to average out the dependence on the scale factor $Z$ and to produce the true value of the Hubble constant, which we define as $H_0^{\rm true}$ from individual Hubble constant measurements, $H_0^{\rm i}$, in a large sample of clusters. We investigate the possibility of such an averaging by considering the different projections of clusters at different inclination angles. Assuming the previously described ellipsoidal shape and the effect of the scale factor $Z$ in the Hubble constant, we can over the all possible inclination angles $\theta$ and the ratio $r_2/r_1$ to derive the expected average value of the Hubble constant $<H_0^{\rm i}>$: $$<H_0^i> = \frac{1}{2}\left[ x + \frac{\sin^{-1}\sqrt{1-x^2}}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}\right] \times H_0^{\rm true},$$ if all clusters are prolate, and $$<H_0^i> = \frac{1}{2}\left[ x + \frac{\sinh^{-1}\sqrt{x^2-1}}{\sqrt{x^2-1}}\right] \times H_0^{\rm true},$$ if all clusters are oblate. Here $x = r_2/r_1$. When all clusters are prolate and that the semi-major axis used to calculate the Hubble constant, then the distribution has a mean of $H_0^{\rm true}$. However, if the semi-minor axis is used, then the average Hubble constant is underestimated from the true value by about $\sim$ 10%, assuming that the mean $r_2/r_1$ is 0.7 for prolate clusters. If all clusters are oblate, and the semi-major axis is used to derive the Hubble constant, then the mean of the distribution overestimates the true value of the Hubble constant by as much as $\sim$ 20%, if the mean $r_2/r_1$ is 1.5 for oblate clusters. For oblate clusters, the true value of the Hubble constant can be obtained when the semi-minor axis is used. However, in both oblate and prolate cases, the distribution has a large scatter requiring a large sample of galaxy clusters to derive a reliable value of the Hubble constant. A similar calculation can also be performed for the gas mass fraction to estimate the nature of the value derived by averaging out a gas mass fraction measurements for a large sample of clusters. Here again, a similar offset as in the Hubble constant is present, and measurements of gas mass fraction in a large sample of clusters are needed to put reliable limits on the cosmological parameters, especially the mass density of the universe based on cosmological baryon density (e.g., Evrard 1997).
So far, we have only considered the SZ and X-ray observations of galaxy clusters. By combining weak lensing observations towards galaxy clusters, we show that it may be possible to derive a reliable value of the Hubble constant based on observations of a single cluster. The gravitational lensing observations of galaxy clusters measure the total mass along the line of sight through the cluster. The SZ effect measures the gas mass along the line of sight, and thus, the ratio of SZ gas mass to gravitational lensing total mass should yield a measurement of the gas mass fraction independent of cluster shape assumptions and asphericity. Here, we assume that the cluster gas distribution exactly traces the cluster gravitational potential due to dark matter, and that these two measurements are affected equally by cluster shape. This is a reasonable assumption, but however, it is likely that gas distribution does not follow the dark matter potential, and that there may be some dependence on the cluster shape between the two quantities. For now, assuming that the gas mass fraction from SZ and gravitational lensing is not affected by cluster projection, we outline a method to estimate the Hubble constant independent of the scale factor $Z$. The gas mass fraction based on SZ and lensing is $f_{\rm SZ}^{\rm lens} \propto h^{-1}$, while the gas mass fraction based on X-ray emission gas mass and the total mass based on X-ray temperature is $f_{\rm X-ray}^{\rm temp} \propto h^{-3/2} Z^{3/2}$. Since the two gas mass fraction measurements are expected to be the same, then one can solve for a combination of $h$ and $Z$. However to break the degeneracy between $h$ and $Z$ an additional observation or an assumption is needed. In general, there are large number of clusters with X-ray measurements and X-ray based gas mass fraction measurements. By averaging out the gas mass fraction for such a large sample of clusters, we can estimate the universal gas mass fraction value for clusters, e.g. $(0.060 \pm 0.002) h^{-3/2}$ (Evrard 1997; Cooray 1998). If assumed that this gas fraction is valid for the cluster for which SZ and weak lensing observations are available, we can then calculate the Hubble constant.
We applied this to SZ, X-ray and weak lensing observations of galaxy cluster A2163. The SZ observations of A2163 are presented in Holzapfel et al. (1997), while weak lensing and X-ray observations are presented in Squires et al. (1996). The SZ effect towards A2163 can be described with a $y$ ($\Delta T_{\rm SZ}/T_{\rm CMB}$) parameter of $3.07^{+0.54}_{-0.60} \times 10^{-4}$, which includes various uncertainties described in Holzapfel et al. (1997). The weak lensing observations of A2163 has been used to derive the total cluster mass in Squires et al. (1996), and the lensing observations are most sensitive out to a radius of $\sim$ 200$''$ (0.423 h$^{-1}$ Mpc) from the cluster center, where the total mass is $(5 \pm 2) \times 10^{14}$ $h^{-1}$ $M_{\sun}$. Using the cluster model ($\beta$ and $r_c$) in Holzapfel et al. (1997), we integrated the SZ temperature change to this radius from cluster center along the line of sight to derive a gas mass of $(4.3 \pm 2.5) \times 10^{13}$ $h^{-2}$ $M_{\sun}$. This represents the gas mass within the cylindrical cut across the cluster, and effectively probes the same region as the weak lensing observations. The gas mass fraction based on the SZ effect and the weak lensing total mass is $(0.086 \pm 0.060) h^{-1}$. When this gas mass is compared to the effective gas mass fraction of clusters, $(0.060 \pm 0.020) h^{-3/2}$ (Evrard 1997; Cooray 1998), we obtain $h = 0.49 \pm 0.29$. We have slightly overestimated the error in the average gas mass fraction to take into account the fact that this fraction is measured at the outer hydrostatic radius ($\sim$ 1 Mpc), and may not correspond to the value at the observed radius of A2163. In Squires et al. (1997), the gas mass fraction was measured to be $(0.07 \pm 0.03) h^{-3/2}$ for A2163, which is in agreement with our universal value, but the value in Squires et al. (1997) may be subjected to a scaling factor. The combined SZ/lensing gas mass fraction and the average gas mass fraction for clusters result in a Hubble constant of $H_0 = 49
\pm 29$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Given that we used data from 2 different papers in deriving this Hubble constant, it is likely that this value may be subjected to unknown systematic effects between the two studies. We strongly recommend that a careful analysis of cluster data be carried out to derive the Hubble constant based on SZ, X-ray and weak lensing observations. In addition, total virial masses from velocity dispersion analysis should also be considered in such an analysis to constrain the cluster shape. It is likely that much stronger and reliable result may be obtained through this method, instead of just SZ and X-ray observations. In Holzapfel et al. (1997), the Hubble constant was derived to be $\sim$ 60 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ for an isothermal temperature model and $\sim$ 78 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ for a hybrid temperature model. Our value is lower than these two values, but is in good agreement with the average value of $H_0$ based on SZ and X-ray as tabulated in Table 1, which is in agreement with the average gas mass fraction value.
Conclusions
===========
Using the Hubble constant measurements based on SZ and X-ray, and the gas mass fraction measurements, we have suggested a possible systematic effect due to cluster projection. Even though, cluster projection had been suggested as a possible systematic bias in $H_0$ measurements, more attention has recently been given to various [*exotic*]{} effects as a way to explain the broad distribution of Hubble constant values. We have shown here the presence of projection effects in the present $H_0$ and $f_{\rm gas}$ measurements and have analytically calculated the effect of cluster projection in deriving the Hubble constant. It is also assumed in literature that for a large sample of clusters, the average of the individual Hubble constants, after making various corrections, can be used to determine the true Hubble constant. We have shown here that this may not be easily possible, and that when a random and large sample is available with a mix of prolate and oblate clusters, the best that one could expect to obtain is a Hubble constant value within 10% of the true value, unless the distribution of ellipticities for cluster sample is carefully taken into account. Thus, we strongly recommend that more attention be given to the cluster asphericity in deriving cosmologically important measurements such as Hubble constant and the cluster gas mass fraction. For individual clusters, for which SZ observations are available, we have shown that a combined study of SZ, X-ray, velocity dispersion measurements and weak lensing observations can be used in a more physical manner to derive the Hubble constant. Thus, we have demonstrated the usefulness of gravitational lensing observations of galaxy clusters for cosmologically important studies, and when combined, more meaningful results are expected to be produced instead of just combining SZ and X-ray observations. We strongly recommend that weak lensing observations and velocity dispersion measurements be carried out to test the reliability of Hubble constant values in Table 1, and to complement SZ observations of clusters.
I would like to acknowledge useful discussions with John Carlstrom and Bill Holzapfel. I would also like to thank the two referees, Mark Birkinshaw and an anonymous referee, for detailed comments on the manuscript. This study was partially supported by the McCormick Fellowship at the University of Chicago, and a Grant-In-Aid of Research from the National Academy of Sciences, awarded through Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society.
Allen, S. W., Fabian, A. C. 1998, submitted to MNRAS, astro-ph/9802219.
Birkinshaw, M., Hughes, J. P., Arnaud, K. A., 1991, ApJ, 379, 466.
Birkinshaw, M. & Hughes, J. P. 1994, ApJ, 420, 33.
Birkinshaw, M. 1998, submitted to Physics Reports.
Buote, D. A., Canizares, C. R., 1996, ApJ, 457, 565.
Cavaliere, A., Danse, L., De Zotti, 1977, ApJ, 217, 6.
Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E. 1997, ApJ, 478, 462.
Carlstrom, J. E., Grego, L., Joy, M. 1996, ApJ, 456, L75.
Cen, R., 1997, ApJ, 485, 39.
Cen, R., 1998, ApJL, in print (astro-ph/9803250).
Cooray, A. R. 1998, A&A, 333, L71.
Cooray, A. R., et al. 1988a, AJ, 115, 1388.
Cooray, A. R., et al. 1998b, in [*Dark Matter 1998*]{}, ed. D. Cline, in print (astro-ph/9804149).
Cooray, A. R., et al. 1998c, in preparation.
David, L. P., et al. 1993, ApJ, 412, 479.
Danos, R., Pen, U.-L. 1998, submitted to ApJL (astro-ph/9803058)
Eke, V. R., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., 1997, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/9708070).
Evrard, A. E. 1997, MNRAS, 292, 289.
Evrard, A. E., Metzler, C. A., Navarro, J. F. 1996, ApJ, 469, 494.
Fabricant, D., Rybicki, G., Gorenstein, P. 1984, ApJ, 286, 186.
Girardi, M., et al. 1998, astro-ph/9804187.
Holzapfel, W. L., et al. 1997, 480, 449.
Hughes, J. P., 1997, astro-ph/9711135.
Hughes, J. P. & Birkinshaw, M. 1998a, ApJ, in print.
Hughes, J. P. & Birkinshaw, M. 1998b, in preparation.
Inagaki, Y., Suginohara, T., Suto, Y. , PASJ, 47, 411.
Jones, M. 1995, Astro. Lett. Comm., 6, 347.
Loeb, A., Refregier, A. 1997, ApJ, 476, L59.
Kneib, J.-P., et al. 1995, A&A, 303, 27.
Markevitch, M., et al. 1997, ApJ, in print (astro-ph/9711289).
Mohr, J. J. et al. 1995, ApJ, 447, 8.
Myers, S. T., et al. 1997, ApJ, 485, 1.
Neumann, D. M., Böhringer, H. 1996, astro-ph/9607063.
Pen, U.-L., 1997, NewA, 2, 309.
Roettiger, K., Stone, J. M., Mushotzky, R. F. 1997, ApJ, 482, 588.
Saunders, R. 1996, astro-ph/9611213.
Shimasaku, K. 1997, ApJ, 489, 501.
Squires, G., et al. 1997, ApJ, 482, 648.
Sunyaev, R. A., & Zel’dovich, Ya. B., 1980, ARA&A, 18, 537.
Zaroubi, S., Squires, G., Hoffman, Y., & Silk, J. 1998, astro-ph/99804284.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report a high-resolution x-ray scattering study of the smectic liquid crystal octylcyanobiphenyl (8CB) confined to aligned colloidal aerosil gels. The aligned gels introduce orientational fields that promote long-range nematic order while imposing positional random fields that couple to the smectic density wave and disrupt the formation of an ordered smectic phase. At low densities of aerosil, the low-temperature scattering intensity is consistent with the presence of a topologically ordered XY Bragg glass phase that is predicted to form in response to such anisotropic quenched disorder. The observed features of the phase include an algebraic decay of the smectic correlations, which is truncated at large length scales due to the imperfect nematic order, and a power-law exponent that agrees closely with the universal value predicted for the XY Bragg glass. At higher aerosil densities, deviations from the XY Bragg glass form are apparent. At high temperature, the scattering intensity displays pre-transitional dynamic fluctuations associated with the destroyed nematic to smectic-A transition. The fluctuations obey quasi-critical behavior over an extended range of reduced temperature. The effective critical exponents for the correlation lengths and smectic susceptibility differ systematically from those of pure 8CB, indicating that coupling of the nematic order to the gel suppresses its role in the smectic critical behavior.'
author:
- Dennis Liang
- 'Robert L. Leheny'
title: Smectic Liquid Crystals in an Anisotropic Random Environment
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The effect of impurities and quenched disorder in condensed matter represents an important problem both because of the ways in which disorder can change fundamental properties of a system and because any real material will inevitably possess imperfections. Studies have shown dramatic consequences of disorder, such as the destruction of ordered phases and the introduction of new exotic ones, deviation from the universal behavior around transition points, and sometimes even the enhancement of useful material properties. Liquid crystals, due to their soft elasticity, sensitivity to surface interactions, and experimental accessibility, provide an excellent opportunity for studying the effects of quenched disorder, which can be introduced experimentally through confinement of the liquid crystal to random porous media. A particular focus in this area has been the study of smectic liquid crystals in silica gels. In a detailed theoretical treatment of smectics in such random environments, Radzihovsky, Toner, and coworkers identified two forms of random-field disorder that the confinement introduces to the smectic – random orientational fields that couple to the nematic director and random positional fields that couple to the smectic density wave [@radz_toner1; @radz_toner2; @radz_toner3; @radz_toner4; @saundersthesis]. One conclusion of their study was that the smectic phase is unstable to arbitrarily weak random-field disorder, consistent with expectations for a phase that breaks a continuous symmetry in three dimensions. Experimentally, considerable work has been dedicated toward investigating smectics in two types of silica gels, chemically rigid aerogels [@clark-science; @lei; @finotello-gel; @bellini-aerogel-light] and colloidal gels formed from aerosil particles [@park; @finotello-sil; @paperI; @paperII; @Liang; @finotello-pre; @zhou; @Mertelj; @theon; @germano; @aerosil1; @aerosil2; @aerosil3; @aerosil4; @aerosil5; @aerosil6; @clegg8S5; @clegg8OCB; @Larochelle; @8CBrheo]. The chemical compositions and structures of the two gels are very similar, but the hydogen-bonded aerosil gels have the potential to access a weaker regime of disorder. Utilizing a wide range of probes, experiments on smectics confined to aerogels and aerosil gels have detailed the consequences of the confinement for the nematic and smectic phases, supporting the general picture that the gels impose random-field disorder that destroys the nematic to smectic transition.
Among the predictions for smectics confined to gels is the potential formation of topologically ordered, “Bragg glass” phases that are distinct from the high-temperature nematic phase by the absence of unbound dislocation loops. Considerable evidence from theory and simulation supports the existence of a topologically ordered state with algebraic decay of correlations in the three-dimensional (3D) random field XY model at low temperature [@giamarchi; @huse; @fisher]. (However, a recent argument based on the functional renormalization group approach has questioned the existence theoretically of such a phase in 3D XY systems [@tarjus].) Since the nematic to smectic-A (N-SmA) transition breaks 3D XY symmetry, one might hence expect that smectics confined to gels would be good candidates for realizing such an “XY Bragg glass” phase. Considering this possibility theoretically, Radzihovsky and Toner have concluded that the orientational random fields coupling to the nematic order and the soft elasticity of the smectic make smectics confined to gels distinct from standard random field XY systems. Instead, they have introduced the possibility that a “smectic Bragg glass” phase, which has short range correlations and is qualitatively different from the XY Bragg glass, might form in smectics confined to gels [@radz_toner1]. However, the theoretical argument for the stability of the smectic Bragg glass is inconclusive, and experimental evidence for the phase in smectics confined by silica gels has been contradictory [@clark-science; @paperI; @paperII; @clegg8OCB]. Jacobsen, Saunders, [*et al.*]{} have further argued that smectics confined to uniaxially strained gels should fall into the universality class of random field XY systems and hence should form an “XY Bragg glass” for sufficiently weak disorder [@radz_toner4; @saundersthesis; @toner_prl]. The key difference between isotropic gels and strained gels is the effect of the orientational fields. Specifically, if the strain alters the distribution of orientational fields, causing them to suppress nematic fluctuations at large length scales, then the smectic in strained gels should theoretically exhibit an XY Bragg glass, provided the positional random fields are sufficiently weak. Recent additional theoretical predictions regarding the smectic-A to smectic-C transition under confinement in strained gels has highlighted the potential for smectics in such an anisotropic environment to display exotic phase behavior [@toner_prl].
In an effort to understand the separate effects of orientational random fields and positional random fields on the N-SmA transition and to test for the presence of an XY Bragg glass phase, we have conducted an x-ray scattering study of smectic octylcyanobiphenyl (8CB) confined to [ *aligned*]{} aerosil gels. The structure of these gels dramatically alters the nature of the orientational fields, converting the random distribution found in isotropic gels into a sharply anisotropic distribution that macroscopically orders the nematic director. This anisotropy, or “soft axis”, makes the gels a faithful experimental realization of uniaxially strained systems considered by Jacobsen, Saunders, [*et al.*]{} In this paper, we report an analysis of the x-ray scattering results that indicates the presence of an XY Bragg glass at low temperature for low densities of aligned aerosil. The signature feature of the XY Bragg glass is a power-law divergent smectic scattering peak with a universal exponent. We note that in a preliminary report on our x-ray studies [@Liang], we concluded that 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels did not exhibit such characteristics of the XY Bragg glass phase. As we explain below, by adopting a physically better-motivated description of the behavior of the thermal critical fluctuations in smectics confined to aerosil gels [@Larochelle], we find that the previous analysis is not satisfactory in accounting for the smectic correlations at low temperature. Instead, when a finite nematic domain size is incorporated into the analysis to reflect the imperfect nematic order in the aligned gels, comparisons between the x-ray scattering results for low densities of aerosil and the predictions for an XY Bragg glass show excellent agreement. A discussion of these findings is given in Sec. III below.
Another important benefit of the macroscopic alignment of the nematic director by the anisotropic gels is the pronounced enhancement in signal-to-background in x-ray measurements relative to measurements on smectics in isotropic gels. Taking advantage of this enhancement, we further provide in Sec. IV a detailed study of the smectic correlations at high temperature, which we analyze in terms of dynamic fluctuations that grow on approaching the critical region of the destroyed N-SmA transition. This analysis shows that the correlations, as characterized by effective critical exponents for the correlation lengths and susceptibility, differ from those of pure 8CB even when the correlation lengths are considerably smaller than the gel pore size, providing evidence that the presence of quenched disorder alters the coupling between nematic and smectic order and its influence over smectic critical behavior. When combined with similar results from smectics confined to isotropic gels for effective critical exponents for the specific heat and smectic order parameter [@paperI; @paperII; @Larochelle], these findings provide a comprehensive picture of an evolution in the N-SmA critical fluctuations toward conventional 3D XY behavior with increasing quenched disorder.
Sample Preparation and Characterization
=======================================
Pure 8CB undergoes an isotropic to nematic transition at $T_{NI}$ = 313.98 K and a N-SmA transition at $T_{NA}$ = 306.97 K [@germano]. Confinement of the liquid crystal to aligned aerosil gels was accomplished through a procedure described previously [@Liang]. Type 300 hydrophilic aerosil (DeGussa Corp.) was dried under vacuum at 393 K for 24 hours. The dried powder along with appropriate quantities of 8CB (Frinton Laboratories, Inc.) was dissolved in high-purity acetone, and the mixtures were sonicated for at least two hours. The solutions were then heated to 318 K to evaporate the solvent slowly. After no visible trace of acetone remained, the samples were heated to 338 K under vacuum. The resulting composites consisted of 8CB confined to isotropic fractal aerosil gels like those of previous studies [@park; @finotello-sil; @paperI; @paperII; @Liang; @zhou; @Mertelj]. To create anisotropic gels, we placed each sample in a 2 Tesla magnetic field and cycled the temperature between 308 K (nematic phase) and 318 K (isotropic phase) at least 100 times. Due to the magnetic anisotropy of nematic 8CB, the director tends to align parallel to the magnetic field, in competition with the random orientational fields created by the gel. Due to the elasticity of the nematic and the compliance of the gel, this competition results in restructuring of the gel to accommodate the magnetic anisotropy. As a result, the gels acquire a structure in which the orientational fields are no longer random but on average orient parallel to the aligning direction. Since the gel continues to have a random structure positionally, the positional fields that couple to the smectic density wave remain random. Samples were prepared in this manner with aerosil densities ranging from $\rho_s=0.027$ g sil/cm$^{3}$ 8CB, which is just above the gelation threshold, to $\rho_s=0.10$ g sil/cm$^{3}$ 8CB, which is the upper limit above which efforts to align the gels were ineffectual.
The smectic correlations that form in this anisotropic random environment were studied through high-resolution x-ray scattering. The experiments were conducted at the X22A beam line of the National Synchrotron Light Source. The beam line is equipped with a Ge(111) monochromator to select a beam of 10 keV x-rays. The measurements were performed in transmission geometry. The beam size was approximately 1 mm $\times$ 1 mm, and the sample thickness was approximately 1.5 mm to match the attenuation length of the 10 keV x-rays. A triple-bounce Si(111) channel-cut analyzer crystal was positioned between the sample and a scintillation point detector to achieve high wave-vector resolution.
To determine the degree of anisotropy in the orientational fields coupling to the liquid crystal, we characterized the mosaic spread of the smectic layer normal by “rocking curve” measurements through the smectic scattering peak. Figure [\[mosaic\]]{} shows mosaic scans for $\rho_s$ = 0.027 and 0.10 g/cm$^3$ at T=298.1 K, several degrees below $T_{NA}$.
![Normalized scattering intensity of the smectic peak at fixed wave vector magnitude ($q \approx 0.2$ Å$^{-1}$) as a function of sample orientation for 8CB confined by an aligned aerosil gel with $\rho_s$ = 0.027 g/cm$^3$ (solid squares) and 0.10 g/cm$^3$ (open circles and solid triangles) at 298.15 K. The two scattering intensities for $\rho_s$ = 0.10 g/cm$^3$ correspond to measurements before (open circles) and after (solid triangles) annealing the sample in the isotropic phase of 8CB. []{data-label="mosaic"}](liang_Fig1.eps)
The smectic scattering displays strong azimuthal anisotropy, indicating a narrow distribution of smectic layer-normal orientations. The alignment is slightly better (the peak is narrower) for lower density gels, consistent with the gels’ increased ability to resist restructuring with increasing density due to greater in mechanical strength [@paperII; @8CBrheo]. We note these measurements were performed several weeks after removal of the magnetic field used to align the gels; thus, the observed macroscopic alignment is a consequence of the gel and not the external field. As also shown in Fig. [\[mosaic\]]{}, the quality of the nematic alignment displays negligible change in response to temperature excursions into the isotropic phase, demonstrating that the anisotropic gel structure is stable against thermal fluctuations and sufficiently robust to re-align the nematic director on subsequent cooling. Indeed, samples are observed to remain aligned after repeated heating into the isotropic phase and after storage for several months. Thus, the random orientational fields of the isotropic gel have been converted into fields with long-range order that align the nematic director macroscopically.
Smectic Correlations: Evidence for an XY Bragg Glass
====================================================
Figure 2(a) displays the low-temperature x-ray scattering intensity for $\rho_s$ = 0.027 g/cm$^3$ as a function of wave vector parallel to the alignment direction ([*i.e.*]{}, the direction of the magnetic field used to prepare the gel), $q_z$, and perpendicular to it, $q_x$. In the alignment direction the intensity displays a pronounced peak corresponding to the smectic scattering, while in the perpendicular direction the intensity shows no evidence of smectic scattering, consistent with the strong anisotropy implied by Fig. 1. We ascribe the scattering intensity along $q_x$ entirely to the gel structure and note that an essentially identical background intensity contributes to the scattering along $q_z$. In order to isolate the smectic scattering from this background, we subtract the intensity along $q_x$ from the intensity along $q_z$. This procedure assumes that the anisotropy in the gel structure does not affect the scattering from the gel in the wave-vector range of the smectic peak. As described previously, small angle scattering measurements support this assumption [@Liang]. Nevertheless, the observed smectic signal greatly exceeds this background contribution, by a factor of more than a factor of $10^4$ in Fig. 2(a), and this strong signal-to-background, which results from the azimuthal focusing by the aligned orientational fields, enables the detailed examination of the smectic correlations described below. Figure 2(b) displays the results for the scattering intensity along $q_z$ from Fig. 2(a) with the background subtracted. Also in the figure is the resolution function determined from the profile of the direct x-ray beam. The inset to Fig. 2(b) compares the scattering to the resolution in the region of the peak. The peak is clearly broader than the resolution even for this lowest aerosil density at low temperature.
![(a) X-ray scattering intensity for 8CB confined by an aligned aerosil gel with $\rho_{S}=0.027$ g/cm$^{3}$ at 296.15 K as a function of wave vector parallel to the gel’s alignment direction, $q_z$ (circles) and perpendicular to this direction, $q_x$ (triangles). (b) Scattering intensity along $q_z$ with the intensity along $q_x$ subtracted to isolate the smectic scattering. The solid line in (b) is the instrumental resolution obtained from the incident beam profile. The inset to (b) shows the peak region on an expanded scale.[]{data-label="peak_bg"}](liang_Fig2.eps)
As a first effort to characterize the smectic order, we consider a correlation function based on the random-field model that has been used previously to describe the short-range smectic correlations observed under confinement in isotropic aerosil gels [@park; @paperI; @clegg8OCB; @clegg8S5]. Specifically, we model the smectic peak with the two-component line shape $$\begin{aligned}
I({\bf q}) =
\frac{\sigma_{1}}{1+(q_{\|}-
q_{0})^{2}\xi_{1\|}^{2}+q_{\bot}^{2}\xi_{1\bot}^{2}+c_{1}q_{\bot}^{4}\xi
_{1\bot}^{4}} \nonumber \\
+ \frac{a_{2}(\xi_{2\|}\xi_{2\bot}^{2})}{(1+(q_{\|}-
q_{0})^{2}\xi_{2\|}^{2}+q_{\bot}^{2}\xi_{2\bot}^{2}+
c_2q_{\bot}^{4}\xi_{2\bot}^{4})^{2}}
\label{ocko_ocko2}\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{\|}$ and $q_{\bot}$ are the wave vectors parallel and perpendicular to the smectic layer normal, respectively, and $q_{0}$ is the ordering wave vector. The first term in $I(\bf{q}$) is an anisotropic Lorentzian with fourth-order correction that describes critical dynamic fluctuations on approaching the N-SmA transition in pure liquid crystals. $\sigma_1$ is the smectic susceptibility, and $\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{1\bot}$ are the correlation lengths of the fluctuations in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the nematic director, respectively. The second term, which has a shape that is proportional to the square of the thermal fluctuation term, describes static short-range fluctuations due to the random fields, which are characterized by the correlation lengths $\xi_{2\|}$ and $\xi_{2\bot}$. Previous studies of smectics in isotropic aerosil gels have found that the correlations display two temperature regimes. At low temperature, $a_2>0$, and the amplitude of the static fluctuation term rises from zero with decreasing temperature. At higher temperature, $a_2=0$, and the scattering profile is similar to that of the nematic phase of pure 8CB, where pre-transitional smectic critical fluctuations dominate [@paperI; @clegg8OCB; @Larochelle].
Figure [\[highT\]]{} shows the results of fits to Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) with $a_2=0$ at two temperatures in this high-temperature regime for 8CB confined by an aligned gel with $\rho_s = 0.10$ g/cm$^{3}$.
![Background-subtracted scattering intensity of the smectic peak for 8CB confined to an aligned aerosil gel with $\rho_s=0.10$ g/cm$^{3}$ at (a) 309 K and (b) 306 K. The solid lines are the results of fits to Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) with $a_2 = 0$.[]{data-label="highT"}](liang_Fig3.eps)
To perform fits to Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]), we integrate numerically over the distribution of layer normal orientations, as determined by rocking curves like those shown in Fig. \[mosaic\], and convolve with the instrumental resolution. In this analysis $\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{1\bot}$ are treated as independent parameters, while the amplitude of the fourth-order correction term, $c$, is treated as a function of $\xi_{1\bot}$, with $c(\xi_{1\bot})$ set by the behavior in pure 8CB [@ocko; @J_theon; @davidov]. (Allowing $c$ to vary as an additional free parameter leads to significant scatter in the fit parameters.) As Fig. [\[highT\]]{} illustrates, the dynamic term in Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) provides an excellent description of pre- transitional smectic fluctuations in 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels at high temperatures. This agreement allows us to study in detail the pseudo-critical behavior of 8CB with anisotropic quenched disorder, as described in Sec. IV below.
Turning to low temperature, the dynamic fluctuation term in Eq. (1) alone cannot describe the measured lineshape. As mentioned above, previous analysis of the smectic correlations under confinement in isotropic aerosil gels [@park; @paperI; @clegg8OCB; @clegg8S5] have modeled the low-temperature scattering by including the contribution in Eq. (1) from static fluctuations ($a_2 >0$). In most cases, this analysis has assumed that $\xi_{2\|}=\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{2\bot}=\xi_{1\bot}$; that is, the correlation lengths in the static and dynamic terms were assumed equal. Typically, this approach provided good agreement with the measured line shapes. Indeed, in a preliminary report on 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels, we found that Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) with $\xi_{2\|}=\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{2\bot}=\xi_{1\bot}$ described the data accurately [@Liang]. However, this agreement does not necessarily indicate that the analysis is capturing the correct physical picture. As pointed out recently by Larochelle [*et al.*]{}, the results of such analysis lead to trends in the smectic susceptibility and correlation lengths that are inconsistent with calorimetric studies of smectics confined to aerosil gels [@Larochelle]. Calorimetry measurements on 8CB in isotropic aerosil gels at low density ($\rho_{s} < 0.10$ g/cm$^{3}$) show a sharp peak in the heat capacity, with power-law temperature dependence resembling pre-transitional critical behavior extending over an extended range of reduced temperature both above and below an effective transition temperature T$^*$ [@zhou]. This behavior would suggest that $\xi_{1\|}$, $\xi_{1\bot}$, and $\sigma_1$ should similarly decay as a power law as a function of reduced temperature away from T$^*$. As discussed in Sec. IV, for T $>$ T$^*$ the smectic fluctuations in 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels indeed show a quasi-critical increase toward T$^*$. However, analysis of the x-ray results at low temperature using Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) with $\xi_{2\|}=\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{2\bot}=\xi_{1\bot}$ leads to correlation length and susceptibility values that remain large away from T$^*$. For example, $\xi_{\|}\approx$ 3000 Å at T$^*-$T = 9 K for 8CB confined to an aligned gel with $\rho_{s}=0.10$ g/cm$^{3}$ [@Liang], inconsistent with pseudo-critical behavior. Such large dynamic fluctuations persisting to low temperature seem very unlikely. However, if we restrict the dynamic fluctuations to follow a more plausible temperature dependence, we find that Eq. (1) cannot describe the x-ray lineshapes for 8CB in aligned gels at low temperature. Rather, as we explain below, the lineshape predicted for the XY Bragg glass with an appropriate cut-off for a finite nematic domain size can very accurately describe the measured lineshapes for low densities of aligned aerosil.
To examine the situation more closely, we display in Figs. \[log\_log\](a) and \[log\_log\](b) log-log plots of the scattering intensity versus $(q_z-q_0)$ at various temperatures for $\rho_s = 0.042$ g/cm$^3$. As described in Sec. IV, the effective transition temperature for $\rho_s = 0.042$ g/cm$^3$ is T$^*$ = 305.0 K. As seen in Fig. \[log\_log\](a), the intensities at temperatures above T$^*$ overlap at large $(q_z-q_0)$.
![Background-subtracted scattering intensity at various temperatures as a function of the difference in wave vector from the ordering wave vector, $q_0$, for $\rho_s = 0.042$ g/cm$^3$. (a) intensities at several temperatures ranging from just below T$^*$ = 305.0 K to several degrees above T$^*$. (b) intensities at two temperatures, 300.1 K and 309.1 K, that are approximately the same difference in temperature from T$^*$. The dashed line in (b) is the result of a fitting the intensity at 300.1 K in the peak region ($(q_z-q_0) < 10^{-3}$ Å$^{-1}$) to the second term in Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) ($\sigma_1 = 0$) representing static short-range order.[]{data-label="log_log"}](liang_Fig4.eps)
This collapse indicates that the intensities away from the peak share the same wave-vector dependence, specifically that of the critical fluctuation term in Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]), and further that the ratio $\xi_{1\|}^2/\sigma_1$ is a constant independent of temperature (implying the critical exponent $(2 - \eta) \approx 2$). Similarly, for the two temperatures just below T$^*$ shown in Fig. \[log\_log\](a), 303.9 K and 304.6 K, the intensities at large $(q_z-q_0)$ collapse onto the data for T $>$ T$^*$. This collapse indicates that critical fluctuations continue to dominate the intensity at large $(q_z-q_0)$ at temperatures near but below T$^*$. This finding is not surprising since one would expect to have large critical fluctuations in the vicinity of a true critical point. However, for lower temperature, the situation becomes more complicated. Plotted in Fig. \[log\_log\](b) is the intensity at 300.1 K, approximately 4.9 K below T$^*$, along with the intensity at 309.1 K, approximately 4.1 K above T$^*$. Not only does the low-temperature curve fail to collapse onto the high-temperature curve at large $(q_z-q_0)$, but it exhibits considerable excess intensity at smaller $(q_z-q_0)$ that cannot be accounted for by either term in Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]). Specifically, the dashed line in Fig. \[log\_log\](b) shows the result of fitting the low-temperature intensity in the peak region to the static term of Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) alone ($\sigma_1 = 0$). While the fit agrees adequately with the measured intensity in the immediate vicinity of the peak, it deviates significantly at larger $(q_z-q_0)$. A comparison with the high-temperature intensity demonstrates that the dynamic term in Eq. (\[ocko\_ocko2\]) cannot account for these deviations. Since the two intensities plotted in Fig. \[log\_log\](b) are for temperatures that are approximately the same difference in temperature from T$^*$, they correspond to approximately the same reduced temperature. Hence, the pre-transitional critical fluctuations at the two temperatures should be similar (assuming the amplitude ratios for the correlation lengths and susceptibility are of order one). For scattering from such critical fluctuations, a power law in the intensity should be observed only for $( q_z-q_0) > 1/\xi_{1\|}$. An inspection of the line shape for 309.1 K indicates that for this reduced temperature this asymptotic range is reached only for $(q_z-q_0) > 4
\times 10^{-2}$ Å$^{-1}$. The extension to lower $(q_z - q_0)$ of the power-law behavior at 300.1 K thus indicates that the scattering intensity is inconsistent with the small dynamic correlation lengths expected at a temperature so far below T$^*$. In essence, the constraint used in the previous analysis [@Liang] that $\xi_{2\|}=\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{2\bot}=\xi_{1\bot}$ led to artificially large values of $\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{1\bot}$ at low temperature that fortuitously approximated the measured line shape but that on further inspection cannot be justified as credible behavior for critical fluctuations.
The extended power-law tails in the low-temperature scattering peak instead suggest the possible presence of the XY Bragg glass phase. As mentioned above, the XY Bragg glass is ideally characterized by a power- law divergent smectic scattering peak with a universal power-law exponent. As noted by the inset to Fig. 2(a), the measured scattering peaks are appreciably broader than the instrumental resolution, which precludes such power-law divergence extending to the lowest $(q_z -
q_0)$. However, we argue that this discrepancy could be a consequence of a large length scale cut-off introduced by the liquid crystal ordering in the aligned gels. Specifically, while the mosaic scans in Fig. 1 indicate long-range nematic order, they also show an appreciable spread in the smectic layer-normal orientations about the aligning direction. This spread indicates spatial variations in the smectic layer normal that are likely set by the length scale characterizing the nematic order. In other words, the liquid crystal in the aligned gel has finite-size nematic domains like in the isotropic gels [@bellini-sil-PRE], the difference being that the domains are not randomly oriented but rather have a distribution of orientations clustered around the aligning direction. Nevertheless, smectic order cannot persist across two misaligned domains, leading directly to a cut- off in the smectic correlations at low $(q_z - q_0)$.
Taking such an effect into account, we model the scattering peak at low temperature with a form $$\begin{aligned}
I({\bf q}) = P({\bf q}) + H({\bf q})\end{aligned}$$ where $P({\bf q})$ is the XY Bragg glass correlation function truncated at small $(q_z - q_0)$, and $H({\bf q})$ accounts for the finite-size effect within a Gaussian approximation [@sinha; @kaganer]. The XY Bragg glass form is given by [@toner_prl; @saundersthesis] $$P({\bf q}) =
\begin{cases}
C((q_{\|}-q_0)^2 + \alpha q_{\bot}^2)^{-\delta/2} \\
\text{\hspace{0.5cm} if $((q_{\|}-q_0)^2 + \alpha q_{\bot}^2) > 1/L$,}
\\
CL^{\delta} \\ \text{\hspace{0.5cm} if $((q_{\|}-q_0)^2 + \alpha
q_{\bot}^2) < 1/L$.}
\end{cases}$$ where $\delta$ is a universal, temperature-independent exponent predicted to be $\delta = 2.45$ [@toner_prl; @saundersthesis], $C$ sets the overall amplitude, $\alpha$ is a non-universal constant that is expected to be of order unity [@toner_prl], and $L$ is the size scale of the nematic domains. The finite-size correction has the form [@kaganer] $$H({\bf q}) = Ae^{-L^2((q_{\|}-q_0)^2 + \alpha q_{\bot}^2)/4\pi}$$ where the amplitude $A$ is related to $C$ such that at wave vectors $((q_{\|}-q_0)^2 + \alpha q_{\bot}^2) < 1/L$ the Gaussian form of $H({\bf q})$ dictates the line shape, while for larger wave vectors it has negligible effect on the line shape [@sinha]. To perform fits to Eq. (2), we again integrate numerically over the distribution of layer normal orientations, as determined by rocking curves like those shown in Fig. \[mosaic\], and convolve with the instrumental resolution. Figure 5 shows the result of a
![Comparison between the background-subtracted scattering intensity as a function of wave vector for $\rho_s = 0.027$ g/cm$^3$ at 296.1 K and the form predicted for an XY Bragg glass with a truncation in the correlations at large length scales. The circles are the measured intensity, and the solid line is the result of a fit to Eq. (2). The inset shows a comparison between the scattering intensity and the fit result in the peak region on an expanded scale. The XY Bragg glass form agrees closely with the measured intensity over the full range of wave vectors.[]{data-label="XYBG0p027"}](liang_Fig5.eps)
fit to Eq. (2) for $\rho_s$ = 0.027 g/cm$^3$ at T = 296.1 K, the lowest measurement temperature. The figure displays the scattering intensity over the full range of wave vectors, while the inset shows the peak region on an expanded scale. The agreement between the measured line shape and the XY Bragg glass form is essentially perfect. Good agreement is similarly found for $\rho_s$ = 0.42 g/cm$^3$, as illustrated by Fig. 6 which shows the result of a fit using Eq. (2) to the scattering intensity at T = 298.1 K for this aerosil density. The fits for both densities give $L \approx 1$ $\mu$m, in reasonable agreement with a value expected based on the nematic correlation lengths measured in isotropic aerosil gels [@bellini-sil-PRE]. The anisotropy factor is found to be $\alpha \approx 0.15$ in the two cases. For larger densities of aligned aerosil, the XY Bragg glass form is less successful in describing the measured line shape, as illustrated by Fig. 7 which shows the result of a fit using Eq. (2) to the low- temperature scattering intensity for $\rho_s$ = 0.10 g/cm$^3$. We interpret this discrepancy as an indication that the larger aerosil densities impose positional disorder that is too strong for the XY Bragg glass to be stable.
![Comparison between the background-subtracted scattering intensity as a function of wave vector for $\rho_s = 0.042$ g/cm$^3$ at 298.1 K and the form predicted for an XY Bragg glass with a truncation in the correlations at large length scales. The circles are the measured intensity, and the solid line is the result of a fit to Eq. (2). The inset shows a comparison between the scattering intensity and the fit result in the peak region on an expanded scale. The XY Bragg glass form agrees closely with the measured intensity over the full range of wave vectors.[]{data-label="XYBG0p042"}](liang_Fig6.eps)
![Comparison between the background-subtracted scattering intensity as a function of wave vector for $\rho_s = 0.10$ g/cm$^3$ at 298.1 K and the form predicted for an XY Bragg glass with a truncation in the correlations at large length scales. The circles are the measured intensity, and the solid line is the result of a fit to Eq. (2). Deviations between the XY Bragg glass form and the measured intensity are apparent at large wave vectors.[]{data-label="XYBG0p10"}](liang_Fig7.eps)
For the lower aerosil densities, the close agreement with the XY Bragg glass form extends over a range of temperatures below T$^*$. However, at temperatures sufficiently close to T$^*$, contributions to the scattering from smectic critical fluctuations become appreciable. These contributions are apparent in the two temperatures slightly below T$^*$ included in Fig. 4(a) where both smectic critical fluctuations at large $(q_z-q_0)$ and additional contributions at smaller wave vector are apparent. Efforts to account for the contributions from dynamic fluctuations in this temperature region by adding a term to Eq. (2) are successful in the sense that good agreement with the measured scattering intensity can be achieved. However, this analysis leads to large uncertainties in the fit parameters; therefore, we will not discuss this temperature region and will restrict our comparison to the XY Bragg glass form to lower temperatures, where the dynamic fluctuations can be safely neglected. Figure 8 displays the values of the power-law exponent $\delta$ extracted from fits over this low-temperature region for $\rho_s$ = 0.027 and 0.042 g/cm$^3$. The measured exponents for both densities are remarkably close to the universal value predicted for the XY Bragg glass, $\delta = 2.45$ [@toner_prl; @saundersthesis], shown by the dashed line in the figure. We note that like the XY Bragg glass phase, the smectic phase of pure liquid crystals possesses quasi-long range order due to the Landau-Peierls instability and hence also displays a power-law singular scattering peak. However, the power-law exponent along $q_{\|}$ for the smectic phase is always less than 2 [@kaganer; @als-nielsen], a value that is incompatible with the measured line shapes for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels. In contrast, the close quantitative agreement between the exponent predicted for the XY Bragg glass and the observed values lends strong support to the conclusion that this topologically ordered phase forms in 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels with low density.
![Power-law exponent $\delta$ for the XY Bragg glass as a function of temperature for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels with densities $\rho_s = 0.027$ g/cm$^3$ (solid) and 0.042 g/cm$^3$ (open). The dashed line is the universal value for the exponent, $\delta =
2.45$, predicted theoretically [@toner_prl; @saundersthesis].[]{data-label="XYBGpower"}](liang_Fig8.eps)
Despite this excellent, quantitative agreement between the measured scattering profiles for low densities of aerosil and the XY Bragg glass form, we note that some caution is in order. As described previously, one can analyze the scattering intensity using Eq. (1) with $\xi_{2\|}=\xi_{1\|}$ and $\xi_{2\bot}=\xi_{1\bot}$. (Although, the agreement is not nearly as accurate as that of the XY Bragg glass form nor does it cover as large a wave-vector range; see Fig. 5(c) in Ref. [@Liang]). Further, the values that are obtained for $\xi_{\|}$ and $\xi_{\bot}$ from fitting to Eq. (1) are similar to those found for 8CB confined to isotropic aerosil gels following the same analysis [@Liang]. As we argue above, this analysis provides a flawed physical picture; however, this coincidence in the correlation lengths suggests that the smectic correlations that form in the aligned gels and the isotropic gels are similar. Since the XY Bragg glass phase is not expected to be relevant to smectics confined to isotropic gels, one might interpret this similarity as evidence against the XY Bragg glass phase forming in the aligned gels. Additional experimental work on other smectic liquid crystals confined to aligned gels that test for the presence of the XY Bragg glass phase would help in clarifying the stability of this topologically ordered phase within the anisotropic random environment created by the gel.
High-Temperature Correlations: Pseudo-critical Behavior
=======================================================
As described above, the high-temperature scattering intensity of 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels is characterized by dynamic critical fluctuations. We interpret these fluctuations as the remnants of the N-SmA critical point that is destroyed by the quenched disorder (and not directly with the transition to the XY Bragg glass phase which presumably has a significantly subtler signature in the x-ray scattering than the observed robust peaks illustrated in Fig. 3). Although the N-SmA critical point is obtained strictly only in the presence of zero quenched disorder, upon cooling in weak disorder the system in some sense comes in close proximity to the critical point and should therefore display critical smectic fluctuations. Further, if the disorder is sufficiently weak, the susceptibility and correlation lengths charactering these fluctuations, while non-singular, should display pseudo-critical behavior over an extended range of reduced temperature. This premise leads us to define the effective transition temperature T$^*$ as the temperature at which these quantities would diverge if their growth were not truncated: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ch4_q0L}
q_0 \xi_{1\|} \sim |t|^{ -\nu_{||}}\\
\label{ch4_q0L2}
q_0 \xi_{1\bot} \sim |t|^{ -\nu_\bot}\\
\label{ch4_gamma}
\sigma_1 \sim |t|^{ -\gamma}\end{aligned}$$ where $t \equiv ($T$-$T$^*)/$T$^*$ is the reduced temperature, and $\nu_{\|}$, $\nu_{\bot}$, and $\gamma$ are effective critical exponents for $\xi_{1\|}$, $\xi_{1\bot}$, and $\sigma_1$, respectively.
If this assumption of truncated power-law divergences is valid, then the three critical parameters should yield self-consistent values for T$^*$. To test this assumption and to identify the correct value of T$^*$, we fit the values of $\xi_{1\|}$, $\xi_{1\bot}$ and $\sigma_1$ to Eqs. (\[ch4\_q0L\])-(\[ch4\_gamma\]). In these fits, only data at high temperatures where the dynamic term in Eq. (1) alone describes accurately the measured line shapes were included. As mentioned above, at lower temperature (near but below T$^*$), additional contributions to the scattering intensity, presumably from the static correlations of the XY Bragg glass phase, appear. Since efforts to separate these different contributions lead to considerable uncertainties in the fit parameters, we focus on the high temperature side of the critical region. In the fitting, the critical exponents were held fixed and T$^*$ was treated as a free parameter. These fits were repeated over a range of critical exponents, and the quality of the fits, as determined from the $\chi^2$ values, was compared. For all aerosil densities, the minima in $\chi^2$ for the three power-law relations, Eqs. (\[ch4\_q0L\])-(\[ch4\_gamma\]), occur at values of T$^*$ that are within 0.01 K of each other. We equate T$^*$ with the average of the three values determined in this way for each aerosil density. This value is listed in Table \[ch4\_table\_result\]. Comparing T$^*$ for different aerosil densities, we note the value displays a non-monotonic dependence on $\rho_s$ with a minimum near $\rho_s = 0.05$ g/cm$^3$, consistent with the effective critical temperature determined with calorimetry for 8CB confined to isotropic aerosil gels [@germano].
------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -------------- ---------------
System $l_0$ (Å) T$^*$ (K) $\gamma$ $\nu_{\|}$ $\nu_{\bot}$ $\nu_{\|}
/ \nu_{\bot}$
\[3pt\] Pure 8CB 306.97 1.26 0.67 0.51 1.314
\[3pt\] 1.55 0.73 0.70
\[3pt\] $\pm$0.05 $\pm$0.02 $\pm$0.02
\[3pt\] 1.54 0.74 0.65
\[3pt\] $\pm$0.05 $\pm$0.03 $\pm$0.03
\[3pt\] 1.56 0.75 0.66
\[3pt\] $\pm$0.05 $\pm$0.02 $\pm$0.02
\[3pt\] 1.53 0.73 0.65
\[3pt\] $\pm$0.05 $\pm$0.02 $\pm$0.03
\[3pt\] 3D XY 1.32 0.67 0.67 1
\[3pt\]
------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -------------- ---------------
: Summary of effective critical exponents for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels in comparison with pure 8CB and the 3D XY model. Also included are the gel pore chords $l_0$ [@germano] and effective transition temperatures T$^*$.
\[ch4\_table\_result\]
![Dynamic correlation lengths $\xi_{1\|}$ (circles) and $\xi_{1\bot}$ (triangles) as a function of reduced temperature for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels with densities (a) $\rho_s = 0.027$ g/cm$^3$, (b) $\rho_s = 0.042$ g/cm$^3$, (c) $\rho_s = 0.071$ g/cm$^3$, and (d) $\rho_s = 0.10$ g/cm$^3$. The solid line are the results of power-law fits.[]{data-label="ch4_corr_t"}](liang_Fig9.eps)
![Smectic susceptibilty as a function of reduced temperature for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels of density for (a) $\rho_s = 0.027$ g/cm$^3$, (b) $\rho_s = 0.042$ g/cm$^3$, (c) $\rho_s = 0.071$ g/cm$^3$, and (d) $\rho_s = 0.10$ g/cm$^3$. The solid line are the results of power-law fits.[]{data-label="ch4_s1_t"}](liang_Fig10.eps)
Figures \[ch4\_corr\_t\] and \[ch4\_s1\_t\] display log - log plots of $\xi_{1\|}$, $\xi_{1\bot}$ and $\sigma_1$ as a function of reduced temperature for T $>$ T$^*$ for various gel densities using the optimal values of T$^*$. The solid lines in the figures are the results of fits to Eqs. (\[ch4\_q0L\])-(\[ch4\_gamma\]), which demonstrate that the temperature dependence is well described by power laws, further reinforcing the idea of pseudo-critical behavior. The effective critical exponents extracted from the fits are listed in Table \[ch4\_table\_result\] along with the values for pure 8CB [@ocko; @J_theon; @davidov]. The values of $\nu_{\|}$, $\nu_{\bot}$, and $\gamma$ for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels are distinctly different from those of pure 8CB, indicating that the quenched disorder introduced by the gel not only affects the low-temperature smectic order but also modifies the pre-transitional critical fluctuations. At sufficiently high temperature the correlation lengths are small compared to the mean pore chord $l_0$ of the gels [@germano], which is also listed in Table \[ch4\_table\_result\]. Hence, the disorder caused by the gels should have little direct effect on the smectic fluctuations well above T$^*$. In the simplest picture of the N-SmA transition, the formation of the smectic density wave breaks 3D XY symmetry, and thus the critical behavior of pure liquid crystals could be expected to match that of the 3D XY model. However, the observed critical behavior of pure 8CB and other smectic liquid crystals typically deviates from that of the 3D XY model. These deviations are illustrated by the difference in critical exponent values for pure 8CB and the 3D XY model listed in Table \[ch4\_table\_result\]. The precise nature of these deviations, whose source likely involves couplings between the smectic order parameter and the nematic order, has been a long-standing problem. As described above, when a smectic liquid crystal is confined to an aligned aerosil gel, it experiences not only positional disorder that couples to the smectic density wave but also anisotropic orientational fields that couple to the nematic order, thereby modifying the nematic behavior. We therefore conclude that differences in the critical fluctuations between pure 8CB and 8CB confined to aerosil gels originate from the coupling of nematic order to the gel and its indirect influence on the smectic critical behavior.
![Critical exponents (a) $\nu_{\|}$, (b) $\nu_{\bot}$, and (c) $\gamma$ for different smectic liquid crystals as a function of McMillan ratio, $R_M \equiv \frac{T_{NA}}{T_{NI}}$. The values for various pure liquid crystals, shown by circles, are taken from [@nounesis]. The values for pure 8CB are shown by the solid circles. Also included are the values of the effective critical exponents for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels with densities $\rho_s = 0.027$ g/cm$^3$, (triangle), $\rho_s = 0.042$ g/cm$^3$ (diamond), $\rho_s = 0.071$ g/cm$^3$ (upside-down triangle), and $\rho_s = 0.10$ g/cm$^3$ (square), which are assigned effective McMillan ratios using Eq. (\[ch4\_Rm\_eff\]). The solid lines mark the exponent values for the 3D XY model, and the dashed lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="ch4_Rm"}](liang_Fig11.eps)
As an illustration, compare the ratio $\nu_{\|} / \nu_{\bot}$ for varying aerosil densities with the ratio for pure 8CB listed in Table \[ch4\_table\_result\]. For the 3D XY model, the ratio is one due to the isotropic scaling of correlations. However, for pure 8CB the scalings are highly anisotropic ($\nu_{\|} / \nu_{\bot}$ = 1.314), consistent with behavior seen in various other smectic liquid crystals [@nounesis]. Patton and Andereck have advanced a theory that this anisotropic scaling results from coupling between nematic director fluctuations and the smectic order parameter [@andereck; @patton]. For 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels, the ratio $\nu_{\|}/\nu_{\bot}$ shows much weaker scaling anisotropy than in pure 8CB. One interpretation for this decreased scaling anisotropy is that pinning of the nematic director by the anisotropic orientational fields suppresses long-wavelength nematic fluctuations, thus weakening their influence over the smectic critical behavior.
While the decrease in $\nu_{\|}/\nu_{\bot}$ for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels compared with $\nu_{\|}/\nu_{\bot}$ for pure 8CB indicates qualitatively that the quenched disorder weakens nematic-smectic coupling, this observation would be made stronger with a quantitative measure of this weakening. In pure liquid crystals, the strength of the nematic-smectic coupling can be crudely parameterized by the McMillan ratio $$R_M \equiv \frac{T_{NA}}{T_{NI}}$$ specifying the temperature range of the nematic phase. Large $R_M$ indicates a short nematic range, which typically implies the nematic order is far from saturated at the N-SmA transition. Hence, for large $R_M$ the nematic susceptibility can be expected to be large, and concomitantly the order parameter coupling can be expected to be strong. In a comprehensive survey of smectic critical behavior in pure liquid crystals, Garland and Nounesis found that the critical exponents $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $\nu_{\|}$, and $\nu_{\bot}$ obtained from calorimetry and x-ray scattering studies displayed complex but systematic trends as a function of $R_M$ [@nounesis]. Figures \[ch4\_Rm\](a)-\[ch4\_Rm\](c) display the values of the critical exponents $\nu_{\|}$, $\nu_{\bot}$, and $\gamma$ of various smectic liquid crystals as a function of $R_M$, as originally assembled by Garland and Nounesis. Liquid crystals with small $R_M$ generally have critical exponents that approach the 3D XY values; however, the values of the exponents do not change monotonically with decreasing $R_M$. The critical exponents for pure 8CB ($R_M$ = 0.977) are shown by the solid circles in the figures. Also in Figs. \[ch4\_Rm\](a)-\[ch4\_Rm\](c) are the effective critical exponents for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil gels, which have been placed on the figures by assigning the smectics with quenched disorder an effective McMillan ratio, $$R_M^{eff} = 0.977 - 0.72 \rho_s
\label{ch4_Rm_eff}$$ As the figures illustrate, this mapping between disorder strength, as parameterized by aerosil density, and nematic-smectic coupling, as parameterized by McMillan ratio, places the effective critical exponents for 8CB confined to aligned aerosil densities roughly in line with trends of pure liquid crystals of varying $R_M$. We note a very similar linear mapping of aerosil density to effective McMillan ratio was introduced previously for 8CB and 4O.8 confined to isotropic aerosil gels [@paperI; @Larochelle]. In these cases, the mapping was shown to collapse successfully effective heat capacity and order parameter exponents, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, for various aerosil densities onto the trends of pure liquid crystals. The linear coefficient that optimized the mapping for the smectics confined to isotropic aerosil gels was smaller than that in Eq. (\[ch4\_Rm\_eff\]), 0.47 as opposed to 0.72, suggesting that aligned aerosil gels are more effective than isotropic gels in suppressing nematic-smectic order parameter coupling. Nevertheless, these linear mappings provide a quantitative measure of how the presence of the quenched disorder influences the smectic critical behavior. The results in Figs. \[ch4\_Rm\](a)-\[ch4\_Rm\](c) thus extend the notion of an effective McMillan ratio to the effective critical exponents $\nu_{\|}$, $\nu_{\bot}$, and $\gamma$, making comprehensive the analogy between disorder strength and $R_M^{eff}$ for describing the behavior of the pre-transitional critical fluctuations of smectic confined to aerosil gels. Further theoretical efforts to understand the effects of quenched disorder could hence be a fruitful avenue for unraveling the outstanding mysteries surrounding the critical behavior of pure smectics.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We gratefully acknowledge C. Garland, G. Iannacchione, B. Ocko, and L. Radzihovsky for helpful discussions. Funding was provided by the NSF under Grant No. DMR-0134377. Use of the National Synchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National Laboratory, was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under Contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.
[10]{}
L. Radzihovsky and J. Toner, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 206 (1999).
L. Radzihovsky and J. Toner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4414 (1997).
L. Radzihovsky and J. Toner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4214 (1997).
B. Jacobsen, K. Saunders, L. Radzihovsky, and J. Toner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1363 (1999).
K. Saunders, PhD thesis, University of Oregon, 2001.
T. Bellini, L. Radzihovsky, J. Toner, and N. A. Clark, Science [**294**]{}, 1074 (2001).
L. Wu, B. Zhou, C. W. Garland, T. Bellini, and D. W. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 2157 (1995).
H. Zeng, B. Zalar, G. S. Iannacchione, and D. Finotello, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{}, 5607 (1999).
T. Bellini, N. A. Clark, and D. W. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2740 (1995).
S. Park et al., Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{}, 050703 (2002).
T. Jin and D. Finotello, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 818 (2001).
R. L. Leheny et al., Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 011708 (2003).
G. S. Iannacchione, S. Park, C. W. Garland, R. J. Birgeneau, and R. L. Leheny, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 011709 (2003).
D. Liang, M. A. Borthwick, and R. L. Leheny, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**16**]{}, S1989 (2004).
T. Jin and D. Finotello, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{}, 041704 (2004).
B. Zhou, G. S. Iannacchione, C. W. Garland, and T. Bellini, Phys. Rev. E [**55**]{}, 2962 (1997).
A. Mertelj, A. J[á]{}kli, and M. [Č]{}opi[č]{}, Mol. Cryst. Liq. Cryst. [**331**]{}, 1941 (1999).
A. Hourri, T. K. Bose, and J. Thoen, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 051702 (2001).
G. S. Iannacchione, C. W. Garland, J. T. Mang, and T. P. Rieker, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 5966 (1998).
G. Cordoyiannis, S. Kralj, G. Nounesis, S. [Ž]{}umer, and Z. Kutnjak, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 031707 (2006).
A. Roshi, G. S. Iannacchione, P. S. Clegg, R. J. Birgeneau, and M. E. Neubert, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 051716 (2005).
G. Sinha, J. Leys, C. Glorieux, and J. Thoen, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 051710 (2005).
F. Mercuri, S. Paoloni, U. Zammit, and M. Marinelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 247801 (2005).
J. Leys, G. Sinha, C. Glorieux, and J. Thoen, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 051709 (2005).
M. Caggioni et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 127801 (2004).
P. S. Clegg et al., Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 031706 (2003).
P. S. Clegg et al., Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 021703 (2003).
S. Larochelle, M. Ramazanoglu, and R. J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 060702 (2006).
R. Bandyopadhyay, D. Liang, R. H. Colby, J. L. Harden, and R. L. Leheny, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 107801 (2005).
T. Giamarchi and P. L. Doussal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1530 (1994).
M. J. P. Gingras and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 15193 (1996).
D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1964 (1997).
M. Tissier and G. Tarjus, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 087202 (2006).
L. Chen and J. Toner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 137803 (2005).
B. M. Ocko, R. J. Birgeneau, and J. D. Litster, Z. Phys. B [**62**]{}, 487 (1986).
J. Thoen, H. Marynissen, and W. V. Dael, Phys. Rev. A [**26**]{}, 2886 (1982).
D. Davidov et al., Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 1657 (1979).
T. Bellini, N. A. Clark, V. Degiorgio, F. Mantegazza, and G. Natale, Phys. Rev. E [**57**]{}, 2996 (1998).
P. Dutta and S. K. Sinha, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 50 (1981).
V. M. Kaganer, B. I. Ostrovskii, and W. H. de Jeu, Phys. Rev. A [**44**]{}, 8158 (1991).
J. Als-Nielsen et al., Phys. Rev. B [**22**]{}, 312 (1980).
C. W. Garland and G. Nounesis, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{}, 2964 (1994).
B. R. Patton and B. S. Andereck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1556 (1992).
B. S. Andereck and B. R. Patton, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{}, 1393 (1994).
[^1]: Present address: Intense Pulsed Neutron Source Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Clusters of galaxies in most previous catalogs have redshifts $z\le0.3$. Using the photometric redshifts of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 6 (SDSS DR6), we identify 39,668 clusters in the redshift range $0.05< z <0.6$ with more than eight luminous ($M_r\le-21$) member galaxies. Cluster redshifts are estimated accurately with an uncertainty less than 0.022. The contamination rate of member galaxies is found to be roughly 20%, and the completeness of member galaxy detection reaches to $\sim$90%. Monte Carlo simulations show that the cluster detection rate is more than 90% for massive ($M_{200}>2\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$) clusters of $z\le0.42$. The false detection rate is $\sim$5%. We obtain the richness, the summed luminosity, and the gross galaxy number within the determined radius for identified clusters. They are tightly related to the X-ray luminosity and temperature of clusters. Cluster mass is related to the richness and summed luminosity with $M_{200}\propto R^{1.90\pm0.04}$ and $M_{200}\propto
L_r^{1.64\pm0.03}$, respectively. In addition, 685 new candidates of X-ray clusters are found by cross-identification of our clusters with the source list of the [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray survey.
author:
- 'Z. L. Wen, J. L. Han and F. S. Liu'
title: Galaxy clusters identified from the SDSS DR6 and their properties
---
Introduction
============
As the largest gravitational bound systems in the universe, clusters of galaxies are important tracers to study the large scale structure [@bah88; @phg92; @cye+96; @bfc97]. Statistical studies of clusters constrain the cosmological parameters, for example, $\Omega_m$, the mass density parameter of the universe, and $\sigma_8$, the amplitude of mass fluctuations at a scale of 8 $h^{-1}$ Mpc [@rb02; @sel02; @dah06; @pd07; @rdn07]. The detailed studies of clusters provide the strong evidence of dark matter and constrain the abundance of dark matter in the universe [see, e.g., @ief+96; @cs03; @jfi+07; @bse+08]. Clusters are also important laboratories to investigate the evolution of galaxies in dense environment, e.g., the Butcher–Oemler effect, the morphology–density relation [@dre80; @bo78; @bo84; @gma99; @goy+03; @gyf+03]. In addition, clusters can act as efficient gravitational lenses and provide an independent way to study high-redshift faint background galaxies [see, e.g., @bki+99; @sib+02; @mkm+03; @sek+04].
A lot of clusters have been found in various surveys in last decades. By visual inspection of optical images, @abe58 was the first to identify a large sample of rich clusters from the National Geographic Society–Palomar Observatory Sky Survey. The catalog was improved and expanded to 4073 rich clusters by @aco89. Some other catalogs of clusters were obtained visually from optical images [see, e.g., @zhw68; @gho86].
To reduce subjectivity, an automated peak-finding method was developed by @she85 and applied to the Edinberg/Durham survey [@lnc+92] and the Automatic Plate Measurement Facility survey [@dms97]. A matched-filter algorithm was later developed by @plg+96 and applied to the Palomar Distant Cluster Survey, and later the Edinburgh/Durham Southern Galaxy Catalogue [@bnp00], the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data [@kkp+02], and the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey [@obc+07]. @gcl+03 used an adaptive kernel technique [@sil86] to search for clusters in the galaxy sample ($15.0<m_r<19.5$) of the digitized Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey and presented the NSC catalog containing 8155 clusters of $z\le 0.3$ in the sky region of 5800 deg$^2$. @ldg+04 incorporated the adaptive kernel and the Voronoi tessellation techniques [@rbf+01; @kkp+02] to a deeper sample ($m_r<21.1$) of the digitized Second Palomar Observatory Sky Survey and presented the NSCS catalog containing 9956 clusters of $0.1\le z\le 0.5$ in the sky region of $2700$ deg$^2$.
The above methods were applied to detect clusters in single-band imaging data, and suffered severe contamination from foreground and background galaxies. To reduce projection effect, several methods have been developed to search for clusters in multicolor photometric data and have been successfully used to the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey [@gy00; @gy05] and the SDSS [@gsn+02; @mnr+05; @kma+07a].
When spectroscopic redshifts are available for a large sample of galaxies, clusters or groups can be identified in three dimensions conventionally by the friend-of-friend algorithm [@hg82; @gh83]. Many catalogs of clusters or groups have been obtained from the various redshift surveys: @tul87 for the Nearby Galaxies Catalog, @rzz+99 for the ESO Slice Project, @toh+00 for the Las Campanas Redshift Survey, @gmc+00 for the Nearby Optical Galaxy Sample, @rgp+02 for the Southern Sky Redshift Survey, @mz02, @ebc+04, and @ymv+05 for the two-degree field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dfGRS), @gnd+05 for the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey, and @mz05, @bfw+06, @ymv+07, @dhj+07, and @tes+08 for the SDSS. A matched-filter algorithm was developed in spectroscopic or photometric redshift surveys [@wk02] and applied to the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) data [@kwh+03].
The SDSS [@yaa+00] offers an opportunity to produce the largest and most complete cluster catalog. It provides photometry in five broad bands ($u$, $g$, $r$, $i$, and $z$) covering 10,000 deg$^2$ and the follow-up spectroscopic observations. The photometric data reach a limit of $r=22.5$ [@slb+02] with the star–galaxy separation reliable to a limit of $r=21.5$ [@lgi+01]. The spectroscopic survey observes galaxies with an extinction-corrected Petrosian magnitude of $r<17.77$ for the main galaxy sample [@swl+02] and $r<19.5$ for the Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG) sample [@eag+01]. The spectroscopic data of the SDSS enable to detect clusters up to $z\sim0.1$, while the photometric data enable to detect clusters up to $z\sim0.5$ [@bma+03].
@mz05 performed the friend-of-friend algorithm to the spectroscopic data of the SDSS DR3 and obtained 10,864 groups with a richness (i.e., the number of member galaxies) $\ge4$. Similarly, @bfw+06 obtained three volume-limited samples from the SDSS DR3, which contain 4107, 2684, and 1357 groups with a richness $\ge3$ out to redshift of 0.1, 0.068, and 0.045, respectively. The catalogs by @dhj+07 and @tes+08 contain 11,163 groups with a richness $\ge4$ and 50,362 groups with a richness $\ge2$. Using a modified friend-of-friend algorithm by @ymv+05, @wby+06 identified 53,229 groups of $z\le0.2$ with a mass greater than $3\times10^{11}~h^{-1}~M_{\odot}$ from the SDSS DR2, and later @ymv+07 obtained 301,237 groups of $z\le0.2$ with a mass greater than $6.3\times10^{11}~h^{-1}~M_{\odot}$ from the SDSS DR4. By using merely spectroscopic data of the SDSS, most of the groups in @wby+06 and @ymv+07 have only one member galaxy.
Searching for galaxies in seven-dimensional position and color spaces, @mnr+05 presented the C4 catalog, which contains 748 clusters of $z\le 0.12$ with a richness $\ge10$ from the spectroscopic data of the SDSS DR2. To reduce incompleteness due to the SDSS spectroscopic selection bias, e.g., fiber collisions, @yss+08 incorporated the spectroscopic and photometric data to search for density peaks and obtained 924 clusters from the SDSS DR5 in the redshift range $0.05<z<0.1$. The SDSS photometric data give a large space for cluster finding. From the photometric data of the SDSS Early Data Release (SDSS EDR), @gsn+02 used the “Cut and Enhance” method to detect the enhanced densities for galaxies of similar colors and obtained 4638 clusters of $z<0.4$. @kkp+02 developed a hybrid matched-filter cluster finder and applied it to the SDSS EDR. The detected clusters were compiled by @bma+03. By looking for small and isolated concentrations of galaxies, @lat+04 identified 175 compact groups with a richness between 4 and 10 from the SDSS EDR. @kma+07a developed a “Red-Sequence cluster finder”, the maxBCG, to detect clusters dominated by red galaxies. From the SDSS DR5, @kma+07b obtained a complete volume-limited catalog containing 13,823 clusters in the redshift range $0.1<z<0.3$. Recently, @dpg+08 presented a modified adaptive matched-filter algorithm to identify clusters, which is adaptive to imaging surveys with spectroscopic redshifts, photometric redshifts, and no redshift information at all. Tests of the algorithm on the mock SDSS catalogs suggest that the detected sample is $\sim$85% complete for clusters with masses above $1.0\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$ up to $z=0.45$.
Most of the clusters in above catalogs have been identified in optical bands at $z\le 0.3$. For methods based on the single-band image data, clusters at higher redshifts are difficult to detect due to projection effect. In multicolor surveys, the color cut is an efficient method to detect clusters since the red sequence, i.e., the color–magnitude relation, can be used as an indicator of redshift. For example, @kma+07a used the $g-r$ color cut to detect clusters in the SDSS data. At $0.1<z<0.3$, the $g-r$ color difference is sensitive to redshift because of the shift of the 4000 Å break between $g$ and $r$ bands. However, the 4000 Å break migrates into the $r$ band at $z>0.35$, then the $g-r$ color difference is insensitive to redshift.
Galaxy clusters can be detected by other approaches. The X-ray observation is an efficient and independent way to identify clusters with a low contamination rate [see, e.g., @sch78; @ghm+90; @eeb+98]. About 1100 X-ray clusters have been identified from the [*ROSAT*]{} survey, including the Northern ROSAT All-Sky cluster sample [NORAS; @bvh+00], the ROSAT-ESO flux limit cluster sample [REFLEX; @bsg+04] and the [*ROSAT*]{} PSPC 400 deg$^2$ cluster sample [@bvh+07]. From a sample of 495 [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray extended sources, @bvh+00 presented the NORAS sample containing 376 clusters with count rates of $C_X\ge 0.06$ count s$^{-1}$ in the 0.1–2.4 keV band. The REFLEX is a complete sample, containing 447 X-ray clusters in the southern hemisphere with a flux limit of $3\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the 0.1–2.4 keV band [@bsg+04]. @bvh+07 presented a catalog of X-ray clusters detected in a new [*ROSAT*]{} PSPC survey. From $\sim$400 deg$^2$, they identified 287 extended X-ray sources with a flux limit of $1.4\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the 0.5–2 keV band, of which 266 are optically confirmed as galaxy clusters, groups or elliptical galaxies. Besides the X-ray method, the Sunyaev–Zeldovich effect and the weak lensing effect have been tried to search for clusters [@sch96; @cjg+00; @wtm+01; @pah+05].
Usually, cluster richness is indicated by the number of cluster member. The spectroscopic redshifts are required to accurately determine the member galaxies of clusters. However, spectroscopic redshifts are usually flux-limited. Only clusters at low redshifts have their richnesses well determined [see, e.g., @bfw+06; @mnr+05]. Moreover, the fiber collision in the SDSS sometimes results in the incompleteness of spectroscopic data about 35% or even worse for clusters of $z\le0.1$ [@yss+08]. Without redshifts, the richnesses were generally measured by the number of all galaxies in a projected radius for the clusters selected from single-band image data, and hence suffered from heavy projection effect. For example, the Abell richness is defined to be the number of galaxies within 2 mag range below the third-brightest galaxy within a radius of 1.5 $h^{-1}$ Mpc [@aco89]. Without accurate member discrimination, few cluster catalogs have richness well determined. In multicolor survey, it is possible to discriminate cluster galaxies by color cuts with contamination partly being excluded. @kma+07b discriminated member galaxies based on cluster ridgeline for the SDSS maxBCG clusters. They defined the richness to be the number of galaxies brighter than $0.4L^{\ast}$ within $\pm2\sigma_c$ of the ridgeline defined by the BCG color. Here $\sigma_c$ is the error of the measured color.
For many researches, such as large-scale structure studies, a volume-limited cluster sample with richness well determined in a broad redshift range is required. The cluster-finding algorithm need to maximize the completeness of member galaxies and minimize the contamination from foreground and background galaxies. Previous studies [@bl00; @yzc+01; @yzj03; @zat+03; @yzy+04; @wyy+07] showed that most of luminous member galaxies of clusters can be picked out using photometric redshifts. In this paper, we identify clusters from the SDSS photometric data by discriminating member galaxies in the photometric redshift space. Our method is valid to the multicolor surveys for which photometric redshifts can be estimated. Clusters can be detected even up to $z\sim0.6$ in the SDSS.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe our cluster-finding algorithm in the photometric redshift space. In Section 3, we examine the statistical properties of our cluster catalog. Using the SDSS spectroscopic data, we estimate the uncertainty of cluster redshift, the contamination rate, and the completeness of discriminated member galaxies of clusters. Monte Carlo simulations are performed to estimate cluster detection rate and false detection rate of our algorithm. In Section 4, we compare our catalog with the previous optical-selected cluster catalogs. In Section 5, we discuss the correlations between the richness and summed luminosity of clusters with the measurements in X-rays. New candidates of X-ray clusters are extracted by the cross-identification of our clusters with the source list in the [*ROSAT*]{} All Sky Survey. A summary is presented in Section 6.
Throughout this paper, we assume a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, taking $H_0=$100 $h$ ${\rm km~s}^{-1}$ ${\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, with $h=0.72$, $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$.
The Cluster Detection
=====================
In the traditional friend-of-friend algorithm, clusters and their member galaxies are identified in spectroscopic redshift space with appropriately chosen linking lengths both in line of sight and perpendicular directions. However, spectroscopic redshift surveys are usually flux-limited; thus, the detected cluster/group samples are obtained from flux-limited galaxy samples. Complete volume-limited samples can be obtained only at low redshifts by the SDSS spectroscopic data [see, e.g., @bfw+06]. When spectroscopic redshifts are not available for the faint galaxies, photometric redshifts can be used. We now attempt to identify clusters using the photometric redshift catalog of the SDSS DR6 in a broad redshift range ($z\sim0.05$–0.6).
Photometric redshifts in the SDSS
---------------------------------
Based on the SDSS photometric data, photometric redshifts of galaxies brighter than $r=22$ have been estimated by two groups. @cbc+03 provided photometric redshifts utilizing various techniques, from empirical to template and hybrid techniques. @olc+08 estimated photometric redshifts with the Artificial Neural Network technique and provided two different photometric redshift estimates, CC2 and D1. Figure \[phzg\] shows the differences between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts at $z<0.65$. The galaxy sample is selected from the SDSS spectroscopic data at $z\le0.4$ and from the 2dF-SDSS Luminous Red Galaxy Survey [@cde+06] at $z>0.4$. The error bars show the uncertainties of photometric redshifts, $\sigma_{68}$, the ranges containing 68% sample in the distribution of $|z_p-z_s|$. We find that the uncertainties for three estimates are comparable, being 0.02–0.03 at $z<0.5$ and $\sim$0.07 at $z\ge 0.5$. At $z\le0.3$, the estimate by @cbc+03 [version v1.6, see panel a in Figure \[phzg\]] has more photometric redshifts with large deviations than the CC2 and D1 estimates. At $0.3<z<0.5$, the scattering by @cbc+03 is smaller than those of the CC2 and D1 estimates. For both CC2 and D1 estimates, photometric redshifts are systematically larger than the spectroscopic redshifts at $z\sim0.3$ and 0.5 but smaller at $z\sim0.4$. In our cluster-finding algorithm, the linearity between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts is important. The systematic biases can induce systematic underestimation or overestimation on the density of galaxies in the photometric redshift space, thus affecting the uniformity of cluster selection. The estimate by @cbc+03 has smaller systematic derivation in general except at $z>0.5$. To obtain an uniform cluster detection in a broad redshift range, we adopt the photometric redshifts by @cbc+03 in the following cluster detection.
Most of the galaxies at $z>0.2$ in the SDSS spectroscopic data are the luminous red galaxies [@eag+01], which have strong continuum feature, the 4000 Å break. Because of this feature, photometric redshifts are well estimated for these galaxies. However, there is no sample of less luminous galaxies for the calibration of photometric redshifts at $z>0.2$. The uncertainties of photometric redshifts should be larger for less luminous galaxies of $z>0.2$ due to the shallower depth of the 4000 Å break and larger photometric errors. In the following analysis, we assume that the uncertainty, $\sigma_z$, of photometric redshift increases with redshift in the form of $\sigma_z=\sigma_0(1+z)$ for all galaxies.
Cluster finding algorithm {#algorithm}
-------------------------
The galaxy sample is taken from the SDSS DR6 database, including the coordinates (R.A., Decl.), the model magnitudes with $r\le21.5$, and the photometric redshifts, the $K$-corrections and absolute magnitudes estimated by @cbc+03. To obtain a volume-limited cluster catalog, we consider only the luminous galaxies of $M_r\le-21$. We assume that they are member galaxy candidates of clusters. Our cluster-finding algorithm includes the following steps:
1\. For each galaxy at a given $z$, we assume that it is the central galaxy of a cluster candidate, and count the number of luminous “member galaxies” of $M_r\le-21$ within a radius of 0.5 Mpc and a photometric redshift gap between $z\pm0.04(1+z)$. Within this redshift gap, most of the member galaxies of a cluster can be selected, with a completeness of $\sim$80% if assuming the photometric redshift uncertainty of $\sigma_z=0.03(1+z)$. The radius of 0.5 Mpc is chosen to get a high overdensity level and a low false detection rate according to simulation tests (see Section \[falsrate\]). It is smaller than the typical radius of a rich cluster, but a rich cluster can have enough luminous member galaxies within this radius for detection.
2\. To avoid a cluster identified repeatedly, we consider only one cluster candidate within a radius of 1 Mpc and a redshift gap of 0.1. We define the center of a cluster candidate to be the position of the galaxy with a maximum number count. If two or more galaxies show the same maximum number counts, we take the brightest one as the central galaxy. The cluster redshift is defined to be the median value of the photometric redshifts of the recognized “members”.
3\. For each cluster candidate at $z$, all galaxies within 1 Mpc from the cluster center and the photometric redshift gap between $z\pm0.04(1+z)$ are assumed to be the member galaxies, and then their absolute magnitudes are recalculated with the cluster redshift.
\
\
\
We detect a cluster if more than eight member galaxies of $M_r\le-21$ are found within 0.5 Mpc from the cluster center. For clusters at very low redshifts, although most of the member galaxies of $M_r\le
-21$ can be included within the photometric redshift gap, their absolute magnitudes have large uncertainties when the estimated redshift slightly deviates from its true redshift. Therefore, we restrict our cluster detection with a lower redshift cutoff of $z=0.05$. The nearby clusters ($z<0.05$) have been easily detected in the spectroscopic redshift space [see, e.g., @mnr+05].
To show overdensity of our clusters, we estimate the mean number counts of galaxies within the same criteria of our algorithm, and the root mean square (rms). At a given $z$, 2000 random positions (R.A., Decl.) are selected in the real background of galaxies. We count the number of galaxies ($M_r\le-21$), $N(0.5)$, within a radius of 0.5 Mpc and a redshift gap between $z\pm0.04(1+z)$, and then estimate the mean number count and the rms (see Figure \[flat\]). The mean number counts, $\langle N(0.5)\rangle$, is found to be $\sim$1.2 in the redshift range $0.1<z<0.42$, and the rms is also nearly constant, to be $\sigma_{N(0.5)}\sim1.3$ at $0.1<z<0.42$. The number counts decrease at higher redshift ($z>0.42$) because the galaxy sample with a faint end of $r=21.5$ is incomplete for galaxies of $M_r\le-21$. We define the overdensity level of a cluster to be $D=(N(0.5)-\langle N(0.5)\rangle)/\sigma_{N(0.5)}$. The minimum number is eight within 0.5 Mpc from a cluster center, and corresponds to a minimum overdensity level $D$ about 4.5, above which the false detection rate is very low in principle (see Section \[falsrate\]).
The number of member galaxy candidates ($N_{\rm gal}$ hereafter) is defined to be the number of galaxies ($M_r\le-21$) within 1 Mpc (not 0.5 Mpc) from the cluster center in the redshift gap between $z\pm0.04(1+z)$. The cluster richness, $R$, is defined by the number of real member galaxies in this region. It is estimated by $N_{\rm
gal}$ but subtracting contamination from foreground and background galaxies. The contamination has to be estimated according to the local background for each cluster. First, for each cluster, we divide the area from its center to a radius of 3 Mpc into 36 annuluses, each with an equal area of 0.25$\pi$ Mpc$^2$, and then count the number of luminous ($M_r\le-21$) galaxies within each annulus. Certainly, this is done within the redshift gap $z\pm0.04(1+z)$. Secondly, we get the distribution peak at the count $n$ from the 36 number counts. The background is estimated from the average galaxy density in all annuluses with a number count less than $n+\sigma_{N(0.5)}\approx
n+1$. More galaxies in an annulus are probably from real structures around the cluster, such as merging clusters, superclusters or cosmological web structures. The average contamination background within an annulus area of 0.25$\pi$ Mpc$^2$ is $$\langle N_{\rm cb}\rangle=\Big[\sum_{i=1}^{36} N^i_{\rm ann}\theta(n+1-N^i_{\rm ann})\Big]\Big/N_{\rm ring}.$$ Here $\theta(x)$ is the step function, $\theta(x)=1$ for $x\ge0$ and zero otherwise; $N^i_{\rm ann}$ is the number count within $i$th annulus; $N_{\rm ring}$ is the [*total number of annuluses*]{} with $N^i_{\rm ann}\le n+1$. Then, the real number of cluster galaxies (richness, $R$) within a radius of 1 Mpc is estimated to be $R=N_{\rm gal}-4\times\langle N_{\rm cb}\rangle$.
We notice that for many clusters, the radius of 1 Mpc is not the boundary of luminous cluster galaxies. The boundary can be recognized from the number counts within the annuluses. It is defined to be the radius of the first annulus from a cluster center, from which two outer successive annuluses have $N^i_{\rm ann}\le n+1$. We take it as the radius for member galaxy detection, $r_{\rm GGN}$, within which we count all luminous galaxies. After subtracting background, we obtain the gross galaxy number of a cluster, $GGN$.
From the SDSS DR6, we obtain 39,668 clusters (named after WHL and J2000 coordinates of cluster center) in the redshift range $0.05<z<0.6$. All clusters are listed in Table \[cat\] (a full list is available in the online version). Figure \[hist\] shows the redshift distribution of the clusters, compared with that of the SDSS maxBCG clusters. The distribution can be well fitted by the expected distribution for a complete volume-limited sample (the dashed line) with a number density of $7.8\times 10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ at $z<0.42$. Above this redshift, it is less complete because of the flux cutoff at $r=21.5$ for the input galaxy sample.
Figure \[hisrich\] shows the distributions of the number of member galaxy candidates within a radius of 1 Mpc, $N_{\rm gal}$, the cluster richness, $R$, and the gross galaxy number, $GGN$. The peaks are at $N_{\rm gal}\sim$16, $R\sim$10 and $GGN\sim6$. Among 39,668 clusters listed in our catalog, 28,082 clusters (71%) have a richness $R\ge10$, 4059 clusters (10%) have $R\ge20$, and 610 clusters (1.5%) have $R\ge30$.
Figure \[ggn\] compares $GGN$ and $GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ with cluster richness. We find that $GGN$ is related to cluster richness but not linearly, while $GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ is nearly linearly related to cluster richness. The scatter is larger at the lower end probably because of the quantized radius of annuluses, which is more uncertain at smaller radius. We notice that cluster–galaxy cross-correlation is described by a power law, $\xi (r)\propto r^{-\gamma}$, with the correlation index $\gamma\sim2$ [e.g., @le88]. Hence, the value of $GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ is related to the amplitude of cluster–galaxy cross-correlation, which has been shown to be a tracer of cluster richness [@yl99]. In the following, we use the richness $R$ to study the statistical properties of our catalog and compare them with other optical catalogs, but we will consider $GGN$ and $GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ in the discussions of their correlations with X-ray properties (see Section \[opt\_xray\]).
Examples of six clusters at different redshifts and their member galaxies discrimination are shown in Figure \[example\]. For the cluster WHL J155820.0$+$271400 (Abell 2142) at $z=0.091$, we get $N_{\rm gal}=56$ and $R=44$. Within a radius of 1 Mpc, 62 galaxies of $M_r\leq-21$ have velocities differing from that of the cluster by less than 4500 km s$^{-1}$ in the SDSS spectroscopic data (the velocity dispersion of a very rich cluster can be 1500 km s$^{-1}$). We discriminate 52 (84%) of them by using photometric redshifts. In addition, four galaxies with velocity difference greater than 4500 km s$^{-1}$ are selected as members. This example shows that photometric redshifts are reliable for member galaxies discrimination at $z\sim0.1$. The richness of this cluster is 95 by the maxBCG method (defined to be the number of member galaxies brighter than 0.4$L^{\ast}$ within 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc), and 164 by the method of @ymv+07 (defined to be the number of member galaxies of $M_r\le-19.5$). The second example is WHL J131132.1$-$011946 (Abell 1689) at $z=0.183$, for which we get $N_{\rm gal}=68$ and $R=62.74$. Only three member galaxies have spectroscopic redshifts in the SDSS. The richness of this cluster is 102 by the maxBCG method, but only two by the method of @ymv+07. For clusters WHL J114224.8$+$583205 (Abell 1351) at $z=0.322$, WHL J122651.2$+$215211 (NSCS) at $z=0.418$ and WHL J100925.1$+$325553 at $z=0.508$, though no member galaxies have spectroscopic redshifts, most of the luminous member galaxies ($M_r\le-21$) of these clusters can be well discriminated by using photometric redshifts. For cluster WHL J145044.4$+$220134 at $z=0.601$, 18 luminous red galaxies are discriminated. Some probable cluster galaxies are not selected as members because of poor estimate of photometric redshift at $z\sim0.6$ (see Figure \[phzg\]). In general, these examples show that photometric redshifts can be very efficient indicator for picking up cluster galaxies up to $z\sim0.5$ in the SDSS, much deeper than that by spectroscopic redshifts.
Statistical tests for the identified Clusters
=============================================
Using the SDSS spectroscopic redshifts, we estimate the uncertainty of cluster redshift, the contamination rate, and the completeness of discriminated member galaxies. We also examine the reliability of cluster richness determined by our method. Moreover, Monte Carlo simulations are performed with the real observed background of galaxies to estimate cluster detection rate and false detection rate of our algorithm.
Redshift test
-------------
We verify the accuracy of photometric redshifts of clusters in our catalog. The spectroscopic redshift of a cluster is taken to be that of its brightest cluster galaxy (BCG). From the SDSS data, we find BCGs of 13,643 clusters having spectroscopic redshifts measured. In Figure \[phzc\], we show the distribution of difference between photometric and spectroscopic redshifts, $z_p-z_s$. In each panel, we fit the distribution of $z_p-z_s$ with a Gaussian function. The systematic offset $\delta$ of the fitting is $-0.002$ or $-0.003$, and the standard deviation $\sigma$ is around 0.02.
Member detection and richness tests {#concomp}
-----------------------------------
Within photometric redshift gap, member galaxies can be contaminated by foreground and background galaxies and incompletely detected. Now, we use the spectroscopic redshifts of the SDSS DR6 to study the contamination due to projection effect and the completeness of member galaxies discrimination. From our sample, we obtain 1070 clusters with more than five discriminated members having spectroscopic redshifts. Totally, 10,677 galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts are discriminated as members of these clusters. The cluster redshift can be defined to be the median redshift of these member galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts for each of these clusters. We compare individual member redshifts with the estimate of the cluster redshift, and find that 2260 (21%) galaxies have velocity difference from clusters by more than 2000 km s$^{-1}$. They are probably not the member galaxies, and therefore are considered as contamination of galaxies. However. this percentage is somewhat biased by the SDSS spectroscopic selection. Since bright galaxies are preferentially targeted in the SDSS spectroscopic survey, the spectroscopically measured galaxies in the dense region are more likely member galaxies of clusters. Assuming that the effect of other selection bias, e.g., fiber collisions, is limited on measurement of galaxies, the fraction of 21% can be considered as a lower limit of contamination rate.
To estimate the completeness, we get the total member galaxies in the SDSS data. In the 1070 clusters, 8793 galaxies of $M_r\le-21$ within 1 Mpc from cluster centers have velocities differing from those of clusters by less than 2000 km s$^{-1}$, of which 7882 (90%) galaxies have been found as member galaxies by our method. Figure \[memb\] shows the contamination rate and the completeness of member galaxy candidates against the number of member galaxy candidates. The completeness of member galaxies is nearly constant for clusters with different richnesses. The contamination rate is roughly 20%, and slightly decreases with $N_{\rm gal}$.
\
The contamination rate and the completeness depend on photometric redshift gap. With a larger gap, real member galaxies are selected more completely, but the member contamination becomes severer. With a smaller gap, we can discriminate less real member galaxies with a small contamination, but the sensitivity of cluster detection is lower. The gap about $z\pm0.04(1+z)$ is a reliable compromise, within which the majority of member galaxies in a cluster can be picked out with only a small percentage of contamination galaxies included (see Figure \[memb\]). To study how the richness depends on the gap, we obtain richnesses of clusters using different photometric redshift gaps. Figure \[richtest\] compares these cluster richnesses. They are tightly correlated with relations of $$R_{\pm0.03(1+z)}=(0.67\pm0.01)+(0.81\pm0.01)\times R,$$ and $$R_{\pm0.05(1+z)}=(0.33\pm0.01)+(1.06\pm0.01)\times R.$$ Statistically, the tight correlations suggest that any richness within a gap between $z\pm0.03(1+z)$ and $z\pm0.05(1+z)$ can be an equivalent indicator of true richness. The richness does not change much for that with the gap of $z\pm0.05(1+z)$, indicating that member galaxies are selected with a good completeness for the gap of $z\pm0.04(1+z)$.
Cluster detection rate {#comprate}
----------------------
Mock clusters are simulated with assumptions for their distributions and then added to the real data of the SDSS to test the detection rate of the mock clusters by our cluster-finding algorithm.
The luminosity function of galaxies in a cluster is taken to follow the Schechter function [@sch76] $$\phi(M)dM\propto 10^{-0.4(M-M^{\ast})(\alpha+1)}\exp[-10^{-0.4(M-M^{\ast})}]dM.$$ We adopt the parameters as, $\alpha=-0.85\pm0.03$, $M^{\ast}=-22.21\pm0.05$, derived by @gom+02 based on the SDSS CE clusters. We also assume that the galaxy number density in a mock cluster follows the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile [@nfw97], in which the scaled radius is adopted to be 0.25 Mpc [for clusters with masses of $\sim$$10^{14}$ $M_{\odot}$; see @pap05]. The mock clusters are distributed in redshift space with a uniform comoving number density. Then, we calculate the apparent magnitudes of cluster galaxies after correcting their colors in the $r$ band with the $K$-correction curve of early-type galaxy by @fsi95. The photometric redshifts are assigned to the member galaxies of each cluster. We assume that the uncertainty of photometric redshift of cluster galaxies follows a Gaussian probability function with a standard deviation of $\sigma_z$, but varies with redshift in the form of $\sigma_z=\sigma_0(1+z)$.
\
We do two tests. First, we test with mock clusters for different given richness independently. Here, the input richness for a mock cluster, $N_{\rm in}$, is defined to be the numbers of luminous galaxies ($M_r\le-21$) within a radius of 1 Mpc. For each richness, 2000 clusters are simulated in the redshift range $0.05<z<0.55$ via above procedures assuming $\sigma_z=0.03(1+z)$, and added to the real SDSS data of 500 deg$^2$. Mock clusters are put to a region where no real detected cluster exists within 3 Mpc. Our cluster finding algorithm is then performed to detect these mock clusters from the galaxy sample of $r\le21.5$.
A mock cluster is detected if the number of recognized member galaxies ($M_r\le-21$) is above the detection threshold of eight within a radius of 0.5 Mpc and the redshift gap (see Section \[algorithm\]). Here, the recognized members can be not only the member galaxies of mock clusters, but also the contamination galaxies from the real background. We emphasize again that the input richness $N_{\rm in}$ and output richness $R$ is for a radius of 1 Mpc, but the detection threshold is designed within a radius of 0.5 Mpc. Figure \[recov1\] shows the detection rates as a function of redshift for mock clusters with different input richness. The detection rates depend on input richness, but do not vary much with redshift at $z<0.4$. The detection rates of clusters with input richness of $N_{\rm in}=8$ (the open circles) are about 10% up to $z\sim 0.4$. The detection rates increase to 35% for clusters of $N_{\rm in}=12$ (the open square), and more than 60% for clusters of $N_{\rm in}=16$ (the black triangle) and 90% for $N_{\rm
in}=20$ (the black square) up to $z\sim 0.4$. The detection rates decrease at a higher redshift due to the magnitude cutoff, as mentioned in Section \[algorithm\].
\
\
Secondly, we perform Monte Carlo simulation considering a population of clusters with various input richness. Using the mass function of @jfw+01 in a cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\sigma_8=0.9$, we generate the halos with masses greater than $10^{14}~M_{\odot}$ in the redshift range $0.05<z<0.55$. According the halo occupation distribution obtained by @ymv+08, we derive the number of the galaxies of $^{0.1}M_r-5\log h\le-20$ in the halos. Here, $^{0.1}M_r$ refers to the absolute magnitude $K$-corrected and evolution corrected to $z=0.1$ in the $r$-band. The magnitudes, coordinates, redshifts and cluster input richness are simulated as described above. These mock galaxies are added to the real background, and then we detect them using our cluster-finding algorithm.
For every input cluster, we discriminate the luminous “member galaxies” ($M_r\le-21$) by using photometric redshifts and obtain the output richness. We also estimate its luminosity by [*summing luminosities of “member galaxies” after contamination subtraction*]{}. In Figure \[simcom3\], we compare the input and output richnesses and the summed luminosities for clusters of $z<0.42$. The output richness is well related to the input richness with a scatter of $\sim$5. The best fit gives $$R=(0.52\pm0.81)+(0.81\pm0.01)N_{\rm in}.
\label{rinout}$$ Similar, the output summed luminosity is also well related to the input luminosity a scatter of $\sim$30$\times10^{10}~L_{\odot}$. The best fit gives $$L_{r,10}=(3.58\pm2.39)+(0.81\pm0.01)L_{r,\rm in, 10}.$$ Here $L_{r,10}$ refers to the summed $r$-band luminosity in unit of $10^{10}~L_{\odot}$.
Again, a mock cluster is detected by our algorithm if more than eight luminous “member galaxies” are found within a radius of 0.5 Mpc. Figure \[recov2\] shows the detection rate as a function of input richness for clusters of $z<0.42$. The detection rate is 10% for clusters of $N_{\rm in}=8$ if all detected clusters are considered. However, if the number of member candidates of a detected cluster is more than twice of the input richness, then more than half member candidates are contamination galaxies. One can consider it as a false detection of a cluster. The detection rate becomes 6% if more restrict criterion for cluster detection is applied. The detection rate reaches 60% for clusters of $N_{\rm in}=16$, and 90% for clusters of $N_{\rm in}=20$, respectively.
In Figure \[histout\], we show the output richness distribution of detected clusters for different input richness and the probability distribution of input richness for clusters that have the same output richness. Clusters with larger output richnesses are from larger input clusters. About 80% of detected clusters of $R=12$ are mock clusters of $N_{\rm in}\le16$, while about 70% detected clusters of $R=16$ are mock clusters of $N_{\rm in}\ge16$. The detection rates by our algorithm for different output richnesses are shown in Figure \[simcopl3\]. The detection rates are $\sim$40% for clusters of $R=12$, which increase to $\sim$60% for clusters of $R=16$ and $\sim$90% for clusters of $R=20$. As one can see from Figure \[simcom3\], clusters with input richness $N_{\rm in}\le12$ can have output richness $R\ge16$ due to contamination from real background. Since there are significantly more relatively poorer clusters than big ones, many clusters of $R\ge16$ in the output catalog would be poor ones if the detection threshold (i.e., eight galaxies within a radius of 0.5 Mpc) is not used. Our algorithm preferentially detects the rich clusters as shown above, and hence reduces the contamination from the poor clusters in the output catalog. The above simulations show that the completeness of cluster detection by our method is nearly constant up to $z\sim0.42$ using photometric redshift catalog of the SDSS. The output catalog is $\sim$60% complete for clusters with $N_{\rm in}=16$, and $\sim$90% complete for clusters with $N_{\rm in}=20$.
False detection rate {#falsrate}
--------------------
The presence of the large-scale structures makes it possible to detect false clusters because of projection effect. We also perform Monte Carlo simulation with the real SDSS data to estimate the false detection rate. Our method is similar to that of @gsn+02. First, each galaxy in the real SDSS data is forced to have a random walk in the two-dimension projected space in a random direction. The step length is a random value less than 2.5 Mpc. Second, we shuffle the photometric redshift of the galaxy sample. The procedures above are to eliminate the real clusters, but reserve the larger scale structure in two-dimension projected space. The maximum step of 2.5 Mpc is chosen so that clusters as rich as $N_{\rm gal}=100$ can be eliminated. Our method is applied to detect “clusters” from the shuffled sample of 500 deg$^2$.
Figure \[false\] shows the distribution of the number counts of galaxies ($M_r\le-21$) within 0.5 Mpc from the centers of “cluster” candidates and the photometric redshift gap of $z\pm0.04(1+z)$. Only 148 “clusters” are found to exceed the threshold (the dashed line), comparing to the 2380 real detected clusters in the 500 deg$^2$ region. We cross-identify the “clusters” with real clusters within a radius of 1 Mpc, and find that 41 “clusters” match the real clusters, which means that they are clusters not well shuffled to a good randomness. The rest 107 clusters are considered as false clusters. This simulation shows that our algorithm gives a false detection rate of clusters as $107/2380\simeq$5%. The rate decreases with increase in the cluster richness as shown in Figure \[falngal\]. We also take the maximum step length of 4 Mpc, and the false detection rate becomes $72/2380\simeq$3%.
Comparison with previous optical-selected cluster catalogs
==========================================================
We compare our cluster catalog with previous catalogs, the Abell, the SDSS CE, and the maxBCG catalogs. The Abell catalog contains most of rich clusters at $z<0.2$ but without a quantitative measurement of completeness [@aco89]. The SDSS CE catalog contains poor clusters as well as rich ones at $z<0.44$ [@gsn+02]. The SDSS maxBCG catalog has a uniform selection in the redshift range $0.1<z<0.3$ [@kma+07b].
Comparison with the Abell clusters
----------------------------------
\
There are 1594 Abell clusters in the sky region of the SDSS DR6. Some Abell clusters have redshifts not measured previously. We take their redshifts to be the values of the BCGs from the SDSS data. The photometric redshifts are used if no spectroscopic redshifts are available. Totally, 1354 Abell clusters have redshifts $z>0.05$, of which 991 clusters are found within a projected separation of $r_p<1$ Mpc and redshift difference of $\Delta z<0.05$ (about 2.5$\sigma$ of our cluster redshift accuracy) from clusters in our catalog. Another 53 Abell clusters are found within a projected separation of $1.0<r_p<1.5$ Mpc and redshift difference of $\Delta z<0.05$ from clusters in our catalog, which are likely to have substructures so that centers are defined at different substructures in two catalogs. In total, 1044 (77%) Abell clusters are considered to be matched with our catalog.
In Figure \[rich\_abell\], we compare the Abell richness with the richness we determine for the matched clusters. The correlation is poor. The discrepancy may come from the uncertainties of the Abell richness. @yl99 showed that the Abell richness for clusters of $z\ge0.1$ is not a good indicator of their true richness, and sometimes the richness is overestimated by as much as a factor of 3. One reason is the Abell richness suffers from the projection effect. Simulation shows that cluster surveys in two dimensions are heavily contaminated by projection biases if the cluster search radius is as large as Abell radius of 1.5 $h^{-1}$ Mpc [@vfw97]. Another reason for the null correlation may be the uncertainty of the definition. Recall that the Abell richness is defined to be the number of galaxies within 2 mag range below the third-brightest galaxy within Abell radius after correcting background. The richnesses are calculated within various absolute magnitude range because the magnitudes of the third-brightest galaxies vary a lot. For the non-matched Abell clusters, we also determine their richnesses by our method. The matched Abell clusters have a high richness, while the not-matched clusters are relatively poor with richness around eight, few larger than 20 (see the lower panel of Figure \[rich\_abell\]).
Comparison with the SDSS CE clusters
------------------------------------
\
The SDSS CE clusters were identified by using 34 color cuts. The redshifts of clusters were estimated with the uncertainties of $\sigma=0.0147$ at $z<0.3$ and $\sigma=0.0209$ at $z>0.3$. The CE richness is defined to be the number of galaxies within 2 mag range below the third-brightest galaxy and within the detection radius after correcting background [@gsn+02].
Among 4638 CE clusters, 1160 clusters are found within a projected separation of $r_p<1.5$ Mpc and redshift difference of $\Delta z<0.05$ from clusters in our catalog. Figure \[rate\_ce\] shows the detection rates of the CE clusters by our method as function of redshift. The rates are about 20%–30% for the whole sample, and increase to 40%–50% for clusters with the CE richness $\ge20$. The correlation between our richness and the CE richness is also poor (see Figure \[rich\_ce\]), suggesting that the CE richness has a large uncertainty. For the not-matched CE clusters, we determine their richness by our method and find that most of the not-matched clusters are relatively poor with mean richness $\sim$3 (see the lower panel of Figure \[rich\_ce\]). Obviously, the CE clusters we detected are much richer than the not-matched clusters.
Comparison with the SDSS maxBCG clusters
----------------------------------------
\
The SDSS maxBCG is approximately 85% complete in the redshift range $0.1<z<0.3$ with masses $M>1\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$ [@kma+07b]. The redshifts of clusters were estimated with the uncertainties of $\sigma=0.01$. The cluster richness, $N_{\rm gal}^{\rm max}$, is defined to be the number of galaxies within a radius of 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and $2\,\sigma_c$ of the ridgeline colors, brighter than $0.4L^{\ast}$. A scaled richness, $N_{200}$, is measured to be the number of galaxies within $r_{200}$ and the color cuts. Here, $r_{200}$ is the radius within which the mean mass density is 200 times that of the critical cosmic mass density. Among 13,823 maxBCG clusters, 6424 clusters are found within a projected separation of $r_p<1.5$ Mpc and redshift difference $\Delta
z<0.05$ from the clusters in our catalog. As shown in Figure \[rate\_max\], the detection rates of the maxBCG clusters by our method are 40%–50% for the whole sample, and increase 70%–80% for clusters with the maxBCG richness $\ge20$.
The luminosity cutoff, $0.4L^{\ast}$, of the maxBCG method corresponds to absolute magnitude of $M_r\simeq-20.6$ [@kma+07b], which is about 0.4 magnitude fainter than that of our work. To make a comparison, we calculate the richness, $R'$, for the matched clusters within the same radius and magnitude range with the maxBCG clusters, i.e., 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and $M_r\le-20.6$. In Figure \[rich\_max\], we compare the maxBCG richness, $N_{\rm
gal}^{\rm max}$, with the richnesses, $R$ and $R'$. Both correlations are tighter than those with the Abell and CE clusters, though large scatters exist. With the same selection criteria, we find that the maxBCG richness is systematically smaller than the richness by our method. The discrepancy may come from some systematic bias in maxBCG method. Recall that the maxBCG method only selects ridgeline member galaxies without contamination subtraction. The color–magnitude diagrams [e.g., @mnr+05] show that many member galaxies fall outside of the ridgeline of red galaxies, and hence they are likely missed by the maxBCG method. @rrk+08 also pointed out the systematic bias for the maxBCG richness due to color off-sets. The ridgeline galaxies fall outside the color cuts because of the increasing photometric errors with redshift. In addition, the ridgeline of red galaxies is not as flat as assumed and even evolves with redshift, so that the color cuts based on the BCGs colors will lose some of the less luminous cluster member galaxies. Furthermore, the study by @dsm+02 shows that some massive clusters do not have a prominent red sequence, which could induce bias in cluster detection and richness measurement.
We show that our method tends to detect the rich maxBCG clusters and that the not-matched maxBCG clusters are relatively poor with mean richness $\sim$6 (see the lower panel of Figure \[rich\_max\]).
Correlations of our clusters with X-ray Measurements {#cluster_xray}
====================================================
The measurements in X-rays provide the properties of clusters from hot intracluster gas. The imaging observations can give the X-ray luminosity, and spectroscopic observations can provide the temperature of hot gas. Using the measurements in X-rays, the gravitational cluster mass can be derived [@wu94; @rb02]. With luminous member galaxies well discriminated, the correlations between these X-ray measurements and the cluster richness or the summed optical luminosities are expected.
As mentioned above, the faint end of member galaxies is $M_r=-21$ in our sample at $z\le0.42$. At higher redshifts, the faint end moves to a brighter magnitude depending on redshift, so that the estimated summed luminosities for clusters of $z>0.42$ are biased. Therefore, we only consider clusters of $z\le0.42$ in the following statistics.
Figure \[rich\_lum\] shows the correlation between the richness and the summed luminosities for clusters of $z\le0.42$. We find that the summed luminosity of a cluster is linearly related to the cluster richness by $$L_{r,10}=(5.47\pm0.06)R^{0.97\pm0.01}.
\label{rl}$$ This is consistent with the relation found by @pbb+07.
Correlations between the richness and optical luminosity with the X-ray luminosity and temperature {#opt_xray}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 239 (203 NORAS and 36 REFLEX) X-ray clusters from @bvh+00 [@bsg+04] in the sky region of the SDSS DR6, of which 190 clusters have redshifts $z>0.05$. We find 146 [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray clusters within a projected separation of $r_p<1.5$ Mpc and the redshift difference of $\Delta z<0.05$ from clusters in our sample. The X-ray emission of clusters usually traces the centers of matter distributions. They are likely coincident with the BCGs probably located near the centers of clusters. Figure \[lxd\] shows the distribution of the projected separation between X-ray peaks of clusters and the optical BCGs. Most (132/146) of the clusters have a separation of $r_p\le0.3$ Mpc. The small offsets are probably due to the movement of BCGs with respect to the cluster potential [@oh01]. Five merging clusters have projected separations of $r_p\ge0.5$ Mpc because the BCGs and X-ray peak are located at different subclusters.
We find that the richness and summed $r$-band luminosities of 146 X-ray clusters are well correlated with the X-ray luminosity [@bvh+00; @bsg+04] derived from the [*ROSAT*]{} observations (see Figure \[lum\_lx\]). The best fit to the data gives $$\log L_{X,44}=(-3.50\pm0.17)+(2.79\pm0.13)\log R,
\label{lxr}$$ and $$\log L_{X,44}=(-5.19\pm0.25)+(2.67\pm0.12)\log L_{r,10}.$$ where $L_{X,44}$ refers to X-ray luminosity in the 0.1–2.4 keV band in unit of $10^{44}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$. The tight correlations suggest that the member galaxies are well discriminated by our method, as shown in Section \[concomp\]. @pbb+05 studied the correlations between the optical and X-ray measurements using the RASS–SDSS clusters. They obtained the slope of the $L_{X,44}$–$L_{r,10}$ relation to be $1.72\pm0.09$, much smaller than our result. Using maxBCG clusters, @rmb+08 studied the mean and scatter of the $L_{X,44}$–$N_{200}$ relation, and obtained the slope of $1.82\pm0.05$, where $N_{200}$ are determined within different radius, $r_{200}$, for different clusters. To make a comparison, we scale the slope of their relation to that of $L_{X,44}$–$N_{\rm gal}^{\rm
max}$, where $N_{\rm gal}^{\rm max}$ is also defined within a fixed radius. The scaling relation between $N_{200}$ and $N_{\rm gal}^{\rm
max}$ is $N_{200}\propto (N_{\rm gal}^{\rm max})^{1.41\pm0.01}$ [@kma+07a]. Therefore, the $L_{X,44}$–$N_{\rm gal}^{\rm max}$ relation has a slope of 2.57$\pm$0.09, in agreement with our result. However, the correlations of the $L_{X,44}$–$R$ relation are much tighter than that shown using the maxBCG clusters [see Figure 7 of @rmb+08].
@fmo04 compiled the temperatures of $\sim$300 X-ray clusters, of which 67 clusters are found in our catalog. We plot the richness and the summed $r$-band luminosity against the X-ray temperature for 67 clusters in Figure \[lum\_lx\] and find the best fit as $$\log T_X=(-0.40\pm0.12)+(0.75\pm0.08)\log R,$$ and $$\log T_X=(-1.09\pm0.18)+(0.83\pm0.08)\log L_{r,10},
\label{txl}$$ where $T_X$ refers to X-ray temperature in unit of keV. The slope of the $T_X$–$L_r$ relation is slightly higher than $0.61\pm0.03$ found by @pbb+05.
We also find the correlations between the $GGN$ and $GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ of clusters with the X-ray luminosity and temperature. Figure \[ggn\_lx\] shows the correlations. $GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ is more tightly correlated with $L_{X,44}$ and $T_X$ than $GGN$. The $L_{X,44}$–$GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ relation and the $T_X$–$GGN/r_{\rm
GGN}$ relation are: $$\log L_{X,44}=(-3.92\pm0.23)+(3.0\pm0.17)\log (GGN/r_{\rm GGN}),$$ and $$\log T_X=(-0.97\pm0.15)+(1.13\pm0.10)\log (GGN/r_{\rm GGN}),$$ where $GGN/r_{\rm GGN}$ is in unit of Mpc$^{-1}$.
Most of the cluster richnesses are determined based on the galaxy count [e.g., @aco89]. Other efforts were made to measure the richness of cluster by various methods, e.g., correlation function amplitude of the galaxies and the matched filter richness [@yl99; @rrk+08]. However, few measured richnesses tightly correlate with measurements in X-rays due to the lack of accurate membership discrimination. With membership discrimination using photometric redshift, we show tighter correlations between the measurements of clusters in optical and X-ray bands. Obviously, the accuracy membership discrimination is crucial for finding the scaling relation of clusters.
Correlations of the richness and optical luminosity with the cluster mass
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The X-ray luminosity and temperature have been found to be tightly correlated with cluster mass [@frb01; @asf01; @xjw01; @rb02; @sks+03]. As shown, the cluster richness and summed luminosity are well correlated with X-ray luminosity and temperature, hence can also trace cluster mass.
We obtain cluster masses, $M_{200}$, determined from X-ray measurements by @rb02. Here, $M_{200}$ is the total mass within the radius $r_{200}$. Among the sample of @rb02, there are 28 clusters/groups in the sky region of SDSS DR6. We exclude four nearby groups ($z\le0.006$), which contain only one luminous elliptical galaxies. Therefore, we have masses of 24 clusters in the redshift range $0.02<z<0.2$, of which 12 clusters are found in our catalog. To determine the $M_{200}$–$L_r$ and $M_{200}$–$R$ relations precisely, we also calculate the richness and summed $r$-band luminosities for the rest 12 clusters by our method. We plot the richness and the summed luminosity against the cluster masses for 24 clusters in Figure \[lum\_ms\] and find the best fit as $$\log\Big(\frac{M_{200}}{10^{14}~M_{\odot}}\Big)
=(-2.08\pm0.06)+(1.90\pm0.04)\log R,
\label{mr}$$ and $$\log\Big(\frac{M_{200}}{10^{14}~M_{\odot}}\Big)
=(-2.67\pm0.07)+(1.64\pm0.03)\log L_{r,10}.
\label{ml}$$
In the previous studies, the mass–richness relation (the so called halo occupation distribution in some literature) is described in a power law, $R\propto M^{\beta}$, and the factor $\beta$ is expected less than 1 from the simulations [e.g., @whs01]. Our result, $1/\beta=1.90\pm0.04$, i.e., $\beta=0.53\pm0.01$, is in agreement with $\beta=0.55\pm0.04$ found by @mh02, but significantly smaller than $\beta=0.70\pm0.04$ found by @prg03 and $\beta=0.92\pm0.03$ found by @pbb+07.
The correlation of cluster mass with the optical luminosity, i.e., mass-to-light ratio $M/L$, is also very interesting. @amb+98 investigated a fundamental plane in nearby rich Abell clusters and suggested that the $M/L$ is not constant. In general, the $M/L$ is also described by a power law, $M/L\propto L^{\tau}$, with $\tau$ in the range 0.2–0.4 [@bc02; @gmm+02; @lms03; @rgd+04; @pbb+05]. Our result, $\tau+1=1.64\pm0.03$, i.e., $\tau=0.64\pm0.03$, is larger than the normal $\tau$ range, but smaller than $\tau=0.8$ found by @bsk+07.
Recall that our cluster finding algorithm can detect 60% clusters of $N_{\rm in}=16$, which corresponds to a mean output richness $R=13.5$ according to Equation (\[rinout\]). The rate increases to 90% for clusters of $N_{\rm in}=20$ with a mean $R=16.7$. Using Equation (\[mr\]), the output catalog is therefore 60% complete for clusters with a mass $M_{200}\sim1.2\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$, and 90% complete for clusters with a mass $M_{200}\sim2\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$.
Candidates for New X-ray clusters
---------------------------------
The [*ROSAT*]{} All Sky Survey detects 18,806 bright sources [@vab+99] and 105,924 faint sources [@vab+00] in the 0.1–2.4 keV band, of which 495 extended sources in the northern hemisphere and 447 extended sources in the southern hemisphere have been identified as clusters and AGNs or stars [@bvh+00; @bsg+04].
We cross-identify the [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray bright and faint sources with clusters in our catalog to find new candidates for X-ray clusters. Only those X-ray sources with a projected separation of $r_p<0.3$ Mpc from the BCGs are probably associated with clusters (see Figure \[lxd\]). The hardness ratios are expected in the range 0–1 for clusters [@bvh+00], which can help to distinguish the cluster X-ray sources. The X-ray sources with hardness ratios out of 0–1 can be excluded to be associated with clusters. Figure \[histxc\] shows the distribution of a projected separation between the X-ray sources and the BCGs of clusters in our catalog. If the X-ray sources are uncorrelated with the clusters, the number of pairs in each $r_p$ bin is proportional to $r_p^2$. The number excess at low $r_p$ suggests that many of the X-ray sources are clusters.
912 clusters in our catalog have a [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray source within $r_p<0.3$ Mpc, and 227 of them are known X-ray clusters according to NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. The rest 685 clusters are new candidates for X-ray clusters. We notice that the candidate distribution becomes constant within $0.5<r_p<1$ Mpc (see Figure \[histxc\]). The real number of X-ray clusters should be the excess over the constant level, them about 60% of new candidates are expected to be real X-ray clusters. We also show the redshift distribution of the new candidates for X-ray cluster together with that of known [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray clusters from @bvh+00 [@bsg+04] in the lower panel of Figure \[histxc\]. Hundreds of candidates have redshifts $z>0.3$. We list both 685 new candidates and 227 known X-ray clusters in Table \[xray\] (a full list is available in the online version).
\
Summary
=======
We identify 39,668 clusters of galaxies in the redshift range $0.05<z<0.6$ using photometric redshifts of galaxies from the SDSS DR6. A cluster is recognized if more than eight member galaxies of $M_r\le-21$ are found within a radius of 0.5 Mpc and a photometric redshift gap between $z\pm0.04(1+z)$. This is the largest cluster catalog to date. Our sample is much deeper in redshift than the previous cluster catalogs from the SDSS. Cluster redshifts are estimated with an uncertainty less than 0.022. Using the SDSS spectroscopic data, we also estimate the contamination rate and completeness of member galaxy candidates to be about 20% and 90%, respectively. Monte Carlo simulations show that the cluster detection rate depends on richness, but is approximately constant to redshift $z=0.42$. The detection rate is $\sim$60% for clusters with a mass $M_{200}\sim1.2\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$, which corresponds to a mean output richness $R\sim13.5$. The detection rate increases to be 90% for clusters with a mass $M_{200}>2\times10^{14}~M_{\odot}$, which corresponds to a mean $R\sim16.7$. The false detection rate of clusters is $\sim$5% for our algorithm.
We compare our catalog with the published Abell, CE, maxBCG, and [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray cluster catalogs. We find that our catalog includes 77% Abell clusters and 77% [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray selected clusters at $z>0.05$. Rich clusters are more likely detected by our method.
With luminous member galaxies discriminated, we get the richness, $R$, the summed luminosity, $L_r$, and the gross galaxy number $GGN$ within a cluster radius ($r_{\rm GGN}$) for clusters in our catalog up to $z\sim0.42$. We find that they are tightly related to the X-ray luminosity and temperature, and can trace the cluster mass with the relations, $M_{200}\propto R^{1.90\pm0.04}$ and $M_{200}\propto
L_r^{1.64\pm0.03}$. By cross-identification with the [*ROSAT*]{} X-ray source list, we obtain [*685 new candidates*]{} of X-ray clusters, of which 60% are likely true.
We thank the anonymous referee, Professor Y. Y. Zhou and Shude Mao for valuable comments that helped to improve the paper. The authors are supported by the National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) of China (10773016, 10821061 and 1083303) and the National Key Basic Research Science Foundation of China (2007CB815403) and the Doctoral Foundation of SYNU of China (054-55440105020). Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
[rrrrrccrrrrrl]{} WHL J000006.0$+$152547& 0.02482& 15.42990& 0.1735&$-1.0000$& 16.58& 15& 11.30& 9.07& 0.50& 62.69& 6.97& maxBCG\
WHL J000007.1$-$092909& 0.02957&$-9.48607$& 0.3963&$-1.0000$& 19.11& 19& 15.88& 14.44& 0.71& 81.33& 8.56&\
WHL J000007.6$+$155003& 0.03177& 15.83423& 0.1489& 0.1528& 16.00& 17& 13.40& 13.20& 0.71& 54.61& 6.55& Abell,maxBCG\
WHL J000020.1$+$160859& 0.08358& 16.14976& 0.4591&$-1.0000$& 19.88& 20& 18.56& 29.40& 1.58& 107.01& 6.02&\
WHL J000021.7$+$150611& 0.09053& 15.10328& 0.2883&$-1.0000$& 17.67& 20& 18.17& 22.88& 1.50& 94.66& 9.43& maxBCG\
WHL J000025.1$-$093452& 0.10453&$-9.58125$& 0.3648&$-1.0000$& 18.44& 16& 9.29& 9.65& 0.71& 74.32& 4.90&\
WHL J000027.6$-$010140& 0.11617&$-1.04317$& 0.4491& 0.4387& 18.62& 25& 20.07& 20.07& 1.00& 124.10& 8.81&\
WHL J000048.3$-$011204& 0.18509&$-1.20016$& 0.4373& 0.4392& 18.76& 18& 14.44& 13.33& 0.87& 82.12& 5.01&\
WHL J000050.5$+$004705& 0.21051& 0.78477& 0.2458&$-1.0000$& 17.64& 22& 20.10& 26.16& 1.22& 105.53& 5.94& NSCS,CE,maxBCG\
WHL J000050.7$+$004704& 0.21134& 0.78470& 0.4889&$-1.0000$& 19.73& 10& 6.40& 7.10& 0.50& 51.92& 5.69&\
WHL J000052.9$+$160520& 0.22045& 16.08902& 0.1986&$-1.0000$& 16.88& 12& 10.22& 11.33& 1.22& 46.42& 5.44&\
WHL J000059.1$+$004841& 0.24642& 0.81162& 0.3551&$-1.0000$& 19.18& 18& 14.80& 13.60& 0.87& 70.64& 4.93& NSCS\
WHL J000111.3$+$151839& 0.29608& 15.30418& 0.4053&$-1.0000$& 19.10& 21& 19.10& 30.26& 1.58& 125.22& 6.50&\
WHL J000116.2$-$093137& 0.31767&$-9.52720$& 0.3383& 0.3693& 18.29& 24& 19.83& 31.65& 1.41& 112.56& 7.03&\
WHL J000117.5$+$142848& 0.32297& 14.48012& 0.3815&$-1.0000$& 19.68& 17& 12.84& 11.92& 0.71& 45.04& 4.93&\
[ccrrcccl ]{} RXS J000522.7$+$161306 &WHL J000524.0$+$161309 & 1.34987 & 16.21922 & 0.1115 & 0.04 & 0.076 & RXC\
RXS J001739.4$-$005150 &WHL J001740.0$-$005314 & 4.40670 & $-0.87835$ & 0.2340 & 0.21 & 0.037 &\
RXS J002302.3$+$144645 &WHL J002300.7$+$144656 & 5.75279 & 14.78240 & 0.3826 & 0.13 & 0.033 &\
RXS J002815.2$+$135601 &WHL J002819.8$+$135459 & 7.08254 & 13.91657 & 0.1516 & 0.23 & 0.026 &\
RXS J003209.2$-$003932 &WHL J003212.1$-$003950 & 8.04672 & $-0.66670$ & 0.2175 & 0.14 & 0.013 &\
RXS J003417.8$+$005145 &WHL J003419.1$+$004948 & 8.59684 & 0.85723 & 0.2035 & 0.27 & 0.024 &\
RXS J004149.7$-$091817 &WHL J004148.2$-$091703 & 10.46029 & $-9.30313$ & 0.0560 & 0.01 & 4.079 & RXC\
RXS J010101.1$-$095726 &WHL J010101.5$-$095717 & 15.25645 & $-9.95473$ & 0.1457 & 0.03 & 0.035 &\
RXS J010243.0$+$010805 &WHL J010243.1$+$010810 & 15.67950 & 1.13633 & 0.1345 & 0.01 & 0.052 & RX\
RXS J010649.5$+$010317 &WHL J010650.5$+$010410 & 16.71051 & 1.06970 & 0.2527 & 0.21 & 0.187 & RXC\
RXS J010717.9$+$141635 &WHL J010721.9$+$141623 & 16.84109 & 14.27322 & 0.0963 & 0.10 & 0.020 &\
RXS J010921.7$+$005457 &WHL J010923.1$+$005429 & 17.34616 & 0.90818 & 0.2723 & 0.14 & 0.029 &\
RXS J011006.0$+$135849 &WHL J011001.3$+$135555 & 17.51321 & 13.97815 & 0.0712 & 0.06 & 0.061 & RXC\
RXS J011202.7$-$004355 &WHL J011204.1$-$004351 & 18.01689 & $-0.73108$ & 0.2119 & 0.07 & 0.053 &\
RXS J011940.0$+$145303 &WHL J011938.3$+$145352 & 19.90952 & 14.89799 & 0.1289 & 0.12 & 0.096 & RXC\
[129]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, G. O. 1958, , 3, 211
, G. O., [Corwin]{}, Jr., H. G., & [Olowin]{}, R. P. 1989, , 70, 1
, C., [Mazure]{}, A., [Biviano]{}, A., [Katgert]{}, P., & [Rhee]{}, G. 1998, , 331, 493
, S. W., [Schmidt]{}, R. W., & [Fabian]{}, A. C. 2001, , 328, L37
, N. A. 1988, , 26, 631
, N. A. & [Comerford]{}, J. M. 2002, , 565, L5
, N. A., [Fan]{}, X., & [Cen]{}, R. 1997, , 485, L53
, N. A., [McKay]{}, T. A., [Annis]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2003, , 148, 243
, S., [Soucail]{}, G., [Kneib]{}, J.-P., [et al.]{} 2007, , 470, 449
, A. A., [Frieman]{}, J., [Weinberg]{}, D. H., [et al.]{} 2006, , 167, 1
, A. W., [Kneib]{}, J.-P., [Ivison]{}, R. J., & [Smail]{}, I. 1999, , 512, L87
, H., [Voges]{}, W., [Huchra]{}, J. P., [et al.]{} 2000, , 129, 435
, H., [Schuecker]{}, P., [Guzzo]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2004, , 425, 367
, M., [Schrabback]{}, T., [Erben]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2008, , 681, 187
, D. A., [Nichol]{}, R. C., & [Pope]{}, A. C. 2000, , 533, 601
, R. J. & [Lubin]{}, L. M. 2000, , 120, 2851
, R. A., [Vikhlinin]{}, A., [Hornstrup]{}, A., [Ebeling]{}, H., [Quintana]{}, H., & [Mescheryakov]{}, A. 2007, , 172, 561
, H. & [Oemler]{}, Jr., A. 1978, , 219, 18
—. 1984, , 285, 426
, R., [Drinkwater]{}, M., [Edge]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2006, , 372, 425
, R. G., [Yee]{}, H. K. C., [Ellingson]{}, E., [Abraham]{}, R., [Gravel]{}, P., [Morris]{}, S., & [Pritchet]{}, C. J. 1996, , 462, 32
, J. E., [Joy]{}, M. K., [Grego]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2000, Physica Scripta Volume T, 85, 148
, A. & [Schindler]{}, S. 2003, , 403, 433
, I., [Budav[á]{}ri]{}, T., [Connolly]{}, A. J., [et al.]{} 2003, , 125, 580
, H. 2006, , 653, 954
, G. B., [Maddox]{}, S. J., [Sutherland]{}, W. J., & [Efstathiou]{}, G. 1997, , 289, 263
, X.-F., [He]{}, J.-Z., [Jiang]{}, P., [Luo]{}, C.-H., & [Wu]{}, P. 2007, , 474, 783
, M., [Scharf]{}, C. A., [Mack]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2002, , 569, 689
, F., [Pierpaoli]{}, E., [Gunn]{}, J. E., & [Wechsler]{}, R. H. 2008, , 676, 868
, A. 1980, , 236, 351
, H., [Edge]{}, A. C., [Bohringer]{}, H., [et al.]{} 1998, , 301, 881
, D. J., [Annis]{}, J., [Gunn]{}, J. E., [et al.]{} 2001, , 122, 2267
, V. R., [Baugh]{}, C. M., [Cole]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2004, , 348, 866
, A., [Reiprich]{}, T. H., & [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H. 2001, , 368, 749
, Y., [Makishima]{}, K., & [Ohashi]{}, T. 2004, , 56, 965
, M., [Shimasaku]{}, K., & [Ichikawa]{}, T. 1995, , 107, 945
, R. R., [de Carvalho]{}, R. R., [Lopes]{}, P. A. A., [et al.]{} 2003, , 125, 2064
, B., [Maccagni]{}, D., & [Andreon]{}, S. 1999, , 342, 408
, M. J. & [Huchra]{}, J. P. 1983, , 52, 61
, B. F., [Newman]{}, J. A., [Davis]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2005, , 625, 6
, I. M., [Henry]{}, J. P., [Maccacaro]{}, T., [Morris]{}, S. L., [Stocke]{}, J. T., & [Wolter]{}, A. 1990, , 356, L35
, M., [Manzato]{}, P., [Mezzetti]{}, M., [Giuricin]{}, G., & [Limboz]{}, F. 2002, , 569, 720
, G., [Marinoni]{}, C., [Ceriani]{}, L., & [Pisani]{}, A. 2000, , 543, 178
, M. D. & [Yee]{}, H. K. C. 2000, , 120, 2148
—. 2005, , 157, 1
, T., [Sekiguchi]{}, M., [Nichol]{}, R. C., [et al.]{}, 2002, , 123, 1807
, T., [Okamura]{}, S., [Yagi]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2003, , 55, 739
, T., [Okamura]{}, S., [McKay]{}, T. A., [et al.]{} 2002, , 54, 515
, T., [Yamauchi]{}, C., [Fujita]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2003, , 346, 601
, J. E., [Hoessel]{}, J. G., & [Oke]{}, J. B. 1986, , 306, 30
, J. P. & [Geller]{}, M. J. 1982, , 257, 423
, Y., [Ezawa]{}, H., [Fukazawa]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 1996, , 379, 427
, M. J., [Ford]{}, H. C., [Illingworth]{}, G. D., [et al.]{} 2007, , 661, 728
, R. S. J., [Kepner]{}, J. V., [Postman]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2002, , 123, 20
, C. S., [White]{}, M., [Huchra]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2003, , 585, 161
, B. P., [McKay]{}, T. A., [Annis]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2007, , 660, 221
, B. P., [McKay]{}, T. A., [Annis]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2007, , 660, 239
, A., [Frenk]{}, C. S., [White]{}, S. D. M., [Colberg]{}, J. M., [Cole]{}, S., [Evrard]{}, A. E., [Couchman]{}, H. M. P., & [Yoshida]{}, N. 2001, , 321, 372
, B. C., [Allam]{}, S. S., [Tucker]{}, D. L., [et al.]{} 2004, , 127, 1811
, P. B., & [Efstathiou]{}, G. 1988, , 231, 635
, Y.-T., [Mohr]{}, J. J., & [Stanford]{}, S. A. 2003, , 591, 749
, P. A. A., [de Carvalho]{}, R. R., [Gal]{}, R. R., [et al.]{} 2004, , 128, 1017
, S. L., [Nichol]{}, R. C., [Collins]{}, C. A., & [Guzzo]{}, L. 1992, , 258, 1
, R., [Gunn]{}, J. E., [Ivezi[ć]{}]{}, Z., [Knapp]{}, G. R., & [Kent]{}, S. 2001, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 238, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X, ed. F. R. [Harnden]{}, Jr., F. A. [Primini]{}, & H. E. [Payne]{}, 269
, C. & [Hudson]{}, M. J. 2002, , 569, 101
, M. & [Zandivarez]{}, A. 2002, , 335, 216
, M. E. & [Zandivarez]{}, A. 2005, , 630, 759
, L., [Kneib]{}, J.-P., [McBreen]{}, B., [et al.]{} 2003, , 407, 791
, C. J., [Nichol]{}, R. C., [Reichart]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2005, , 130, 968
, J. F., [Frenk]{}, C. S., & [White]{}, S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493
, W. R. & [Hill]{}, J. M. 2001, , 122, 2858
, L. F., [Benoist]{}, C., [Cappi]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2007, , 461, 81
, H., [Lima]{}, M., [Cunha]{}, C. E., [Lin]{}, H., [Frieman]{}, J., & [Sheldon]{}, E. S. 2008, , 674, 768
, K. & [Dahle]{}, H. 2007, , 667, 26
, E., [Anthoine]{}, S., [Huffenberger]{}, K., & [Daubechies]{}, I. 2005, , 359, 261
, A., [Ramella]{}, M., & [Geller]{}, M. J. 2003, , 126, 1677
, E., [Arnaud]{}, M., & [Pratt]{}, G. W. 2005, , 435, 1
, P., [Biviano]{}, A., [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H., & [Romaniello]{}, M. 2007, , 464, 451
, P., [Biviano]{}, A., [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H., [Romaniello]{}, M., & [Voges]{}, W. 2005, , 433, 431
, M., [Huchra]{}, J. P., & [Geller]{}, M. J. 1992, , 384, 404
, M., [Lubin]{}, L. M., [Gunn]{}, J. E., [Oke]{}, J. B., [Hoessel]{}, J. G., [Schneider]{}, D. P., & [Christensen]{}, J. A. 1996, , 111, 615
, M., [Boschin]{}, W., [Fadda]{}, D., & [Nonino]{}, M. 2001, , 368, 776
, M., [Geller]{}, M. J., [Pisani]{}, A., & [da Costa]{}, L. N. 2002, , 123, 2976
, M., [Zamorani]{}, G., [Zucca]{}, E., [et al.]{} 1999, , 342, 1
, T. H. & [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H. 2002, , 567, 716
, K., [Diaferio]{}, A., & [Natarajan]{}, P. 2007, , 657, 183
, K., [Geller]{}, M. J., [Diaferio]{}, A., [Kurtz]{}, M. J., & [Jarrett]{}, T. H. 2004, , 128, 1078
, E., [Rykoff]{}, E. S., [Koester]{}, B. P., [et al.]{} 2008, submitted to ApJ (arXiv:0809.2797)
, E. S., [McKay]{}, T. A., [Becker]{}, M. R., [et al.]{} 2008, , 675, 1106
, M. R., [Ellis]{}, R. S., [Kneib]{}, J.-P., [Richard]{}, J., & [Kuijken]{}, K. 2004, , 606, 683
, P. 1976, , 203, 297
, P. 1996, , 283, 837
, D. A. 1978, , 220, 8
, U. 2002, , 337, 769
, S. A. 1985, , 57, 77
, M., [Kitayama]{}, T., [Sasaki]{}, S., & [Suto]{}, Y. 2003, , 590, 197
, B. W. 1986, [Density estimation for statistics and data analysis]{} (Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, London: Chapman and Hall, 1986)
, I., [Ivison]{}, R. J., [Blain]{}, A. W., & [Kneib]{}, J.-P. 2002, , 331, 495
, C., [Lupton]{}, R. H., [Bernardi]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2002, , 123, 485
, M. A., [Weinberg]{}, D. H., [Lupton]{}, R. H., [et al.]{} 2002, , 124, 1810
, E., [Einasto]{}, J., [Saar]{}, E., [Tempel]{}, E., [Einasto]{}, M., [Vennik]{}, J., & [M[ü]{}ller]{}, V. 2008, , 479, 927
, D. L., [Oemler]{}, A. J., [Hashimoto]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2000, , 130, 237
, R. B. 1987, , 321, 280
, M. P., [Frenk]{}, C. S., & [White]{}, S. D. M. 1997, , 287, 817
, W., [Aschenbach]{}, B., [Boller]{}, T., [et al.]{} 1999, , 349, 389
, W., [Aschenbach]{}, B., [Boller]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2000, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 9029, 0
, S. M., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., [Yang]{}, X., & [Mo]{}, H. J. 2006, , 366, 2
, Z.-L., [Yang]{}, Y.-B., [Yuan]{}, Q.-R., [Zhou]{}, X., [Ma]{}, J., & [Jiang]{}, Z.-J. 2007, ChJAA, 7, 71
, M., [Hernquist]{}, L., & [Springel]{}, V. 2001, , 550, L129
, M., & [Kochanek]{}, C. S. 2002, , 574, 24
, D., [Tyson]{}, J. A., [Margoniner]{}, V. E., [Cohen]{}, J. G., & [Dell’Antonio]{}, I. P. 2001, , 557, L89
, X.-P. 1994, , 436, L115
, H., [Jin]{}, G., & [Wu]{}, X.-P. 2001, , 553, 78
, X., [Mo]{}, H. J., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., & [Jing]{}, Y. P. 2005, , 356, 1293
, X., [Mo]{}, H. J., [van den Bosch]{}, F. C., [Pasquali]{}, A., [Li]{}, C., & [Barden]{}, M. 2007, , 671, 153
, X., [Mo]{}, H. J., & [van den Bosch]{}, F. C. 2008, , 676, 248
, Y., [Zhou]{}, X., [Yuan]{}, Q., [Jiang]{}, Z., [Ma]{}, J., [Wu]{}, H., & [Chen]{}, J. 2004, , 600, 141
, H. K. C. & [L[ó]{}pez-Cruz]{}, O. 1999, , 117, 1985
, J. H., [Schawinski]{}, K., [Sheen]{}, Y.-K., [Ree]{}, C. H., & [Yi]{}, S. K. 2008, , 176, 414
, D. G., [Adelman]{}, J., [Anderson]{}, Jr., J. E., [et al.]{} 2000, , 120, 1579
, Q., [Zhou]{}, X., [Chen]{}, J., [Jiang]{}, Z., [Ma]{}, J., [Wu]{}, H., [Xue]{}, S., & [Zhu]{}, J. 2001, , 122, 1718
, Q., [Zhou]{}, X., & [Jiang]{}, Z. 2003, , 149, 53
, X., [Arimoto]{}, N., [Tanaka]{}, I., [Jiang]{}, Z., & [Chen]{}, J. 2003, , 55, 891
, F., [Herzog]{}, E., & [Wild]{}, P. 1968, [Catalogue of galaxies and of clusters of galaxies]{} (Pasadena: California)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An *ISK4* in a graph $G$ is an induced subgraph of $G$ that is isomorphic to a subdivision of $K_4$ (the complete graph on four vertices). A *wheel* is a graph that consists of a chordless cycle, together with a vertex that has at least three neighbors in the cycle. A graph is {ISK4,wheel}-free if it has no ISK4 and does not contain a wheel as an induced subgraph. We give an $O(|V(G)|^7)$-time algorithm to compute the maximum weight of a stable set in an input weighted graph $G$ with non-negative integer weights.'
author:
- 'Martin Milanič[^1]'
- 'Irena Penev [^2]'
- 'Nicolas Trotignon[^3]'
title: 'Stable sets in {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs'
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
All graphs in this paper are finite and simple. An *ISK4* in a graph $G$ is an induced subgraph of $G$ that is isomorphic to a subdivision of $K_4$ (the complete graph on four vertices). An ISK4-free graph is a graph $G$ that contains no ISK4 (that is, no induced subgraph of $G$ is isomorphic to a subdivision of $K_4$). The class of ISK4-free graphs contains all series-parallel graphs, and also all line graphs of graphs of maximum degree at most three.
L[é]{}v[ê]{}que, Maffray, and Trotignon [@MR2927414] proved a decomposition theorem for ISK4-free graphs, but gave no algorithmic applications. In particular, no polynomial-time algorithms and no hardness proofs are known for the following problems in the class of ISK4-free graphs: recognition, maximum stable set, and coloring. (Finding a maximum clique in an ISK4-free graph is of course trivial because every clique in such a graph is of size at most three.)
A *wheel* is a graph that consists of a chordless cycle, together with a vertex (called the [*center*]{} of the wheel) that has at least three neighbors in the cycle. A graph is *wheel-free* if none of its induced subgraphs is a wheel. Wheel-free graphs have a number of structural properties (see for instance [@abChTrVu:moplex; @aboulker.c.s.T:wfpg; @diotRaTrVu:15]). However, the maximum stable set problem is easily seen to remain NP-hard even when restricted to the class of wheel-free graphs. To see this, denote by $\alpha(G)$ the [*stability number*]{} (i.e., the maximum size of a stable set) of a graph $G$, and consider the operation of subdividing every edge of $G$ twice. This yields a graph $G'$ that is wheel-free (because every vertex of degree at least three in $G'$ has only neighbors of degree two, and so it cannot be the center of a wheel). As observed by Poljak [@poljak:74], $\alpha(G') = \alpha(G) + |E(G)|$, and so computing the stability number of a wheel-free graph is as hard as computing it in a general graph.
A graph is *{ISK4,wheel}-free* if it is ISK4-free and wheel-free. In [@MR2927414], a decomposition theorem is given for {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs. (This theorem was obtained as a corollary of the decomposition theorem for ISK4-free graphs from [@MR2927414].) The theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs is stronger than the one for ISK4-free graphs in the sense that the former theorem can be used to solve the recognition and the coloring problems for {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs in polynomial time. However, no other algorithmic application has previously been reported.
In this paper, we investigate the [*maximum weight stable set problem*]{} restricted to {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs. Let us be precise. First, by a [*weighted graph*]{}, we mean an ordered pair $(G,w)$, where $G$ is a graph and $w$ is a function (called a [*weight function*]{} for $G$) that assigns to each vertex $v$ of $G$ a non-negative integer weight $w(v)$. The [*weight*]{} of a set of vertices is the sum of the weights of its elements. The [*stability number*]{} of a weighted graph $(G,w)$, denoted by $\alpha(G,w)$, is the maximum weight of a stable set of $G$, and a maximum weighted stable set of $(G,w)$ is a stable set whose weight is precisely $\alpha(G,w)$. (If $(G,w)$ is a weighted graph and $H$ is an induced subgraph of $G$, then we will also write $\alpha(H,w)$ for the stability number of the weighted graph $(H,w')$ where $w'$ is the restriction of $w$ to $V(H)$.) The [*maximum weight stable set problem*]{} for a given class $\mathcal{G}$ of graphs is the problem of finding a maximum weight stable set in a given weighted graph $(G,w)$ such that $G \in \mathcal{G}$. A [*hereditary class*]{} is a class of graphs that is closed under isomorphism and induced subgraphs (clearly, the class of {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs is a hereditary class). The following is well-known.
\[prop:number-to-set\] Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a hereditary class. Suppose that $\mathcal{A}$ is an algorithm that computes the stability number of any weighted graph $(G,w)$ such that $G \in \mathcal{G}$ in $O(|V(G)|^k)$ time. Then there is an algorithm $\mathcal{B}$ that computes a maximum weight stable set of any graph $(G,w)$ such that $G \in \mathcal{G}$ in $O(|V(G)|^{\max\{k+1,3\}})$ time.
Let $(G,w)$ be an input graph with $G \in \mathcal{G}$, and set $n = |V(G)|$. If $G$ is the null graph, then the algorithm returns $\emptyset$ and stops. Otherwise, we choose a vertex $v \in V(G)$, we compute the graph $G \smallsetminus N[v]$ in $O(n^2)$ time (where $N[v]$ is the set consisting of $v$ and all its neighbors in $G$), and using the algorithm $\mathcal{A}$, we compute $\alpha(G,w)$ and $\alpha(G \smallsetminus N[v],w)$ in $O(n^k)$ time. Clearly, $w(v)+\alpha(G \smallsetminus N[v],w) \leq \alpha(G,w)$. If $w(v)+\alpha(G \smallsetminus N[v],w) = \alpha(G,w)$, then we recursively compute a maximum weight stable set $S$ of $(G \smallsetminus N[v],w)$, and the algorithm returns $\{v\} \cup S$ and stops. On the other hand, if $w(v)+\alpha(G \smallsetminus N[v],w) < \alpha(G,w)$, then we see that no maximum weight stable set of $(G,w)$ contains $v$. In this case, we compute $G \smallsetminus v$ in $O(n^2)$ time, we recursively compute a maximum weight stable set $S$ of $(G \smallsetminus v,w)$, and the algorithm returns $S$ and stops.
It is clear that the algorithm is correct. We make $O(n)$ recursive calls to the algorithm, and it follows that the total running time of the algorithm is $O(n^{\max\{k+1,3\}})$.
In view of Proposition \[prop:number-to-set\], from now on, we focus on constructing a polynomial-time algorithm that computes the stability number of weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs.
The decomposition theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs from [@MR2927414] states (roughly) that every such graph is either “basic” or admits a “decomposition” (that is, a way to break it up into smaller pieces). The basic classes are all fairly easy to handle and the main difficulty is posed by the decompositions. One of the decompositions, namely the clique-cutset (that is, a clique whose deletion yields a disconnected graph), is easy to handle, but the other one is not: the “proper 2-cutset.” A [*proper 2-cutset*]{} of a graph $G$ is a pair of non-adjacent vertices, say $a$ and $b$, such that $V(G) \smallsetminus \{a,b\}$ can be partitioned into two non-empty sets $X$ and $Y$ so that there is no edge between $X$ and $Y$, and neither $G[X \cup \{a,b\}]$ nor $G[Y \cup \{a,b\}]$ is a path between $a$ and $b$.
The problem with a proper 2-cutset $\{a, b\}$ of a graph $G$ is that a maximum stable set of $G$ may contain $a$ (but not $b$), or $b$ (but not $a$), or neither $a$ nor $b$, or both $a$ and $b$. This phenomenon also occurs in any induced subgraph of $G$ that contains $a$ and $b$, and in particular in any reasonable subgraph built for the purposes of a recursive algorithm. So, any naive attempt to build an algorithm for the maximum stable set problem relying on proper 2-cutsets should lead one to consider an exponential number of cases. In fact, the situation is even worse for proper 2-cutsets as shown by a hardness result that we explain now. Let $G$ be a graph. A *2-extension* of $G$ is any graph obtained from $G$ by first deleting a vertex $v$ of degree two, with non-adjacent neighbors $a$ and $b$, then adding four vertices of degree two forming a path $a-x_1-x_2-x_3-x_4-b$, and finally adding a vertex $x$ adjacent to $x_1$, $x_2$, $x_3$ and $x_4$. An *extended bipartite* graph is any graph obtained from a bipartite graph by repeatedly applying 2-extensions. Trivially, extended bipartite graphs have a decomposition theorem: if $G$ is an extended bipartite graph, then either $G$ is bipartite, or $G$ was obtained from an even cycle by performing exactly one 2-extension, or $G$ has a proper 2-cutset. It is well-known that one can find the stability number of a (weighted) bipartite graph in polynomial time (see for instance [@FaigleFrahling]). It is also clear that the stability number of a (weighted) graph obtained from an even cycle by performing exactly one 2-extension can be found in polynomial time (indeed, if $G$ is obtained from an even cycle by performing exactly one 2-extension, and $x,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4$ are as in the definition of a 2-extension, then every stable set of $G$ is also a stable set of at least one of $G \smallsetminus \{x_2,x_3\}$, $G \smallsetminus \{x,x_1\}$, and $G \smallsetminus \{x,x_2\}$, and each of these three induced subgraphs of $G$ is either a path or an even cycle, and is therefore bipartite). So, if proper 2-cutsets were a good tool for solving the maximum stable set problem, there should be a polynomial-time algorithm for solving this problem in extended bipartite graphs. However, it was shown in [@nicolas.kristina:2-join] that the maximum stable set problem is NP-hard when restricted to extended bipartite graphs. The result is stated differently in [@nicolas.kristina:2-join], and so we reproduce it here for the sake of completeness.
The problem of computing the stability number of an input extended bipartite graph is NP-hard.
Suppose there is a polynomial-time algorithm $\cal A$ for our problem. We prove the theorem by using $\cal A$ as a subroutine to solve the problem of computing the stability number of a general graph $G$ in polynomial time. First build $B$ by subdividing every edge of $G$ once. Let $X$ be the set of vertices of degree two in $B$ that arise from the subdivisions. Note that $B$ is bipartite, and $(X, V(B) \smallsetminus X)$ is a bipartition of $B$. Now build a graph $H$ from $B$ by applying a 2-extension to every vertex of $X$. By construction, $H$ is an extended bipartite graph, and it is easy to check that $\alpha(H) = \alpha(G) + 2 |E(G)|$. Thus, $\cal A$ indeed allows one to compute the stability number of a general graph in polynomial time.
Despite this negative result, we can use (a variant of) a proper 2-cutset in the special case of {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs, mainly because the basic classes are very restricted. We rely on what is called a “trigraph,” which is a graph where some edges are left “undecided” (the notion is from [@chudnovsky:these; @chudnovsky:trigraphs], and formal definitions are given in Section \[s:trigraphs\]). The idea is as follows. When $G$ is a graph, $a$ and $b$ are non-adjacent vertices of $G$ whose deletion yields a disconnected graph, and $V(G) \smallsetminus \{a,b\}$ is partitioned into non-empty sets $X$ and $Y$ such that there are no edges between $X$ and $Y$, we build a (tri)graph on the vertex set $X \cup \{a,b\}$by keeping the edges of $G$, and by leaving the adjacency between $a$ and $b$ undecided. We give weights to $a$ and $b$, and we also give weights specific to the pair $\{a,b\}$. Roughly speaking, the weights associated with the vertices $a$ and $b$ and the pair $\{a,b\}$ “encode” the maximum weight of a stable set in graphs $G[Y]$, $G[Y \cup \{a\}]$, $G[Y \cup \{b\}]$, and $G[Y \cup \{a,b\}]$. We therefore need weights, undecided adjacencies, and a way to handle the notion of the weight of a stable set in this context. All this is captured in the notion of weighted trigraph (we postpone the formal definition to Section \[s:swi\]). We remark that a similar idea was previously used in [@bulls-stable] in the context of bull-free graphs. However, the definition of a weighted trigraph was simpler in [@bulls-stable] than in the present paper, as was the definition of the weight of a stable set in a weighted trigraph. The reason for this is that the decompositions that appear in the context of bull-free graphs are more convenient than proper 2-cutsets for the purposes of computing the stability number.
We complete the introduction by giving an outline of the paper. In Section \[s:trigraphs\], we define trigraphs and introduce some basic trigraph-related terminology that we need. In Section \[s:swi\], we define weighted trigraphs, explain how to compute the weight of a set of vertices in a weighted trigraph, and prove several results about weighted stable sets in weighted trigraphs. These properties are more complicated than one might expect because of the weights associated with the undecided adjacencies. Because of these weights, the weight of a set is not a monotone function (one could increase the weight of a set by taking a subset). For this reason, all proofs need to be written very carefully. In Section \[s:dec\], we state a decomposition theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraphs (see Theorem \[thm-decomp\]). Since the proof of this theorem is very similar to that of the decomposition theorem for ISK4-free graphs from [@MR2927414], we omit the proof of Theorem \[thm-decomp\] in the present paper. The interested reader can find a detailed proof in [@ISK4wheel-decomp]. Interestingly, the fact that our theorem concerns trigraphs rather than graphs does not substantially complicate the proof, even though our theorem is formally stronger than the corresponding one for graphs. On the other hand, the fact that we restrict our attention to the wheel-free case significantly simplifies our proof. We complete Section \[s:dec\] by using Theorem \[thm-decomp\] to prove an “extreme” decomposition theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraphs (see Theorem \[alg-extreme-decomp\] and Corollary \[cor-extreme-decomp\]). Roughly speaking, our extreme decomposition theorem states that every {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph is either basic or admits a decomposition such that one block of decomposition is basic. In Section \[s:op\], we give a transformation from a weighted trigraph to a weighted graph that preserves the stability number. In Section \[s:comp\], we use this transformation to compute the stability number in our basic trigraphs. Again, the proofs have to be done carefully, because as proven at the very end of the paper (see Theorem \[Bip-NP\]), it is NP-hard to compute the stability number of weighted bipartite trigraphs, and so one should be suspicious of “simple” classes of trigraphs in our context. In Section \[s:compClass\], we prove our main technical result: there is an $O(|V(G)|^7)$-time algorithm to compute the stability number of an input weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph $(G,w)$ (see Theorem \[thm:main\]). Since every weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free graph can be seen as a weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph, the algorithm from Theorem \[thm:main\] can also be applied to {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs. Together with Proposition \[prop:number-to-set\], this yields an $O(|V(G)|^8)$-time algorithm that finds a maximum weight stable set of an input weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free graph (see Corollary \[thm:main-graphs\]). In Section \[s:bip\], we prove the above-mentioned Theorem \[Bip-NP\], which states that it is NP-hard to compute the stability number of a weighted bipartite trigraph.
Trigraphs {#s:trigraphs}
=========
Given a set $S$, we denote by ${S \choose 2}$ the set of all subsets of $S$ of size two. A [*trigraph*]{} is an ordered pair $G = (V(G),\theta_G)$, where $V(G)$ is a finite set, called the [*vertex set*]{} of $G$ (members of $V(G)$ are called [*vertices*]{} of $G$), and $\theta_G:{V(G) \choose 2} \rightarrow \{-1,0,1\}$ is a function, called the [*adjacency function*]{} of $G$. The [*null*]{} trigraph is the trigraph whose vertex set is empty; a [*non-null*]{} trigraph is any trigraph whose vertex set is non-empty. If $G$ is a trigraph and $u,v \in V(G)$ are distinct, we usually write $uv$ instead of $\{u,v\}$ (note that this means that $uv = vu$), and furthermore:
- if $\theta_G(uv) = 1$, we say that $uv$ is a [*strongly adjacent pair*]{} of $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are [*strongly adjacent*]{} in $G$, or that $u$ is [*strongly adjacent*]{} to $v$ in $G$, or that $v$ is a [*strong neighbor*]{} of $u$ in $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are the [*endpoints of a strongly adjacent pair*]{} of $G$;
- if $\theta_G(uv) = 0$, we say that $uv$ is a [*semi-adjacent pair*]{} of $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are [*semi-adjacent*]{} in $G$, or that $u$ is [*semi-adjacent*]{} to $v$ in $G$, or that $v$ is a [*weak neighbor*]{} of $u$ in $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are the [*endpoints of a semi-adjacent pair*]{} of $G$;
- if $\theta_G(uv) = -1$, we say that $uv$ is a [*strongly anti-adjacent pair*]{} of $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are [*strongly anti-adjacent*]{} in $G$, or that $u$ is [*strongly anti-adjacent*]{} to $v$ in $G$, or that $v$ is a [*strong anti-neighbor*]{} of $u$ in $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are the [*endpoints of a strongly anti-adjacent pair*]{} of $G$;
- if $\theta_G(uv) \geq 0$, we say that $uv$ is an [*adjacent pair*]{} of $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are [*adjacent*]{} in $G$, or that $u$ is [*adjacent*]{} to $v$ in $G$, or that $v$ is a [*neighbor*]{} of $u$ in $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are the [*endpoints of an adjacent pair*]{} of $G$;
- if $\theta_G(uv) \leq 0$, we say that $uv$ is an [*anti-adjacent pair*]{} of $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are [*anti-adjacent*]{} in $G$, or that $u$ is [*anti-adjacent*]{} to $v$ in $G$, or that $v$ is an [*anti-neighbor*]{} of $u$ in $G$, or that $u$ and $v$ are the [*endpoints of an anti-adjacent pair*]{} of $G$.
Note that a semi-adjacent pair is simultaneously an adjacent pair and an anti-adjacent pair. One can think of strongly adjacent pairs as “edges,” of strongly anti-adjacent pairs as “non-edges,” and of semi-adjacent pairs as “optional edges.” Clearly, any graph can be thought of as a trigraph: a graph is simply a trigraph with no semi-adjacent pairs, that is, the adjacency function of a graph $G$ is a mapping from ${V(G) \choose 2}$ to the set $\{-1,1\}$.
Given a trigraph $G$, a vertex $u \in V(G)$, and a set $X \subseteq V(G) \smallsetminus \{u\}$, we say that $u$ is [*complete*]{} (respectively: [*strongly complete, anti-complete, strongly anti-complete*]{}) to $X$ in $G$ provided that $u$ is adjacent (respectively: strongly adjacent, anti-adjacent, strongly anti-adjacent) to every vertex of $X$ in $G$. Given a trigraph $G$ and disjoint sets $X,Y \subseteq V(G)$, we say that $X$ is [*complete*]{} (respectively: [*strongly complete, anti-complete, strongly anti-complete)*]{} to $Y$ in $G$ provided that every vertex of $X$ is complete (respectively: strongly complete, anti-complete, strongly anti-complete) to $Y$ in $G$.
Isomorphism between trigraphs is defined in the natural way. The [*complement*]{} of a trigraph $G = (V(G),\theta_G)$ is the trigraph $\overline{G} = (V(\overline{G}),\theta_{\overline{G}})$ such that $V(\overline{G}) = V(G)$ and $\theta_{\overline{G}} = -\theta_G$. Thus, $\overline{G}$ is obtained from $G$ by turning all strongly adjacent pairs of $G$ into strongly anti-adjacent pairs, and turning all strongly anti-adjacent pairs of $G$ into strongly adjacent pairs; semi-adjacent pairs of $G$ remain semi-adjacent in $\overline{G}$.
Given trigraphs $G$ and $\widetilde{G}$, we say that $\widetilde{G}$ is a [*semi-realization*]{} of $G$ provided that $V(\widetilde{G}) = V(G)$ and for all distinct $u,v \in V(\widetilde{G}) = V(G)$, we have that if $\theta_G(uv) = 1$ then $\theta_{\widetilde{G}}(uv) = 1$, and if $\theta_G(uv) = -1$ then $\theta_{\widetilde{G}}(uv) = -1$. Thus, a semi-realization of a trigraph $G$ is any trigraph that can be obtained from $G$ by “deciding” the adjacency of some semi-adjacent pairs of $G$, that is, by possibly turning some semi-adjacent pairs of $G$ into strongly adjacent or strongly anti-adjacent pairs. (In particular, every trigraph is a semi-realization of itself.) A [*realization*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is a graph that is a semi-realization of $G$. Thus, a realization of a trigraph $G$ is any graph that can be obtained by “deciding” the adjacency of all semi-adjacent pairs of $G$, that is, by turning each semi-adjacent pair of $G$ into an edge or a non-edge. Clearly, if a trigraph $G$ has $m$ semi-adjacent pairs, then $G$ has $3^m$ semi-realizations and $2^m$ realizations. The [*full realization*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is the graph obtained from $G$ by turning all semi-adjacent pairs of $G$ into strongly adjacent pairs (i.e., edges), and the [*null realization*]{} of $G$ is the graph obtained from $G$ by turning all semi-adjacent pairs of $G$ into strongly anti-adjacent pairs (i.e., non-edges).
A [*clique*]{} (respectively: [*strong clique*]{}, [*stable set*]{}, [*strongly stable set*]{}) of a trigraph $G$ is a set of pairwise adjacent (respectively: strongly adjacent, anti-adjacent, strongly anti-adjacent) vertices of $G$. Note that any subset of $V(G)$ of size at most one is both a strong clique and a strongly stable set of $G$. Note also that if $S \subseteq V(G)$, then $S$ is a (strong) clique of $G$ if and only if $S$ is a (strongly) stable set of $\overline{G}$. Note furthermore that if $K$ is a strong clique and $S$ is a stable set of $G$, then $|K \cap S| \leq 1$; similarly, if $K$ is a clique and $S$ is a strongly stable set of $G$, then $|K \cap S| \leq 1$. However, if $K$ is a clique and $S$ is a stable set of $G$, then we are only guaranteed that vertices in $K \cap S$ are pairwise semi-adjacent to each other, and it is possible that $|K \cap S| \geq 2$. A [*triangle*]{} (respectively: [*strong triangle*]{}) is a clique (respectively: strong clique) of size three.
Given a trigraph $G$ and a set $X \subseteq V(G)$, the [*subtrigraph of $G$ induced by $X$*]{}, denoted by $G[X]$, is the trigraph with vertex set $X$ and adjacency function $\theta_G \upharpoonright {X \choose 2}$, where for a function $f:A\to B$ and a set $A'\subseteq A$, we denote by $f\upharpoonright A'$ the restriction of $f$ to $A'$. If $H = G[X]$ for some $X \subseteq V(G)$, we also say that $H$ is an [*induced subtrigraph*]{} of $G$; when convenient, we relax this definition and say that $H$ is an induced subtrigraph of $G$ provided that there is some set $X \subseteq V(G)$ such that $H$ is isomorphic to $G[X]$. If $v_1,\ldots,v_k$ are vertices of a trigraph $G$, we often write $G[v_1,\ldots,v_k]$ instead of $G[\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}]$. Further, for a trigraph $G$ and a set $X \subseteq V(G)$, we set $G \smallsetminus X = G[V(G) \smallsetminus X]$; for $v \in V(G)$, we often write $G \smallsetminus v$ instead of $G \smallsetminus \{v\}$. The trigraph $G \smallsetminus X$ (respectively: $G \smallsetminus v$) is called the subtrigraph of $G$ obtained by [*deleting*]{} $X$ (respectively: by [*deleting*]{} $v$).
If $H$ is a graph, we say that a trigraph $G$ is an [*$H$-trigraph*]{} if some realization of $G$ is (isomorphic to) $H$. Further, if $H$ is a graph and $G$ a trigraph, we say that $G$ is [*$H$-free*]{} provided that all realizations of $G$ are $H$-free (equivalently: provided that no induced subtrigraph of $G$ is an $H$-trigraph). If $\mathcal{H}$ is a family of graphs, we say that a trigraph $G$ is [*$\mathcal{H}$-free*]{} provided that $G$ is $H$-free for all graphs $H \in \mathcal{H}$. In particular, a trigraph is [*ISK4-free*]{} (respectively: [*wheel-free*]{}, [*{ISK4,wheel}-free*]{}) if all its realizations are ISK4-free (respectively: wheel-free, {ISK4,wheel}-free).
A trigraph is [*connected*]{} if its full realization is a connected graph. A trigraph is [*disconnected*]{} if it is not connected. A [*component*]{} of a non-null trigraph $G$ is any (inclusion-wise) vertex-maximal connected induced subtrigraph of $G$. Clearly, if $H$ is an induced subtrigraph of a non-null trigraph $G$, then we have that $H$ is a component of $G$ if and only if the full realization of $H$ is a component of the full realization of $G$.
A trigraph is a [*path*]{} if at least one of its realizations is a path. A trigraph is a [*narrow path*]{} if its full realization is a path. We often denote a path $P$ by $v_0-v_1-\dots-v_k$ (with $k \geq 0$), where $v_0,v_1,\dots,v_k$ are the vertices of $P$ that appear in that order in some realization $\widetilde{P}$ of $P$ such that $\widetilde{P}$ is a path. The [*endpoints*]{} of a narrow path are the endpoints of its full realization; if $a$ and $b$ are the endpoints of a narrow path $P$, then we also say that $P$ is a narrow path [*between*]{} $a$ and $b$. A [*path*]{} (respectively: [*narrow path*]{}) in a trigraph $G$ is an induced subtrigraph $P$ of $G$ such that $P$ is a path (respectively: narrow path).
Note that if $G$ is a connected trigraph, then for all vertices $a,b \in V(G)$, there exists a narrow path between $a$ and $b$ in $G$. (To see this, consider the full realization $\widetilde{G}$ of $G$. $\widetilde{G}$ is connected, and so there is a path in $\widetilde{G}$ between $a$ and $b$; let $P$ be a shortest such path in $\widetilde{G}$. The minimality of $P$ guarantees that $P$ is an induced path of $\widetilde{G}$. But now $G[V(P)]$ is a narrow path of $G$ between $a$ and $b$.)
A [*hole*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is an induced subtrigraph $C$ of $G$ such that some realization of $C$ is a chordless cycle of length at least four. We often denote a hole $C$ of $G$ by $v_0-v_1-\dots-v_{k-1}-v_0$ (with $k \geq 4$ and indices in $\mathbb{Z}_k$), where $v_0,v_1,\dots,v_{k-1}$ are the vertices of $C$ that appear in that order in some realization $\widetilde{C}$ of $C$ such that $\widetilde{C}$ is a chordless cycle of length at least four.
A [*cutset*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is a (possibly empty) set $C \subseteq V(G)$ such that $G \smallsetminus C$ is disconnected. A [*cut-partition*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is a partition $(A,B,C)$ of $V(G)$ such that $A$ and $B$ are non-empty ($C$ may possibly be empty), and $A$ is strongly anti-complete to $B$. Note that if $(A,B,C)$ is a cut-partition of $G$, then $C$ is a cutset of $G$. Conversely, every cutset of $G$ induces at least one cut-partition of $G$. A [*clique-cutset*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is a (possibly empty) strong clique $C$ of $G$ such that $G \smallsetminus C$ is disconnected. A [*cut-vertex*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is a vertex $v \in V(G)$ such that $G \smallsetminus v$ is disconnected. Note that if $v$ is a cut-vertex of $G$, then $\{v\}$ is a clique-cutset of $G$. A [*stable 2-cutset*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is cutset of $G$ that is a stable set of size two. We remark that if $C$ is a cutset of a trigraph $G$ such that $|C| \leq 2$, then $C$ is either a clique-cutset or a stable 2-cutset of $G$.
A graph is [*series-parallel*]{} if it does not contain any subdivision of $K_4$ as a (not necessarily induced) subgraph. A trigraph is [*series-parallel*]{} if its full realization is series-parallel (equivalently: if all its realizations are series-parallel).
A [*bipartite trigraph*]{} is a trigraph $G$ whose vertex set can be partitioned into two (possibly empty) strongly stable sets, $A$ and $B$; under these circumstances, $(A,B)$ is said to be a [*bipartition*]{} of the bipartite trigraph $G$. If, in addition, the two strongly stable sets $A$ and $B$ forming a bipartition are strongly complete to each other, $G$ is said to be a [*complete bipartite trigraph*]{}. Note that non-null complete bipartite trigraphs have precisely two bipartitions: if $(A,B)$ is a bipartition of a complete bipartite trigraph $G$, then so is $(B,A)$, and $G$ has no other bipartitions. Furthermore, note that bipartite trigraphs may have semi-adjacent pairs, but complete bipartite trigraphs cannot. Thus, complete bipartite trigraphs are in fact complete bipartite graphs.
The [*line graph*]{} of a graph $H$, denoted by $L(H)$, is the graph whose vertices are the edges of $H$, and in which two vertices (i.e., edges of $H$) are adjacent if they share an endpoint in $H$. A [*line trigraph*]{} of a graph $H$ is a trigraph $G$ whose full realization is (isomorphic to) $L(H)$, and all of whose triangles are strong. A trigraph $G$ is said to be a [*line trigraph*]{} provided there is a graph $H$ such that $G$ is a line trigraph of $H$.
Stable sets in weighted trigraphs {#s:swi}
=================================
In what follows, $\mathbb{N}$ is the set of non-negative integers. Given a trigraph $G$, we define $$\begin{array}{rcl}
D(G) & = & V(G) \cup \{(u,v) \mid u,v \in V(G), u \neq v\} \cup {V(G) \choose 2}.
\end{array}$$ A [*weight function*]{} for a trigraph $G$ is any function $w:D(G) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ that satisfies the following two properties:
- for all distinct $u,v \in V(G)$, if $uv$ is not a semi-adjacent pair of $G$, then $w(u,v) = w(v,u) = w(uv) = 0$;
- all distinct $u,v \in V(G)$ satisfy $w(u,v)\leq w(uv)$.
A [*weighted trigraph*]{} is an ordered pair $(G,w)$ where $G$ is a trigraph and $w$ is a weight function for $G$.
Essentially, a weight function $w$ assigns a non-negative integer weight $w(u)$ to each vertex $u$ of the trigraph $G$, and for each semi-adjacent pair $uv$, there are three non-negative integer weights associated with it, namely $w(u,v)$, $w(v,u)$, and $w(uv)$, and these weights must satisfy $\max\{w(u,v),w(v,u)\} \leq w(uv)$. If $uv$ is a strongly adjacent or strongly anti-adjacent pair, then we have $w(u,v) = w(v,u) = w(uv) = 0$. (Zero weights are assigned to strongly adjacent and strongly anti-adjacent pairs for the purposes of making calculations notationally simpler, but only vertices and semi-adjacent pairs actually “count.”)
Note that if a trigraph $G$ is a semi-realization of a trigraph $G'$, then every weight function for $G$ is also a weight function for $G'$ (however, a weight function for $G'$ need not be a weight function for $G$).
If $(G,w)$ is a weighted trigraph, and $H$ is an induced subtrigraph of $G$, then clearly, $(H,w \upharpoonright D(H))$ is also a weighted trigraph; to simplify notation, we often write $(H,w)$ instead of $(H,w \upharpoonright D(H))$.
Given a weighted trigraph $(G,w)$ and a set $S \subseteq V(G)$, the [*weight*]{} of $S$ with respect to $(G,w)$, denoted by $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$, is defined to be $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & = & \Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} w(u,v)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus S \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big).
\end{array}$$ Note that if $(G,w)$ is a weighted trigraph such that $G$ has no semi-adjacent pairs (that is, such that $G$ is a graph), then for all $S \subseteq V(G)$, we have that $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u)$. Thus, our definition of a weight of a set of vertices in a weighted trigraph indeed generalizes the usual notion of the weight of a set in a weighted graph.
It is easy to see that for all weighted trigraphs $(G,w)$, all induced subtrigraphs $H$ of $G$, and all sets $S \subseteq V(H)$, we have that $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(H,w)} \leq \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$. Strict inequality may hold because the weight of a set in a weighted trigraph depends not only on what is in the set, but also on what is outside of it. Furthermore, if $(G,w)$ is a weighted trigraph and $S_1 \subsetneqq S_2 \subseteq V(G)$, there is in general no relationship between $\llbracket S_1 \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$ and $\llbracket S_2 \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$, that is, any one of the following is possible: $\llbracket S_1 \rrbracket_{(G,w)} < \llbracket S_2 \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$, $\llbracket S_1 \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \llbracket S_2 \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$, and $\llbracket S_1 \rrbracket_{(G,w)} > \llbracket S_2 \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$.
The [*stability number*]{} of a weighted trigraph $(G,w)$, denoted by $\alpha(G,w)$, is defined to be $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\alpha(G,w) & = & \max\{\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \mid \text{$S$ is a stable set of $G$}\}.
\end{array}$$
A [*zero-vertex*]{} of a weighted trigraph $(G,w)$ is any vertex $u \in V(G)$ such that $w(u) = 0$.
\[prop-delete-vertices-weight\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph, and let $Z,S \subseteq V(G)$. Then $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)}+\sum\limits_{u \in Z} w(u)$.
Since $w(u) \geq 0$ for all $u \in V(G)$, we may assume that $Z \subseteq S$. Using the definition of $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$ and $\llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$, we obtain the following: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & = & \Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} w(u,v)\Big)+
\\
& & +\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus S \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)
\\
\\
& = & \Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S \smallsetminus Z} w(u)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in Z} w(u)\Big)+
\\
& & +\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S \smallsetminus Z} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus (S \smallsetminus Z)} w(u,v)\Big)-\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S \smallsetminus Z} \sum\limits_{v \in Z} w(u,v)\Big)+
\\
& & +\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in Z} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} w(u,v)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus (S \smallsetminus Z) \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)-
\\
& & -\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {Z \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)-\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in Z} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} w(uv)\Big)
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)}+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in Z} w(u)\Big)-\Bigg(\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S \smallsetminus Z} \sum\limits_{v \in Z} w(u,v)\Big)+
\\
& & +\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in Z} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} (w(uv)-w(u,v))\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {Z \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)\Bigg).
\end{array}$$ By the definition of a weight function, we have that $w(uv) \geq w(u,v) \geq 0$ for all distinct $u,v \in V(G)$. The calculation above now implies that $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)}+\sum\limits_{u \in Z} w(u)$, which is what we needed.
\[prop-delete-zero\] For all weighted trigraphs $(G,w)$, there exists a stable set $S$ of $G$ such that $S$ contains no zero-vertices of $(G,w)$ and $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$.
Fix a weighted trigraph $(G,w)$ and a stable set $S$ of $G$ such that $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$. Let $Z$ be the set of all zero-vertices of $G$. Then $S \smallsetminus Z$ is a stable set of $G$ that contains no zero vertices of $G$, and clearly, we have that $\llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \alpha(G,w)$. On the other hand, Proposition \[prop-delete-vertices-weight\] implies that $\alpha(G,w) = \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)}+\sum\limits_{u \in Z} w(u) = \llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$. It follows that $\llbracket S \smallsetminus Z \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$, and so $S \smallsetminus Z$ is the stable set that we needed.
The next two propositions (Propositions \[weight-cut-part\] and \[differ-at-C-only\]) are easy consequences of the appropriate definitions, and we leave their proofs as exercises for the reader.
\[weight-cut-part\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph, let $(A,B,C)$ be a cut-partition of $G$, and let $S \subseteq V(G)$. Then $\llbracket S \cap (A \cup C) \rrbracket_{(G[A \cup C],w)}+\llbracket S \cap (B \cup C) \rrbracket_{(G[B \cup C],w)} = \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}+\llbracket S \cap C \rrbracket_{(G[C],w)}$.
\[differ-at-C-only\] Let $(G,w)$ and $(G',w')$ be weighted trigraphs such that $V(G) = V(G')$. Let $C \subseteq V(G)$, and assume that $\theta_G \upharpoonright ({V(G) \choose 2} \smallsetminus {C \choose 2}) = \theta_{G'} \upharpoonright ({V(G) \choose 2} \smallsetminus {C \choose 2})$ and $w \upharpoonright (D(G) \smallsetminus D(G[C])) = w' \upharpoonright (D(G') \smallsetminus D(G'[C]))$ (that is, adjacency and weights in $(G,w)$ and $(G',w')$ are the same except possibly within $C$). Let $S \subseteq V(G)$. Then $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}-\llbracket S \cap C \rrbracket_{(G[C],w)} = \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G',w')}-\llbracket S \cap C \rrbracket_{(G'[C],w')}$.
We now need a couple of definitions. If $(G,w)$ is a weighted trigraph and $R \subseteq V(G)$, the [*reduction*]{} of $(G,w)$ to $R$, denoted by ${\rm Red}[G,w;R]$, is defined to be the weighted trigraph $(G[R],w')$, where $w':D(G[R]) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ is given by:
- for all $u \in R$, $w'(u) = \max\left\{w(u)-\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} (w(uv)-w(u,v)),0\right\}$;
- for all distinct $u,v \in R$, $w'(u,v) = w(u,v)$;
- for all $uv \in {R \choose 2}$, $w'(uv) = w(uv)$.
Further, we define the [*exterior weight*]{} of $R$ with respect to $(G,w)$, denoted by ${\rm Ext}[G,w;R]$, to be $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\rm Ext}[G,w;R] & = & \Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus R \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in R}\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} w(uv)\Big).
\end{array}$$ We remark that for all weighted trigraphs $(G,w)$, we have that ${\rm Red}[G,w;V(G)] = (G,w)$ and ${\rm Ext}[G,w;V(G)] = 0$, and consequently, $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;V(G)])+{\rm Ext}[G,w;V(G)]$.
Clearly, the trigraph $G[R]$ can be computed in time $O(n^2)$. Similarly, the quantity $\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus R \choose 2}} w(uv)$ can be found in time $O(n^2)$. Further, for each vertex $u \in R$, the quantities $\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} w(uv)$ and $\max\{w(u)-\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} (w(uv)-w(u,v)),0\}$ can be found in $O(n)$ time. Since $R$ contains at most $n$ vertices, the result follows.
\[prop-ext\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph, and let $S \subseteq R \subseteq V(G)$. Then $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R]$. Furthermore, if $S$ contains no zero-vertices of ${\rm Red}[G,w;R]$, then equality holds, that is, $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R]$.
Set $w':D(G[R]) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ so that $(G[R],w') = {\rm Red}[G,w;R]$. By definition, for all $u \in S$, $w'(u) \geq w(u)-\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} (w(uv)-w(u,v))$ (and if $u$ is not a zero-vertex of ${\rm Red}[G,w;R]$, then equality holds). Consequently, $$\begin{array}{ll}
& \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R]
\\
\\
= & \Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} w'(u)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \sum\limits_{v \in R \smallsetminus S} w'(u,v)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {R \smallsetminus S \choose 2}} w'(uv)\Big)+
\\
& +\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus R \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in R}\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} w(uv)\Big)
\\
\\
\geq & \Bigg(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \Big(w(u)-\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} (w(uv)-w(u,v))\Big)\Bigg)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \sum\limits_{v \in R \smallsetminus S} w(u,v)\Big)+
\\
& +\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {R \smallsetminus S \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus R \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in R}\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} w(uv)\Big)
\\
\\
= & \Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u)\Big)-\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S}\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} w(u,v)\Big)+
\\
& +\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {R \smallsetminus S \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus R \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in R}\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} w(uv)\Big)
\\
\\
= & \Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} w(u,v)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {R \smallsetminus S \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+
\\
& +\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus R \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in R \smallsetminus S}\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} w(uv)\Big)
\\
\\
= & \Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S} \sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus S} w(u,v)\Big)+\Big(\sum\limits_{uv \in {V(G) \smallsetminus S \choose 2}} w(uv)\Big)
\\
\\
= & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}.
\end{array}$$ This proves that $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R]$. Furthermore, if $S$ contains no zero vertices of ${\rm Red}[G,w;R]$ (and so $w'(u) = w(u)-\sum\limits_{v \in V(G) \smallsetminus R} (w(uv)-w(u,v))$ for all $u \in S$), the computation above yields $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R]$.
\[prop-S-red-ext\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph, let $S \subseteq R \subseteq V(G)$, and assume that $S$ is a stable set of $G$. Then $\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u) \leq \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R])+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R]$.
By the definition of $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$, we have that $\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u) \leq \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$. We now compute: $$\begin{array}{rcllll}
\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u) & \leq & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}
\\
\\
& \leq & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R] & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-ext}}
\\
\\
& \leq & \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R])+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R].
\end{array}$$ Thus, $\sum\limits_{u \in S} w(u) \leq \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R])+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R]$. This completes the argument.
\[prop-alpha-nested\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph, and let $R_1,R_2 \subseteq V(G)$ be disjoint sets. Set $\alpha_{R_1} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1])+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1]$ and $\alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2])+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]$. Then $\alpha_{R_1} \leq \alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2} \leq \alpha_{R_1}+\sum\limits_{u \in R_2} w(u)$.
We first show that $\alpha_{R_1} \leq \alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2}$. Using Proposition \[prop-delete-zero\], we fix a stable set $S \subseteq R_1$ of $G$ that contains no zero-vertices of ${\rm Red}[G,w;R_1]$ and satisfies $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R_1]} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1])$. Then $$\begin{array}{rcllll}
\alpha_{R_1} & = & \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1])+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1] & & &
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R_1]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1] & & &
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-ext}}
\\
\\
& \leq & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]}+{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2] & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-ext}}
\\
\\
& \leq & \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2])+
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]
\\
\\
& = & \alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2}.
\end{array}$$ Thus, $\alpha_{R_1} \leq \alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2}$.
It remains to show that $\alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2} \leq \alpha_{R_1}+\sum\limits_{u \in R_2} w(u)$. Using Proposition \[prop-delete-zero\], we fix a stable set $S \subseteq R_1 \cup R_2$ that contains no zero-vertices of ${\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]$ and satisfies $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2])$. We then have the following: $$\begin{array}{rcllll}
\alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2} & = & \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2])+
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]}+
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1 \cup R_2]
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-ext}}
\\
\\
& \leq & \llbracket S \smallsetminus R_2 \rrbracket_{(G,w)}+\sum\limits_{u \in R_2} w(u) & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-delete-vertices-weight}}
\\
\\
& \leq & \llbracket S \smallsetminus R_2 \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G,w;R_1]}+ & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-ext}}
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1]+\sum\limits_{u \in R_2} w(u)
\\
\\
& \leq & \alpha({\rm Red}[G,w;R_1])+
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G,w;R_1]+\sum\limits_{u \in R_2} w(u)
\\
\\
& = & \alpha_{R_1}+\sum\limits_{u \in R_2} w(u).
\end{array}$$ Thus, $\alpha_{R_1 \cup R_2} \leq \alpha_{R_1}+\sum\limits_{u \in R_2} w(u)$. This completes the argument.
Before stating our next proposition, we remind the reader that if $G$ is a semi-realization of a trigraph $G'$, then every weight function for $G$ is also a weight function for $G'$. In particular then, if $(G,w)$ is a weighted trigraph, and $G'$ is a trigraph obtained from $G$ by possibly turning some strongly anti-adjacent pairs of $G$ into semi-adjacent pairs, then $(G',w)$ is also a weighted trigraph.
\[prop-cut-part-reduction\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph, and let $(A,B,C)$ be a cut-partition of $G$. For each $X \in \{A,B\}$, let $G_X$ be a trigraph obtained from $G[X \cup C]$ by possibly turning some strongly anti-adjacent pairs of $G[X \cup C]$ into semi-adjacent pairs. For all $C' \subseteq C$, set $\alpha_{A \cup C'} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup C'])+{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup C']$. Let $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and let $w_B$ be a weight function for $G_B$ that satisfies all the following:
- for all $u \in B$, $w_B(u) = w(u)$;
- for all $uv \in {B \cup C \choose 2} \smallsetminus {C \choose 2}$, $w_B(u,v) = w(u,v)$ and $w_B(uv) = w(uv)$;
- for all $S_C \subseteq C$ such that $S_C$ is a stable set of $G_B$, we have that $\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w_B)} = \alpha_{A \cup S_C}-k$.
Then $\alpha(G,w) = k+\alpha(G_B,w_B)$.
We begin by observing that for all $X \in \{A,B\}$ and $S \subseteq X \cup C$, we have that $S$ is a stable set of $G_X$ if and only if $S$ is a stable set of $G[X \cup C]$, and furthermore, for all $Y \subseteq X \cup C$, we have that $\llbracket S \cap Y \rrbracket_{(G_X[Y],w)} = \llbracket S \cap Y \rrbracket_{(G[Y],w)}$.
Let us first show that $\alpha(G,w) \leq k+\alpha(G_B,w_B)$. Fix a stable set $S$ of $G$ such that $\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$. Set $S_A = S \cap (A \cup C)$, $S_B = S \cap (B \cup C)$, and $S_C = S \cap C$. We then have the following: $$\begin{array}{rcllll}
\alpha(G,w) & = & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G[A \cup C],w)}+\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G[B \cup C],w)}- & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{weight-cut-part}}
\\
& & -\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G[C],w)}
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G_A,w)}+\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w)}- & & &
\\
& & -\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w)}
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G_A,w)}+\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)}- & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{differ-at-C-only}}
\\
& & -\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w_B)}
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G_A,w)}+\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)}- & & &
\\
& & -(\alpha_{A \cup S_C}-k)
\\
\\
& \leq & k+\alpha(G_B,w_B)-\alpha_{A \cup S_C}+
\\
& & +\llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G_A,w)}
\\
\\
& \leq & k+\alpha(G_B,w_B)-\alpha_{A \cup S_C}+ & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-ext}}
\\
& & +\llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C]}+
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C]
\\
\\
& \leq & k+\alpha(G_B,w_B)-\alpha_{A \cup S_C}+
\\
& & +\alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C])+
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C]
\\
\\
& = & k+\alpha(G_B,w_B).
\end{array}$$ This proves that $\alpha(G,w) \leq k+\alpha(G_B,w_B)$.
It remains to show that $k+\alpha(G_B,w_B) \leq \alpha(G,w)$. Using Proposition \[prop-delete-zero\], we fix a stable set $S_B$ of $G_B$ that contains no zero-vertices of $G_B$ and satisfies $\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)} = \alpha(G_B,w_B)$; we may assume that $S_B$ was chosen inclusion-minimal with this property, that is, that for all $S_B' \subsetneqq S_B$, we have that $\llbracket S_B' \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)} < \alpha(G_B,w_B)$. Set $S_C = S_B \cap C$.
Let us first check that for all $S_C' \subsetneqq S_C$, we have that $\alpha_{A \cup S_C'} < \alpha_{A \cup S_C}$. Fix $S_C' \subsetneqq S_C$, and set $S_B' = (S_B \smallsetminus C) \cup S_C'$. By the minimality of $S_B$, we have that $\llbracket S_B' \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)} < \llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)}$. Since $w_B$ is a weight function for $G_B$, we know that $w_B(u,v) \leq w_B(uv)$ for all $uv \in {B \cup C \choose 2}$. We now have that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
0 & < & \llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)}-\llbracket S_B' \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)}
\\
\\
& = & \Big(\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w_B)}-\llbracket S_C' \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w_B)}\Big)+
\\
& & +\Big(\sum\limits_{u \in S_C \smallsetminus S_C'}\sum\limits_{v \in B \smallsetminus S_B} (w_B(u,v)-w_B(uv))\Big)
\\
\\
& \leq & \llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w_B)}-\llbracket S_C' \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w_B)}.
\\
\\
& = & \alpha_{A \cup S_C}-\alpha_{A \cup S_C'},
\end{array}$$ and consequently, $\alpha_{A\cup S_C'} < \alpha_{A\cup S_C}$, as we had claimed.
Now, using Proposition \[prop-delete-zero\], we fix a stable set $S_A \subseteq A \cup S_C$ of $G_A$ that contains no zero-vertices of $G_A$ and satisfies $\llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C])} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C])$. By Proposition \[prop-ext\], we have that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G_A,w)} & = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C]}+{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C]
\\
\\
& = & \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C])+{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup S_C]
\\
\\
& = & \alpha_{A \cup S_C}.
\end{array}$$ Next, note the following: $$\begin{array}{rcllll}
\alpha_{A \cup S_C} & = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G_A,w)}
\\
\\
& \leq & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{{\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup (S_A \cap C)]}+ & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-ext}}
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup (S_A \cap C)]
\\
\\
& \leq & \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup (S_A \cap C)])+
\\
& & +{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup (S_A \cap C)]
\\
\\
& = & \alpha_{A \cup (S_A \cap C)}.
\end{array}$$ Thus, $\alpha_{A \cup S_C} \leq \alpha_{A \cup (S_A \cap C)}$. Now, recall that for all $S_C' \subsetneqq S_C$, we have that $\alpha_{A \cup S_C'} < \alpha_{A \cup S_C}$; since (by the construction of $S_A$) we have that $S_A \cap C \subseteq S_C$, this implies that $S_C = S_A \cap C$.
Set $S = S_A \cup S_B$; since $S_A \cap C = S_C = S_B \cap C$, and since $(A,B,C)$ is a cut-partition of $G$, we readily deduce that $S$ is a stable set of $G$. We now compute: $$\begin{array}{rclllll}
k+\alpha(G_B,w_B) &= & k+\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)}
\\
\\
& = & k+(\alpha_{A \cup S_C}-k)+
\\
& & +\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w_B)}-
\\
& & -\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w_B)}
\\
\\
& = & \alpha_{A \cup S_C}+\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w)}- & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{differ-at-C-only}}
\\
& & -\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w)}
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G_A,w)}+
\\
& & +\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G_B,w)}-
\\
& & -\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G_B[C],w)}
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_A \rrbracket_{(G[A \cup C],w)}+
\\
& & +\llbracket S_B \rrbracket_{(G[B \cup C],w)}-
\\
& & -\llbracket S_C \rrbracket_{(G[C],w)}
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{weight-cut-part}}
\\
\\
& \leq & \alpha(G,w).
\end{array}$$ This completes the argument.
\[lemma-weights-clique-cut\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph, let $C$ be a clique-cutset of $G$, and let $(A,B,C)$ be an associated cut-partition of $G$. Set $G_A = G[A \cup C]$ and $G_B = G[B \cup C]$. For each $C' \subseteq C$, set $\alpha_{A \cup C'} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup C'])+{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup C']$. Define $w_B:D(G_B) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ by setting $w_B(c) = \alpha_{A \cup \{c\}}-\alpha_A$ for all $c \in C$, and $w_B \upharpoonright (D(G_B) \smallsetminus C) = w \upharpoonright (D(G_B) \smallsetminus C)$. Then $w_B$ is a weight function for $G_B$, and $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha_A+\alpha(G_B,w_B)$.
By Proposition \[prop-alpha-nested\], we have that $w_B(c) \geq 0$ for all $c \in C$, and it follows immediately that $w_B$ is a weight function for $G_B$. Now, set $k = \alpha_A$. Using the fact that $C$ is a strong clique of $G_B$, we observe that the weight function $w_B$ for $G_B$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \[prop-cut-part-reduction\], and we deduce that $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha_A+\alpha(G_B,w_B)$.
\[lemma-weights-proper-2-cut\] Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph and let $(A,B,C)$ be a cut-partition of $G$ such that $C$ is a stable set of size two of $G$. Set $C = \{c_1,c_2\}$. For each $X \in \{A,B\}$, let $G_X$ be the trigraph on the vertex set $X \cup C$ in which $c_1c_2$ is a semi-adjacent pair and all other adjacencies are inherited from $G[X \cup C]$. For each $C' \subseteq C$, set $\alpha_{A \cup C'} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup C'])+{\rm Ext}[G_A,w;A \cup C']$. Define $w_B:D(G_B) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ as follows:
- $w_B(c_1) = \alpha_{A \cup C}-w(c_2)$;
- $w_B(c_2) = w(c_2)$;
- $w_B(c_1,c_2) = \alpha_{A \cup \{c_1\}}-\alpha_{A \cup C}+w(c_2)$;
- $w_B(c_2,c_1) = \alpha_{A \cup \{c_2\}}-w(c_2)$;
- $w_B(c_1c_2) = \alpha_A$;
- $w_B \upharpoonright \Big(D(G_B) \smallsetminus D(G_B[C])\Big) = w \upharpoonright \Big(D(G_B) \smallsetminus D(G_B[C])\Big)$.
Then $w_B$ is a weight function for $G_B$, and $\alpha(G_B,w_B) = \alpha(G,w)$.
We first show that $w_B$ is a weight function for $G_B$. It suffices to show that $w_B(c_1),w_B(c_1,c_2),w_B(c_2,c_1) \geq 0$ and that $w_B(c_1,c_2),w_B(c_2,c_1) \leq w_B(c_1c_2)$, for $w_B$ clearly satisfies all the other conditions from the definition of a weight function. The fact that $w_B(c_1),w_B(c_2,c_1) \geq 0$ follows immediately from Proposition \[prop-S-red-ext\]. Next, Proposition \[prop-alpha-nested\] guarantees that $\alpha_{A \cup C} \leq \alpha_{A \cup \{c_1\}}+w(c_2)$, which immediately implies that $w_B(c_1,c_2) \geq 0$. Similarly, Proposition \[prop-alpha-nested\] guarantees that $\alpha_{A \cup \{c_2\}} \leq \alpha_A+w(c_2)$, which implies that $w_B(c_2,c_1) \leq w_B(c_1c_2)$. Finally, to show that $w_B(c_1,c_2) \leq w_B(c_1c_2)$, we observe that: $$\begin{array}{rcllll}
w_B(c_1,c_2) & = & \alpha_{A \cup \{c_1\}}-\alpha_{A \cup C}+w(c_2)
\\
\\
& \leq & \Big(\alpha_A+w(c_1)\Big)-\alpha_{A \cup C}+w(c_2) & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-alpha-nested}}
\\
\\
& = & \alpha_A+\Big(w(c_1)+w(c_2)\Big)-\alpha_{A \cup C}
\\
\\
& \leq & \alpha_A & & & \text{by Proposition~\ref{prop-S-red-ext}}
\\
\\
& = & w_B(c_1c_2).
\end{array}$$ This proves that $w_B$ is indeed a weight function for $G_B$.
Now, set $k = 0$. We see by inspection that $w_B$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \[prop-cut-part-reduction\], and we deduce that $\alpha(G_B,w_B) = \alpha(G,w)$. This completes the argument.
Decomposition theorem {#s:dec}
=====================
In this section, we state a decomposition theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraphs (see Theorem \[thm-decomp\] below), and then we derive an “extreme” decomposition theorem for this class of graphs, which states (roughly) that every {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph is either “basic” or admits a “decomposition” such that one of the “blocks of decomposition” is basic (see Theorem \[alg-extreme-decomp\] and Corollary \[cor-extreme-decomp\]). Here, we state Theorem \[thm-decomp\] without proof, but the interested reader can find a complete proof in [@ISK4wheel-decomp]. As explained in the Introduction, the proof of Theorem \[thm-decomp\] closely follows the proof of the decomposition theorem for ISK4-free graphs from [@MR2927414], but the proof of our theorem is easier because we restrict ourselves to the wheel-free case. Interestingly, the fact that we work with trigraphs rather than graphs does not make the proof significantly harder.
[@ISK4wheel-decomp] \[thm-decomp\] Let $G$ be an {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph. Then at least one of the following holds:
- $G$ is a series-parallel trigraph;
- $G$ is a complete bipartite trigraph;
- $G$ is a line trigraph;
- $G$ admits a clique-cutset;
- $G$ admits a stable 2-cutset.
We remark that L[é]{}v[ê]{}que, Maffray, and Trotignon [@MR2927414] proved a graph analogue of Theorem \[thm-decomp\]. Their theorem had an additional outcome, namely, that $G$ is a “long rich square.” In fact, long rich squares are not wheel-free, and so this outcome is unnecessary (see [@ISK4wheel-decomp] for details). Furthermore, the last outcome of the decomposition theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs from [@MR2927414] is that the graph admits a proper 2-cutset. In the trigraph context, we work with stable 2-cutsets instead.
Let us say that $G$ is a [*basic trigraph*]{} if $G$ is either a series-parallel trigraph, a complete bipartite trigraph, or a line trigraph. Note that all induced subtrigraphs of a basic trigraph are basic trigraphs.
A [*good cut-partition*]{} of a trigraph $G$ is a cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ such that either
- $C$ is a clique-cutset of $G$ such that $|C| \leq 3$ (in this case, $(A,B,C)$ is said to be a good cut-partition of [*type clique*]{}), or
- $C$ is a stable 2-cutset of $G$, and each of $G[A \cup C]$ and $G[B \cup C]$ contains a narrow path between the two vertices of $C$ (in this case, $(A,B,C)$ is said to be a good cut-partition of [*type stable*]{}).
\[prop-good-cut-part\] Let $G$ be an {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph. Then the following are equivalent:
- $G$ admits a clique-cutset or a stable 2-cutset;
- $G$ admits a good cut-partition.
Clearly, (b) implies (a). For the reverse, we suppose that $G$ admits a clique-cutset or a stable 2-cutset, and we show that $G$ admits a good cut-partition. If $G$ admits a clique-cutset, then let $C$ be a clique-cutset of $G$, and otherwise, let $C$ be a stable 2-cutset of $G$. Let $(A,B,C)$ be any cut-partition of $G$ induced by $C$. If $C$ is a clique-cutset, then since $G$ is ISK4-free, we see that $|C| \leq 3$, and it follows that $(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type clique. So assume that $C$ is a stable 2-cutset. (Note that this means that $G$ admits no clique-cutset, and in particular, $G$ is connected and contains no cut-vertices.) Set $C = \{c_1,c_2\}$. We claim that $(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable. To prove this, we must only show that each of $G[A \cup C]$ and $G[B \cup C]$ contains a narrow path between $c_1$ and $c_2$. By symmetry, it suffices to show that $G[A \cup C]$ contains a narrow path between $c_1$ and $c_2$. Let $A_1$ be the vertex set of a component of $G[A]$. Vertex $c_1$ must have a neighbor in $A_1$, for otherwise, $c_2$ would be a cut-vertex of $G$; similarly, vertex $c_2$ has a neighbor in $A_1$. Thus, $G[A_1 \cup \{c_1,c_2\}]$ is connected, and it follows that $G[A_1 \cup \{c_1,c_2\}]$ (and consequently $G[A \cup C]$ as well) contains a narrow path between $c_1$ and $c_2$. Thus, $(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable. This completes the argument.
Theorem \[thm-decomp\] and Proposition \[prop-good-cut-part\] immediately imply the following.
\[cor-decomp\] Let $G$ be an {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph. Then either $G$ is a basic trigraph, or $G$ admits a good cut-partition.
Our goal for the remainder of the section is to derive an “extreme decomposition theorem” from Corollary \[cor-decomp\] (see Theorem \[alg-extreme-decomp\] and Corollary \[cor-extreme-decomp\]).
Given a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of a trigraph $G$, and given $X \in \{A,B\}$, we define the [*$X$-block*]{} of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ as follows:
- if $(A,B,C)$ is of type clique, then $G_X = G[X \cup C]$;
- if $(A,B,C)$ is of type stable, then $G_X$ is the trigraph obtained from $G[X \cup C]$ by making the two vertices of $C$ semi-adjacent.
We remark that $G_X$ is well-defined because every good cut-partition is either of type clique or of type stable, but not both. We also remark that if $(A,B,C)$ is of type stable and the two vertices of $C$ are semi-adjacent in $G$, then $G_X = G[X \cup C]$.
\[blocks-free\] Let $(A,B,C)$ be a good cut-partition of an {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph $G$, and for each $X \in \{A,B\}$, let $G_X$ be the $X$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$. Then $G_A$ and $G_B$ are {ISK4,wheel}-free.
By symmetry, it suffices to show that $G_A$ is {ISK4,wheel}-free. We may assume that $G_A \neq G[A \cup C]$, for otherwise, we are done. It now follows from the construction of $G_A$ that $(A,B,C)$ is of type stable, and that the two vertices of $C$ (call them $c_1$ and $c_2$) are strongly anti-adjacent in $G$. Furthermore, $G_A$ is obtained from $G[A \cup C]$ by turning the strongly anti-adjacent pair $c_1c_2$ into a semi-adjacent pair. Let $\widetilde{G}_A$ be some realization of $G_A$; we must show that $\widetilde{G}_A$ is {ISK4,wheel}-free. If $c_1c_2$ is a non-edge of $\widetilde{G}_A$, then $\widetilde{G}_A$ is an induced subgraph of some realization of $G[A \cup C]$, and since $G$ is {ISK4,wheel}-free, so is $\widetilde{G}_A$. So assume that $c_1c_2$ is an edge of $\widetilde{G}_A$. Since $(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable, we know that $G[B \cup C]$ contains a narrow path $P$ between $c_1$ and $c_2$. Then some realization $H$ of $G[A \cup V(P)]$ is a subdivision of $\widetilde{G}_A$. Since $G$ is {ISK4,wheel}-free, so is $H$. Note that every subdivision of an ISK4 is an ISK4, and that every subdivision of a wheel contains either an induced wheel or an ISK4. Thus, if $\widetilde{G}_A$ contained an ISK4 or an induced wheel, then all its subdivisions would also contain an ISK4 or an induced wheel. Since the {ISK4,wheel}-free graph $H$ is a subdivision of $\widetilde{G}_A$, it follows that $\widetilde{G}_A$ is an {ISK4,wheel}-free graph. This completes the argument.
\[alg-find-good-cut-part\] There is an algorithm with the following specifications:
- Input: a trigraph $G$;
- Output: exactly one of the following:
- a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ of type clique, together with the true statement “$(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type clique”;
- a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ of type stable, together with the true statement “$(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable, and $G$ does not admit a good cut-partition of type clique”;
- the true statement “$G$ does not admit a good cut-partition”;
- Running time: $O(n^5)$, where $n = |V(G)|$.
Let $G_f$ be the full realization of $G$; clearly, $G_f$ can be constructed in $O(n^2)$ time. We first form a list $C_1,\dots,C_k$ of all (possibly empty) strong cliques of $G$ of size at most three; there are at most ${n \choose 0}+{n \choose 1}+{n \choose 2}+{n \choose 3}$ such cliques, and the list $C_1,\dots,C_k$ can be found in time $O(n^3)$. For each $i \in \{1,\dots,k\}$, we can determine in time $O(n^2)$ whether $C_i$ is a cutset of $G_f$; since we are testing $O(n^3)$ cliques, we can determine whether $G$ has a clique-cutset of size at most three in $O(n^5)$ time. If we determined that some $C_i$ from the list is a cutset of $G_f$ (and therefore of $G$), then we can find the components $A_1,\dots,A_t$ ($t \geq 2$) of $G \smallsetminus C_i$ in time $O(n^2)$. In this case, $(V(A_1),\bigcup_{j=2}^t V(A_j),C_i)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ type clique, and the algorithm returns this cut-partition and stops. So assume that the algorithm determined that $G$ contains no clique-cutsets of size at most three, and consequently, $G$ admits not good cut-partition of type clique. (In particular then, $G$ is connected and contains no cut-vertices.)
We then form a list $S_1,\dots,S_\ell$ of all (not necessarily strong) stable sets of size two of $G$. There are at most ${n \choose 2}$ such stable sets, and so this list can be formed in $O(n^2)$ time. For each $i \in \{1,\dots,\ell\}$, we can determine in time $O(n^2)$ whether $S_i$ is a cutset of $G_f$; since there are $O(n^2)$ sets in our list, testing the whole list takes $O(n^4)$ time. If none of $S_1,\dots,S_\ell$ is a cutset of $G_f$, then $G$ contains no stable 2-cutsets; in this case, the returns the true statement that $G$ admits no good cut-partition and stops. So assume that the algorithm determined that some $S_i$ from the list is a cutset of $G_f$ (and therefore of $G$); clearly, $S_i$ is a stable 2-cutset of $G$. We now find the components $A_1,\dots,A_t$ ($t \geq 2$) of $G_f \smallsetminus S_i$, and using the fact that $G$ is connected and admits no cut-vertex, we deduce that $(V(A_1),\bigcup_{j=2}^t V(A_j),S_i)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable. The algorithm now returns this cut-partition and stops.
It is clear that the algorithm is correct, and that its running time is $O(n^5)$.
\[alg-good-cut-part-rec\] There is an algorithm with the following specifications:
- Input: a trigraph $G$ and a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$;
- Output: either the true statement “the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ does not admit a good cut-partition,” or a good cut-partition $(A',B',C')$ of $G$ such that $A' \cup C' \subsetneqq A \cup C$;
- Running time: $O(n^5)$, where $n = |V(G)|$.
We first form $G_A$, the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$; this takes $O(n^2)$ time. We then apply the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] to $G_A$; this takes $O(n^5)$ time. If the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] returns the answer that $G_A$ admits no good cut-partition, then we are done. So assume that the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] returned a good cut-partition $(A_1,B_1,C_1)$ of $G_A$. By the construction of $G_A$, we know that $C$ is a clique of $G_A$ (indeed, $C$ is either a strong clique of size at most three of $G_A$, or a set of two semi-adjacent vertices of $G_A$), and consequently, either $C \subseteq A_1 \cup C_1$ or $C \subseteq B_1 \cup C_1$. By symmetry, we may assume that $C \subseteq B_1 \cup C_1$. Now $(A_1,B \cup B_1,C_1)$ is a cut-partition of $G$, and clearly $A_1 \cup C_1 \subsetneqq A \cup C$. The algorithm now returns the cut-partition $(A_1,B \cup B_1,C_1)$ and stops.
It is clear that the running time of the algorithm is $O(n^5)$. To show that the algorithm is correct, we must show that $(A_1,B \cup B_1,C_1)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$. If $G_A = G[A \cup C]$, or if the good cut-partition $(A_1,B_1,C_1)$ of $G_A$ is of type clique, then it is clear that $(A_1,B \cup B_1,C_1)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$, and furthermore, the good cut-partition $(A_1,B \cup B_1,C_1)$ of $G$ is of the same type (type clique or type stable) as the good cut-partition $(A_1,B_1,C_1)$ of $G_A$. So assume that $G_A \neq G[A \cup C]$ and that the good cut-partition $(A_1,B_1,C_1)$ of $G_A$ is of type stable. We now claim that $(A_1,B \cup B_1,C_1)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable.
Since $G_A \neq G[A \cup C]$, we deduce from the construction of $G_A$ that $(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable, and furthermore, that the two vertices of $C$ (call them $c$ and $c'$) are strongly anti-adjacent in $G$ and semi-adjacent in $G_A$. Since $(A_1,B_1,C_1)$ is a good cut-partition of $G_A$ of type stable, we know that $C_1$ is a stable set of $G_A$ (and consequently, a stable set of $G$) of size two; set $C_1 = \{c_1,c_1'\}$. Furthermore, the specifications of the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] guarantee that $G_A$ does not admit a good cut-partition of type clique (for otherwise, the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] would have returned such a cut-partition), and consequently, $G_A$ is connected and contains no cut-vertices. We also note that since $C \subseteq B_1 \cup C_1$, we have either that $G_A[A_1 \cup C_1] = G[A_1 \cup C_1]$, or that $C = C_1$ and $G_A[A_1 \cup C_1]$ is obtained from $G[A_1 \cup C_1]$ by turning the strongly anti-adjacent pair $cc' = c_1c_1'$ into a semi-adjacent pair.
Now, to show that $(A_1,B \cup B_1,C_1)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable, we need only show that each of $G[A_1 \cup C_1]$ and $G[B \cup B_1 \cup C_1]$ contains a narrow path between $c_1$ and $c_1'$. Let us first show that $G[A_1 \cup C_1]$ contains a narrow path between $c_1$ and $c_1'$. Let $A_1'$ be the vertex set of some component of $G_A[A_1] = G[A_1]$. Since $G_A$ contains no cut-vertices, we know that each of $c_1$ and $c_1'$ has a neighbor in $A_1'$ in $G_A$; consequently, each of $c_1$ and $c_1'$ has a neighbor in $A_1'$ in $G$. Thus, $G[A_1' \cup \{c_1,c_1'\}]$ is connected, and it follows that $G[A_1' \cup \{c_1,c_1'\}]$ (and consequently $G[A_1 \cup C_1]$ as well) contains a narrow path between $c_1$ and $c_1'$.
It remains to show that $G[B \cup B_1 \cup C_1]$ contains a narrow path between $c_1$ and $c_1'$. Since $(A_1,B_1,C_1)$ is a good cut-partition of $G_A$ of type stable, we know that there is a narrow path $P$ between $c_1$ and $c_1'$ in $G_A[B_1 \cup C_1]$. Further, since $(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$ of type stable, we know that there is a narrow path $Q$ between $c$ and $c'$ in $G[B \cup C]$. Now, we know that $G_A[B_1 \cup C_1]$ is the trigraph obtained from $G[B_1 \cup C_1]$ by turning the strongly anti-adjacent pair $cc'$ into a semi-adjacent pair. Thus, if $P$ contains at most one of $c$ and $c'$, then the narrow path $P$ between $c$ and $c'$ is an induced subtrigraph of $G[B \cup B_1 \cup C_1]$, and if $P$ contains both $c$ and $c'$, then $G[V(P) \cup V(Q)]$ is a narrow path in $G[B \cup B_1 \cup C_1]$ between $c_1$ and $c_1'$ (essentially, $G[V(P) \cup V(Q)]$ is the narrow path obtained from $P$ by replacing the semi-adjacent pair $cc'$ by the narrow path $Q$). This completes the argument.
\[alg-good-cut-part-min\] There exists an algorithm with the following specifications:
- Input: a trigraph $G$;
- Output: exactly one of the following:
- the true statement “$G$ admits no good cut-partition”;
- a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$, and the true statement “the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ admits no good cut-partition”;
- Running time: $O(n^6)$, where $n = |V(G)|$.
**Step 1.** We first call the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] with input $G$; the running time of that algorithm is $O(n^5)$. If the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] returns the answer that $G$ admits no good cut-partition, then we are done. So assume that the algorithm from Proposition \[alg-find-good-cut-part\] returned a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$. We now go to Step 2.
**Step 2.** We call the algorithm from Lemma \[alg-good-cut-part-rec\] with input $G$ and $(A,B,C)$. If the algorithm from Lemma \[alg-good-cut-part-rec\] returns the answer that the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ does not admit a good cut-partition, then we are done. So assume that the algorithm from Lemma \[alg-good-cut-part-rec\] returned a good cut-partition $(A',B',C')$ of $G$ such that $A' \cup C' \subsetneqq A \cup C$. We now set $(A,B,C) := (A',B',C')$, and we go back to Step 2.
Since the size of $A \cup C$ decreases after each call of Step 2, we make at most $n$ recursive calls to Step 2 (and in particular, the algorithm terminates). Since the running time of the algorithm from Lemma \[alg-good-cut-part-rec\] is $O(n^5)$, we conclude that the running time of our algorithm is $O(n^6)$.
\[alg-extreme-decomp\] There exists an algorithm with the following specifications:
- Input: an {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph $G$;
- Output: exactly one of the following:
- the true statement “$G$ is a basic trigraph”;
- a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$, and the true statement “the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ is a basic trigraph”;
- Running time: $O(n^6)$, where $n = |V(G)|$.
We call the algorithm from Lemma \[alg-good-cut-part-min\] with input $G$. If that algorithm returns the answer that $G$ admits no good cut-partition, then our algorithm returns the answer that $G$ is a basic trigraph and stops. On the other hand, if the algorithm from Lemma \[alg-good-cut-part-min\] returns a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ and the statement that the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ admits no good cut-partition, then our algorithm stops and returns the good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ and the statement that the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ is a basic trigraph.
Since the running time of the algorithm from Lemma \[alg-good-cut-part-min\] is $O(n^6)$, the running time of our algorithm is also $O(n^6)$. The correctness of our algorithm follows immediately from Corollary \[cor-decomp\] and Proposition \[blocks-free\].
The following “extreme decomposition theorem” for {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraphs is an immediate corollary of Theorem \[alg-extreme-decomp\].
\[cor-extreme-decomp\] Let $G$ be an {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph. Then either $G$ is a basic trigraph, or $G$ admits a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ such that the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ is a basic trigraph.
A stability preserving transformation {#s:op}
=====================================
We now describe a transformation on a weighted trigraph that preserves the stability number, while decreasing the number of semi-adjacent pairs. It is based on the [*gem*]{}, a graph $G$ with five vertices such that one of them, say $v$, is adjacent to all the others and $G \smallsetminus v$ is isomorphic to the four-vertex path $P_4$.
Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted trigraph and let $uv$ be a semi-adjacent pair in $G$. The weighted trigraph obtained from $(G,w)$ by [*replacing $uv$ with a gem*]{} is the weighted trigraph $(G',w')$ defined as follows:
- The vertex set is $V(G') = V(G)\cup \{x_{uv},x_{v,u},x_{u,v}\}$, where $x_{uv},x_{v,u},x_{u,v}$ are pairwise distinct and do not belong to $V(G)$.
- The adjacency function is $\theta_{G'}:{V(G')\choose 2}\to \{-1,0,1\}$, defined as follows:
- $\theta_{G'}\upharpoonright ({V(G)\choose 2}\smallsetminus\{uv\})=
\theta_{G}\upharpoonright ({V(G)\choose 2}\smallsetminus\{uv\})\,$
- $\theta_{G'}(e) = 1$ for all $e\in \{ux_{v,u},\, x_{v,u}x_{u,v},\, x_{u,v}v,\, x_{uv}u,\, x_{uv}x_{v,u},\,$ $x_{uv}x_{u,v},\, x_{uv}v\}$,
- $\theta_{G'}(e) = -1$ for all other $e\in {V(G')\choose 2}$.
(In particular, $G'[u,x_{v,u},x_{u,v},v,x_{uv}]$ is a graph isomorphic to a gem.)
- The weight function $w':D(G')\to\mathbb{N}$ is defined as follows:
- $w'\upharpoonright (D(G)\smallsetminus \{uv,(v,u),(u,v)\})=
w\upharpoonright (D(G)\smallsetminus \{uv,(v,u),(u,v)\})$,
- $w'(x_{uv}) = w(uv)$, $w'(x_{v,u}) = w(v,u)$, $w'(x_{u,v}) = w(u,v)$, and
- $w'(p) = 0$ for all other $p\in D(G')\,.$
It is immediate to see that $(G',w')$ is indeed a weighted trigraph, that is, that $w'$ is a weight function of $G'$. The importance of the above transformation stems from the fact that it preserves the stability number, a fact which we now prove.
\[prop:gem\] Let $uv$ be a semi-adjacent pair in a weighted trigraph $(G,w)$ and let $(G',w')$ be the weighted trigraph obtained from $(G,w)$ by replacing $uv$ with a gem. Then, $\alpha(G',w') = \alpha(G,w)$.
Let $x_{uv},x_{v,u},x_{u,v}$ be the three vertices in $V(G')\smallsetminus V(G)$ labeled as in the definition of the operation of replacing a semi-adjacent pair with a gem.
We split the proof of the equality $\alpha(G',w') = \alpha(G,w)$ into two parts. First, we show that $\alpha(G,w) \leq \alpha(G',w')$. Let $S\in V(G)$ be a stable set of $G$ such that $\llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$. We consider three cases depending on the number of vertices in $S\cap \{u,v\}$. In each case, we exhibit a stable set $S'$ of $G'$ such that $\llbracket S' \rrbracket_{(G',w')}
= \llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)}$. This is enough, for then we obtain that $\alpha(G,w) = \llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')} \leq \alpha(G',w')$, which is what we need.
If $|S\cap \{u,v\}| = 0$, then the set $S' = S\cup \{x_{uv}\}$ is a stable set of $G'$. Its weight with respect to $(G',w')$ is $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')} &=& \sum\limits_{x\in S'}w'(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S'}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S'}w'(x,y)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G')\smallsetminus S'\choose 2}}w'(xy)
\\
\\
&=& \left(\sum\limits_{x\in S}w(x)+w'(x_{uv})\right)+\sum\limits_{x\in S}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S}w(x,y) +
\\
&& + \left(\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G)\smallsetminus S\choose 2}}w(xy) -w(uv)\right)
\\
\\
&=& \sum\limits_{x\in S}w(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S}w(x,y)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G)\smallsetminus S\choose 2}}w(xy)
\\
\\
&=& \llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)}.
\end{array}$$
If $|S\cap \{u,v\}| = 1$, then we may assume without loss of generality that $S\cap \{u,v\} = \{u\}$. The set $S' = S\cup \{x_{u,v}\}$ is a stable set of $G'$. Its weight with respect to $(G',w')$ is $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')} & = & \sum\limits_{x\in S'}w'(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S'}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S'}w'(x,y)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G')\smallsetminus S'\choose 2}}w'(xy)
\\
\\
&=& \left(\sum\limits_{x\in S}w(x)+w'(x_{u,v})\right)+
\\
& & +\left(\sum\limits_{x\in S}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S}w(x,y)-w(u,v)\right)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G)\smallsetminus S\choose 2}}w(xy)
\\
\\
&=& \sum\limits_{x\in S}w(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S}w(x,y)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G)\smallsetminus S\choose 2}}w(xy)
\\
\\
&=&
\llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)}.
\end{array}$$
Finally, suppose that $|S\cap \{u,v\}| = 2$, that is, $\{u,v\}\subseteq S$. In this case, $S'=S$ itself is a stable set of $G'$. It is immediate to verify that its weight with respect to $(G',w')$ is the same as its weight with respect to $(G,w)$.
We now prove the reverse inequality, that is, we show that $\alpha(G',w') \leq \alpha(G,w)$. Let $S' \subseteq V(G')$ be a stable set of $G'$ such that $\llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')} = \alpha(G',w')$.
Up to symmetry, it suffices to analyze four cases depending on the intersection of $S'$ with the vertex set of the gem, that is, depending on the set $X = S'\cap \{u,v,x_{uv},x_{v,u},x_{u,v}\}$. These four cases are: $$X\in \{\{x_{uv}\}, \{x_{v,u}\},\{u,x_{u,v}\}, \{u,v\}\}\,.$$ Indeed, if $X = \emptyset$, then we can replace $S'$ with $S'\cup\{x_{uv}\}$ to obtain a set with $\llbracket S'\cup\{x_{uv}\}\rrbracket_{(G',w')} \ge \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}$. If $X = \{u\}$, then we can replace $S'$ with $S'\cup\{x_{u,v}\}$ to obtain a set with $\llbracket S'\cup\{x_{u,v}\}\rrbracket_{(G',w')} \ge \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}$. Each of the remaining cases for $X$ either results in a non-stable set, or is symmetric to one of the four cases above. In each case, we exhibit a stable set $S$ of $G$ such that $\llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}$. This is enough because we then obtain $\alpha(G',w') = \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')} = \llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \alpha(G,w)$, which is what we need.
$X = \{x_{uv}\}$.
The set $S = S'\smallsetminus\{x_{uv}\}$ is a stable set of $G$. Its weight with respect to $(G,w)$ is $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)} &=& \sum\limits_{x\in S}w(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S}w(x,y)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G)\smallsetminus S\choose 2}}w(xy)
\\
\\
&=& \left(\sum\limits_{x\in S'}w'(x)-w'(x_{uv})\right)+\sum\limits_{x\in S'}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G')\smallsetminus S'}w'(x,y) +\\
&& + \left(\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G')\smallsetminus S'\choose 2}}w'(xy)+w(uv)\right)
\\
\\
&=& \sum\limits_{x\in S'}w'(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S'}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G')\smallsetminus S'}w'(x,y)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G')\smallsetminus S'\choose 2}}w'(xy)
\\
\\
&=&
\llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}.
\end{array}$$
$X = \{x_{v,u}\}$.
In this case, the set $S'' = (S'\smallsetminus \{x_{v,u}\})\cup\{x_{uv}\}$ is also a stable set of $G'$. Since $w(uv)\ge w(v,u)$, and since neither $x_{uv}$ nor $x_{v,u}$ is an endpoint of a semi-adjacent pair of $G'$, we have that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S''\rrbracket_{(G',w')}&=&\llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}+ w'(x_{uv})-w'(x_{v,u})
\\
\\
&=& \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}+ w(uv)-w(v,u)
\\
\\
&\ge& \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}.
\end{array}$$ This implies that $\alpha(G',w') = \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')} \le
\llbracket S''\rrbracket_{(G',w')}\le \alpha(G',w')$, and consequently $\llbracket S''\rrbracket_{(G',w')}= \alpha(G',w')$. Therefore, this case reduces to Case 1.
$X = \{u,x_{u,v}\}$.
The set $S = S'\smallsetminus\{x_{u,v}\}$ is a stable set of $G$. Its weight with respect to $(G,w)$ is $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S\rrbracket_{(G,w)}& = & \sum\limits_{x\in S}w(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G)\smallsetminus S}w(x,y) + \sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G)\smallsetminus S\choose 2}}w(xy)
\\
\\
& =& \left(\sum\limits_{x\in S'}w'(x)-w'(x_{u,v})\right)+
\\
& & +\left(\sum\limits_{x\in S'}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G')\smallsetminus S'}w'(x,y)+w(u,v)\right)+\sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G')\smallsetminus S'\choose 2}}w'(xy)
\\
\\
& = & \sum\limits_{x\in S'}w'(x)+\sum\limits_{x\in S'}\sum\limits_{y\in V(G')\smallsetminus S'}w'(x,y) + \sum\limits_{xy\in {V(G')\smallsetminus S'\choose 2}}w'(xy)
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S'\rrbracket_{(G',w')}.
\end{array}$$
$X = \{u,v\}$.
The set $S = S'$ itself is a stable set of $G$. It is immediate to verify that its weight with respect to $(G,w)$ is the same as its weight with respect to $(G',w')$.
This completes the argument.
Computing the stability number of basic weighted trigraphs {#s:comp}
==========================================================
We remind the reader that a [*basic trigraph*]{} is a trigraph $G$ that is either a series-parallel trigraph, a complete bipartite trigraph, or a line trigraph.
\[thm:alpha-basic\] There exists an algorithm with the following specifications:
- Input: a weighted basic trigraph $(G,w)$;
- Output: $\alpha(G,w)$;
- Running time: $O(n^4\log n)$ where $n = |V(G)|$.
Let $(G,w)$ be a weighted basic trigraph. Then, $G$ is either (i) a series-parallel trigraph, (ii) a complete bipartite trigraph, or (iii) a line trigraph.
Testing (i) can be done by computing in $O(n^2)$ time the full realization $G_f$ of $G$, and testing whether $G_f$ is series-parallel, which can be done in time $O(|V(G_f)|+|E(G_f)|) = O(n^2)$ [@MR652904].
Testing (ii) can be done in time $O(n^2)$ by first testing if $G$ is a graph (that is, if its adjacency function only takes values $1$ and $-1$), and then testing in $O(n^2)$ time (for example, using breadth-first search) if $G$ is a complete bipartite graph.
Thus, it can be determined in time $O(n^2)$ whether (i), (ii), or neither of these two cases occurs. If neither (i) nor (ii) occurs, then (iii) must occur.
We now discuss how to compute the stability number of $(G,w)$ in each of the three cases.
$G$ is a series-parallel trigraph.
Let $(G',w')$ be the weighted trigraph obtained from $(G,w)$ by replacing each semi-adjacent pair of $G$ (in any order) with a gem. Since each replacement of a semi-adjacent pair with a gem removes one semi-adjacent pair and produces no new ones, the resulting trigraph $G'$ has no semi-adjacent pairs, that is, it is a graph. Clearly, $|V(G')| = O(n^2)$. Moreover, since $G'$ has exactly one edge for each strongly adjacent pair of $G$, exactly seven edges for each semi-adjacent pair of $G$, and no other edges, we also have that $|E(G')| = O(n^2)$.
Since $G$ is a series-parallel trigraph, its full realization $G_f$ is a series-parallel graph. Note that $G'$ is isomorphic to the graph $G''$ obtained from $G_f$ by replacing each edge $uv\in E(G_f)$ that forms a semi-adjacent pair in $G$ with a gem with vertex set $\{u,x_{v,u},x_{u,v},v,x_{uv}\}$ and edge set $$\{ux_{v,u},\,x_{v,u}x_{u,v},\,x_{u,v}v,\,x_{uv}u,\,x_{uv}x_{v,u},\,x_{uv}x_{u,v},\,x_{uv}v\}.$$
For a graph $H$, let us denote by ${\rm tw}(H)$ its treewidth. We claim that the treewidth of $G''$ (and consequently that of $G'$) is at most three. To this end, it suffices to prove the following.
[*Claim: Let $H$ be a graph and let $H_1$ be a graph obtained from $H$ by replacing an edge $uv\in E(H)$ with a gem with vertex set $\{u,x_{v,u},x_{u,v},v,x_{uv}\}$ and edge set $\{ux_{v,u},x_{v,u}x_{u,v},x_{u,v}v,x_{uv}u,x_{uv}x_{v,u},x_{uv}x_{u,v},x_{uv}v\}$. Then, ${\rm tw}(H_1) \le \max\{{\rm tw}(H),3\}$.*]{}
This is indeed enough. Since series-parallel graphs are of treewidth at most two [@MR1686154], $G_f$ is of treewidth at most two. Applying the claim repeatedly to each of the graphs in the sequence of graphs transforming $G_f$ to $G''$ (by replacing one edge at a time with a gem) implies that $\text{tw}(G') \le \max\{\text{tw}(G_f),3\} = 3$.
Recall that a graph $K=(V,E)$ is [*chordal*]{} if every cycle in it of length at least four has a chord, and that $\omega(K)$ denotes the [*clique number*]{} of $K$, that is, the maximum size of a clique in $K$. Moreover, the treewidth of $K$ equals the minimum value of $\omega(K')-1$ over all chordal graphs of the form $K' = (V,E')$ where $E\subseteq E'$ (see, e.g., [@MR1686154 Theorem 11.1.4]).
Let $H'$ be a chordal supergraph of $H$ such that $\text{tw}(H) = \omega(H')-1$. Then, the graph $H_1'$ defined as $V(H_1') = V(H_1)$ and $E(H_1') = E(H')\cup E(H_1)\cup \{uv, ux_{u,v}\}$ is a chordal supergraph of $H_1$ with $\omega(H_1') = \max\{\omega(H'),4\}$. Therefore, $\text{tw}(H_1)\le \omega(H_1')-1 = \max\{\omega(H')-1,3\} = \max\{\text{tw}(H),3\}$.
We have shown that the treewidth of $G'$ is at most three. It follows that the stability number of $(G',w')$, and hence that of $(G,w)$, can be computed in time $O(|V(G')|) = O(n^2)$, e.g., by first computing a tree-decomposition of $G'$ of width at most three [@MR1417901] and then applying a dynamic programming algorithm along the tree decomposition [@MR985145].
$G$ is a complete bipartite trigraph.
In this case, $G$ is a graph and all nonzero weights $w(p)>0$ for $p\in D(G)$ appear on its vertices. Thus, if $(A,B)$ is a bipartition of $G$, we have that $\alpha(G,w) = \max\bigg\{\sum\limits_{a \in A}w(a),\sum\limits_{b \in B}w(b)\bigg\}$. It follows that in this case the stability number can be computed in time $O(n)$ (to compute $A$ and $B$, choose $v\in V(G)$ arbitrarily, and take $A = N(v)$ and $B = V(G)\smallsetminus A$, where $N(v)$ is the set of all neighbors of $v$ in $G$).
$G$ is a line trigraph.
We apply a transformation similar to the one from Case 1. Namely, let $(G',w')$ be the weighted trigraph obtained from $(G,w)$ by replacing each semi-adjacent pair of $G$ (in any order) with a gem. Again, we have that the resulting trigraph $G'$ has no semi-adjacent pairs, that is, that $G'$ is a graph, and that $|V(G')| = |E(G')| = O(n^2)$.
[*Claim: Let $(H,w)$ be a weighted line trigraph, let $uv$ be a semi-adjacent pair in $H$, and let $(H',w')$ be the trigraph obtained from $(H,w)$ by replacing $uv$ with a gem. Then, $H'$ is also a line trigraph.*]{}
[*Proof of Claim:*]{} Suppose that $H$ is a line trigraph of a graph $K$. This means that the full realization $H_f$ of $H$ is the line graph of $K$ and all the triangles of $H$ are strong. Vertices $u$ and $v$ are adjacent in $H_f$, and so they correspond to a pair of adjacent edges, say $ab$ and $bc$, respectively, in $K$. Since every triangle in $H$ is strong, the edge $uv\in E(H_f)$ is not part of any triangle in $H_f$. This implies that $b$ is a vertex of degree two in $K$, and $ac\not\in E(K)$. Let $K'$ be the graph defined as follows: $V(K') = (V(K)\smallsetminus\{b\})\cup\{d,e,f\}$ and $E(K') =
(E(K)\smallsetminus\{ab,bc\})\cup\{ad,de,ec,df,ef\}$. Then, the line graph of $K'$ is isomorphic to the full realization of $H'$. Moreover, all the triangles of $H'$ are strong. Therefore, $H'$ is a line trigraph.
Applying the above claim repeatedly to each of the trigraphs in the sequence of trigraphs transforming $(G,w)$ to $(G',w')$ implies that $G'$ is a line trigraph. Since $G'$ is in fact a graph, it is a line graph. Since the operation of replacing a semi-adjacent pair with a gem preserves the stability number (by Proposition \[prop:gem\]), we have that $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha(G',w')$.
It is therefore enough to compute the stability number of the weighted line graph $(G',w')$. This can be done as follows. First, compute a graph $H'$ such that $G' = L(H')$; this can be done in time $O(|V(G')|+|E(G')|) = O(n^2)$ [@MR0424435]. Second, solve the instance of the maximum weight matching problem on $H'$ with edge weights corresponding to vertex weights in $G'$. This can be done in time $O(|V(H')|(|E(H')|+|V(H')|\log |V(H')|))$ using the algorithm by Gabow [@DBLP:conf/soda/Gabow90].
The time complexity of the whole algorithm in Case 3 is dominated by the term $O(|V(H')|(|E(H')|+|V(H')|\log |V(H')|))$, which, since $|V(H')| = O(|V(G')|) = O(n^2)$ and $|E(H')| = O(|V(G')|) = O(n^2)$, is of order $O(n^4\log n)$. This completes the description of the algorithm for Case 3.
The running time $O(n^4\log n)$ of Case 3 dominates the running time of each of the other steps of the algorithm. This completes the proof.
Computing the stability number of {ISK4,wheel}-free weighted trigraphs {#s:compClass}
======================================================================
We now derive the main result of the paper: a polynomial-time algorithm that finds the stability number of a weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph. We remark that since every weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free graph (with non-negative integer weights) is a weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph, this algorithm can be used to compute the stability number of a weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free graph (and this is, in fact, the main purpose of our algorithm).
\[thm:main\] There exists an algorithm with the following specifications:
- Input: a weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph $(G,w)$;
- Output: $\alpha(G,w)$;
- Running time: $O(n^7)$ where $n = |V(G)|$.
Let $(G,w)$ be the input {ISK4,wheel}-free trigraph with $n = |V(G)|$. We first call the $O(n^6)$ time algorithm from Theorem \[alg-extreme-decomp\] with input $G$. This algorithm either returns the statement that $G$ is a basic trigraph, or returns a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ such that the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ is a basic trigraph.
If the algorithm returns the statement that $G$ is a basic trigraph, then we apply Theorem \[thm:alpha-basic\] and compute $\alpha(G,w)$ in time $O(n^4\log n)$.
Suppose now that the algorithm returned a good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ such that the $A$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$ is a basic trigraph. For $X\in \{A,B\}$, let $G_X$ be the $X$-block of $G$ with respect to $(A,B,C)$. Since $(A,B,C)$ is a good cut-partition of $G$, we know that $|C| \leq 3$, and so it can be determined in $O(1)$ time whether $(A,B,C)$ is of type clique or of type stable. We now analyze the two cases.
The good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ is of type clique.
In this case, we have $G_X = G[X\cup C]$ for $X\in \{A,B\}$. For each of the $2^{|C|} = O(1)$ sets of the form $C'\subseteq C$, compute the weighted trigraph ${\rm Red}[G_A,w;A\cup C']$ and the quantity $\text{Ext}[G_A,w;A\cup C']$. By Proposition \[prop-ext-alg\], this can be done in time $O(n^2)$.
Note that each of the reductions ${\rm Red}[G_A,w;A\cup C']$ is a weighted induced subtrigraph of a basic trigraph (namely, $G_A$ with an appropriate weight function), and so ${\rm Red}[G_A,w;A\cup C']$ is a basic trigraph. Therefore, by Theorem \[thm:alpha-basic\], for each $C'\subseteq C$, the stability number of ${\rm Red}[G_A,w;A\cup C']$ can be computed in time $O(n^4\log n)$. For each $C'\subseteq C$, set $$\alpha_{A\cup C'} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A\cup C'])+\text{Ext}[G_A,w;A\cup C'].$$
Define $w_B:D(G_B) \to \mathbb{N}$ by setting $w_B(c) = \alpha_{A\cup \{c\}}-\alpha_A$ for all $c\in C$, and $w_B\upharpoonright (D(G_B)\smallsetminus C) = w\upharpoonright (D(G_B)\smallsetminus C)$. By Lemma \[lemma-weights-clique-cut\], $w_B$ is a weight function for $G_B$. Call the algorithm recursively on the weighted trigraph $(G_B,w_B)$ to compute $\alpha(G_B,w_B)$. By Lemma \[lemma-weights-clique-cut\], the stability number $(G,w)$ is given by $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha_A+\alpha(G_B,w_B)$.
The good cut-partition $(A,B,C)$ of $G$ is of type stable.
In this case, $C$ is a stable set of $G$ of size two, and $G_X$ (for $X\in \{A,B\}$) is the trigraph obtained from $G[X\cup C]$ by making the two vertices of $C$ semi-adjacent. We proceed similarly as in Case 1, using Lemma \[lemma-weights-proper-2-cut\] instead of Lemma \[lemma-weights-clique-cut\]. For each of the $2^{|C|} = O(1)$ sets of the form $C'\subseteq C$, we use Proposition \[prop-ext-alg\] and Theorem \[thm:alpha-basic\] to compute the trigraph ${\rm Red}[G_A,w;A \cup C']$ and the value $\alpha_{A\cup C'} = \alpha({\rm Red}[G_A,w;A\cup C'])+\text{Ext}[G_A,w;A\cup C']$. We then compute in $O(n^2)$ time the mapping $w_B:D(G_B)\to \mathbb{N}$ defined as in Lemma \[lemma-weights-proper-2-cut\], and we call the algorithm recursively on the weighted trigraph $(G_B,w_B)$. By Lemma \[lemma-weights-proper-2-cut\], the stability number of $(G,w)$ is given by $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha(G_B,w_B)$. This completes the description of the algorithm for Case 2.
As there are at most $n-1$ recursive calls and the remaining computations take $O(n^6)$ time, the overall running time of the algorithm is $O(n^7)$.
As an immediate corollary of Theorem \[thm:main\] and Proposition \[prop:number-to-set\], we obtain the following result.
\[thm:main-graphs\] There exists an algorithm with the following specifications:
- Input: a weighted {ISK4,wheel}-free graph $(G,w)$ with non-negative integer weights;
- Output: a maximum weight stable set $S$ of $(G,w)$;
- Running time: $O(n^8)$ where $n = |V(G)|$.
We remark that the algorithm from Corollary \[thm:main-graphs\] cannot readily be generalized to trigraphs. One reason for this is that in the graph case, one can always find a maximum weight stable set that is also an inclusion-wise maximal stable set (and this fact is implicitly used in the proof of Proposition \[prop:number-to-set\]), whereas this is not the case for trigraphs. We believe that one could use techniques similar to the ones from Section \[s:swi\] in order to generalize Corollary \[thm:main-graphs\] to trigraphs. However, our main interest here is in graphs, and we used trigraphs only as a tool for obtaining algorithms for graphs; for this reason, we did not attempt to construct an algorithm for trigraphs analogous to the one given by Corollary \[thm:main-graphs\].
Bipartite trigraphs {#s:bip}
===================
As stated in the Introduction, computing the stability number of a weighted bipartite trigraph is NP-hard. We now prove this result.
\[Bip-NP\] The problem of computing the stability number of a weighted bipartite trigraph is NP-hard.
Suppose there is a polynomial-time algorithm $\cal A$ for the problem. We prove the theorem by using $\cal A$ as a subroutine to compute the stability number of a general graph in polynomial time.
Let $H$ be an arbitrary graph, and let $n = |V(H)|$ and $m = |E(H)|$. The idea is as follows. We build a bipartite trigraph $G$ by first subdividing each edge of $H$ once, and then turning all edges of the resulting graph into semi-adjacent pairs. (Thus, $|V(G)| = n+m$.) We construct a weight function $w$ for $G$ such that $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha(H)+2m$. We can use $\cal A$ to find $\alpha(G,w)$, and because $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha(H)+2m$, we deduce that $\alpha(H)$ can be found in polynomial time. Now, describing the weight function $w$ is bit complicated because if $uv$ is an edge of $H$, the weights assigned to the two semi-adjacent pairs of $G$ that correspond to $uv$ are not symmetric between $u$ and $v$. So, in order to properly define the weight function $w$, we must first introduce some more notation.
First, let $\vec{H} = (V(\vec{H}),A(\vec{H}))$ be any orientation of $H$ (in other words, $\vec{H}$ is a digraph that satisfies $V(\vec{H}) = V(H)$, for each edge $uv \in E(H)$, exactly one of the arcs $\vec{uv}$ and $\vec{vu}$ belongs to $A(\vec{H})$, and $A(\vec{H})$ contains no other arcs). For each $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$, we introduce a new vertex $x_{\vec{uv}}$, and we set $X = \{x_{\vec{uv}} \mid \vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})\}$. We now let $G$ be the bipartite trigraph with bipartition $(X,V(H))$ in which for all $\vec{uv} \in A(H)$, vertex $x_{\vec{uv}}$ is semi-adjacent to $u$ and $v$ and strongly anti-adjacent to all other vertices of $V(H)$. (Thus, each arc $\vec{uv}$ of $\vec{H}$ effectively gets replaced by a narrow path $u-x_{\vec{uv}}-v$.) We remark that $G$ contains no strongly adjacent pairs, and so all subsets of $V(G)$ are stable sets of $G$.
We now define a function $w:D(G) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ as follows:
- $w(v) = 1$ for all $v \in V(G)$;
- $w(ux_{\vec{uv}}) = w(x_{\vec{uv}}v) = w(x_{\vec{uv}},v) = w(v,x_{\vec{uv}}) = 1$ for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$;
- $w(e) = 0$ for all other $e \in D(G)$.
Clearly, $w$ is a weight function for $G$, and by assumption, we can find $\alpha(G,w)$ in polynomial time. (Since $|V(G)| = n+m$, the running time is in fact polynomial in $n$.) We claim that $\alpha(G,w) = \alpha(H)+2m$. This is enough, for then we can clearly compute $\alpha(H)$ in polynomial time.
We now need some more notation. For each $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$ and $S \subseteq V(G)$, set $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\rm cont}({\vec{uv}};S) & = & \llbracket S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} \rrbracket_{(G[u,x_{\vec{uv}},v],w)}-\sum\limits_{x \in S \cap \{u,v\}} w(x).
\end{array}$$ We refer to ${\rm cont}({\vec{uv}};S)$ as the [*contribution*]{} of the arc $\vec{uv}$ to the weight of $S$ with respect to $(G,w)$. Clearly, for all $S \subseteq V(G)$, we have that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & = & \sum\limits_{x \in S \cap V(H)} w(x)+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}({\vec{uv}};S)
\\
\\
& = & |S \cap V(H)|+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}({\vec{uv}};S).
\end{array}$$ Furthermore, we see by inspection that for all $\vec{uv} \in A(H)$ and $S \subseteq V(G)$, we have that $$\begin{array}{lll}
{\rm cont}({\vec{uv}};S) & = &
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
1 & \text{if} & \text{either $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\}$}
\\
& & \text{or $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \{x_{\vec{uv}},v\}$}
\\
& & \text{or $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \{u,v\}$}
\\
& & \text{or $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \{u\}$}
\\
\\
2 & \text{if} & \text{either $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \{u,x_{\vec{uv}}\}$}
\\
& & \text{or $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \{v\}$}
\\
& & \text{or $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \{x_{\vec{uv}}\}$}
\\
& & \text{or $S \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} = \emptyset$}
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}$$ In particular then, $1 \leq {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S) \leq 2$ for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$ and $S \subseteq V(H)$.
We can now show that $\alpha(H)+2m \leq \alpha(G,w)$. Let $S_H$ be a stable set of $H$ such that $|S_H| = \alpha(H)$. Since $S_H$ is a stable set of $H$, we know that $|S_H \cap \{u,v\}| \leq 1$ for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$. Now, let $Y = \{x_{\vec{uv}} \mid \vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H}), u \in S_H\}$, and set $S_G = S_H \cup Y$. By construction, for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$, we have that $S_G \cap \{u,x_{\vec{uv}},v\} \in \{\{u,x_{\vec{uv}}\},\{v\},\emptyset\}$, and consequently, ${\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G) = 2$. Since $|A(\vec{H})| = m$, and since $S_G$ is a stable set of $G$ (because $G$ contains no strongly adjacent pairs), it now follows that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\alpha(H)+2m & = & |S_H|+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G)
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_G \rrbracket_{(G,w)}
\\
\\
& \leq & \alpha(G,w).
\end{array}$$
It remains to show that $\alpha(G,w) \leq \alpha(H)+2m$. Recall that all subsets of $V(G)$ are stable sets of $G$. Now, among all subsets $S_G$ of $V(G)$ that satisfy $\llbracket S_G \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$, choose one for which the size of the set $\{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H}) \mid u,v \in S_G\}$ is as small as possible. We need to show that $\llbracket S_G \rrbracket_{(G,w)} \leq \alpha(H)+2m$. Since ${\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S) \leq 2$ for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$, and since $|A(\vec{H})| = m$, we see that $\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G) \leq 2m$, and consequently, $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S_G \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & = & |S_G \cap V(H)|+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G)
\\
\\
& \leq & |S_G \cap V(H)|+2m.
\end{array}$$ Thus, it only remains to show that $|S_G \cap V(H)| \leq \alpha(H)$. To prove this, we need only show that $S_G \cap V(H)$ is a stable set of $H$. Suppose otherwise, and choose an arc $\vec{u_0v_0} \in A(\vec{H})$ such that $u_0,v_0 \in S_G$. Our goal is to construct a set $S_G' \subseteq V(G)$ such that $\llbracket S_G' \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$ and such that $|\{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H}) \mid u,v \in S_G'\}| < |\{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H}) \mid u,v \in S_G\}|$. This will contradict the minimality of $S_G$, which is all we need.
Let $S_G'$ be the subset of $V(G)$ defined as follows:
- $S_G' \cap V(H) = (S_G \cap V(H)) \smallsetminus \{u_0\}$;
- for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$,
- if $u_0 \notin \{u,v\}$, then we set $x_{\vec{uv}} \in S_G'$ if and only if $x_{\vec{uv}} \in S_G$;
- if $u_0 = u$, then we set $x_{\vec{u_0v}} \notin S_G'$;
- if $u_0 = v$, then we set $x_{\vec{u_0v}} \in S_G'$.
Because of the arc $\vec{u_0v_0}$, we see that $|\{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H}) \mid u,v \in S_G'\}| < |\{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H}) \mid u,v \in S_G\}|$. In order to verify that $S_G'$ contradicts the minimality of $S_G$, it remains to show that $\llbracket S_G' \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$. By construction, $|S_G' \cap V(H)| = |S_G \cap V(H)|-1$. Next, for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$ such that $u_0 \in \{u,v\}$, we have that ${\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G') = 2$, and consequently, ${\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G') \geq {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G)$. Furthermore, ${\rm cont}(\vec{u_0v_0};S_G) = 1$, and so ${\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G') = 1+{\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G)$. On the other hand, for all $\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})$ such that $u_0 \notin \{u,v\}$, we have that ${\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G') = {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G)$. Thus, $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G') & \geq & 1+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G),
\end{array}$$ and it follows that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\llbracket S_G' \rrbracket_{(G,w)} & = & |S_G' \cap V(H)|+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G')
\\
\\
& \geq & (|S_G \cap V(H)|-1)+(1+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G))
\\
\\
& = & |S_G \cap V(H)|+\sum\limits_{\vec{uv} \in A(\vec{H})} {\rm cont}(\vec{uv};S_G)
\\
\\
& = & \llbracket S_G \rrbracket_{(G,w)}
\\
\\
& = & \alpha(G,w).
\end{array}$$ Since $S_G'$ is a stable set of $G$ (because $G$ contains no strongly adjacent pairs), we deduce that $\llbracket S_G' \rrbracket_{(G,w)} = \alpha(G,w)$. Thus, $S_G'$ indeed contradicts the minimality of $S_G$. This completes the argument.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
We would like to thank Frédéric Maffray for his help with the proof of Theorem \[Bip-NP\].
[99]{}
P. Aboulker, P. Charbit, N. Trotignon, and K. Vu[š]{}kovi[ć]{}. Vertex elimination orderings for hereditary graph classes. [*Discrete Math.*]{}, 338:825–834, 2015.
P. Aboulker, M. Chudnovsky, P. Seymour, and N. Trotignon. Wheel-free planar graphs. [*European J. Combin.*]{}, 49:57–67, 2015.
S. Arnborg and A. Proskurowski. Linear time algorithms for [NP]{}-hard problems restricted to partial [$k$]{}-trees. [*Discrete Appl. Math.*]{}, 23(1):11–24, 1989.
H.L. Bodlaender. A linear-time algorithm for finding tree-decompositions of small treewidth. [*SIAM J. Comput.*]{}, 25(6):1305–1317, 1996.
A. Brandst[ä]{}dt, V.B. Le, and J. P. Spinrad. Graph classes: a survey. SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1999.
M. Chudnovsky. Berge Trigraphs and their Applications. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2003.
M. Chudnovsky. Berge trigraphs. [*J. Graph Theory*]{}, 53(1):1–55, 2006.
E. Diot, M. Radovanović, N. Trotignon, and K. Vu[š]{}kovi[ć]{}. On graphs that do not contain a theta nor a wheel Part I: two subclasses. Manuscript, 2015. ArXiv:1504.01862
U. Faigle and G. Frahling. A combinatorial algorithm for weighted stable sets in bipartite graphs. [*Discrete Appl. Math.*]{}, 154:1380–1391, 2006.
H.N. Gabow, Data Structures for Weighted Matching and Nearest Common Ancestors with Linking. [*Proceedings of the First Annual [ACM-SIAM]{} Symposium on Discrete Algorithms*]{}, 22-24 January 1990, San Francisco, California, 434–443, 1990.
D.S. Johnson (Ed.). Proceedings of the First Annual [ACM-SIAM]{} Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, 22-24 January 1990, San Francisco, California, SIAM, 1990.
B. L[é]{}v[ê]{}que, F. Maffray, and N. Trotignon. On graphs with no induced subdivision of $K_4$. [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. B*]{}, 102(4):924–947, 2012.
M. Milanič, I. Penev, and N. Trotignon. A decomposition theorem for {ISK4,wheel}-free graphs. Manuscript, 2016. ArXiv: 1602.02406.
S. Poljak. A note on the stable sets and coloring of graphs. [*Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae*]{}, 15:307–309, 1974.
N.D. Roussopoulos. A $\max\{m,n\}$ algorithm for determining the graph $H$ from its line graph $G$. [*Information Processing Lett.*]{}, 2:108–112, 1973.
S. Thomassé, N. Trotignon, and K. Vu[š]{}kovi[ć]{}. A polynomial Turing-kernel for weighted independent set in bull-free graphs. To appear in [*Algorithmica*]{}.
N. Trotignon and K. Vu[š]{}kovi[ć]{}. Combinatorial optimization with 2-joins. [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. B*]{}, 102(1):153–185, 2012.
J. Valdes, R.E. Tarjan, and E.L. Lawler. The recognition of series parallel digraphs. [*SIAM J. Comput.*]{}, 11(2):298–313, 1982.
[^1]: University of Primorska, UP IAM, UP FAMNIT, Koper, Slovenia. Partially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (I$0$-$0035$, research program P$1$-$0285$ and research projects N$1$-$0032$, J$1$-$5433$, J$1$-$6720$, J$1$-$6743$, and J$1$-$7051$). E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^2]: Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark. Most of this work was conducted while the author was at Université de Lyon, LIP, ENS de Lyon, Lyon, France. Partially supported by the ANR project <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stint</span> under <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Contract ANR-13-BS02-0007</span>, by the LABEX MILYON (ANR-10-LABX-0070) of Université de Lyon, within the program ‘‘Investissements d’Avenir’’ (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) operated by the French National Research Agency (ANR), and by the ERC Advanced Grant GRACOL, project number 320812. Email: `[email protected]`.
[^3]: Unviersité de Lyon, CNRS, LIP, ENS de Lyon. Partially supported by ANR project Stint under reference ANR-13-BS02-0007 and by the LABEX MILYON (ANR-10-LABX-0070) of Université de Lyon, within the program ‘‘Investissements d’Avenir’’ (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) operated by the French National Research Agency (ANR). E-mail: `[email protected]`.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits